The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible --- imagine that ... a jew claiming a muzzy was responsible
know the enemies On Jul 25, 8:12 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Saturday, Jul 23, 2011 07:24 ETThe omnipotence of Al Qaeda and > meaninglessness of "Terrorism"ByGlenn Greenwald(updated below - Update II) > For much of the day yesterday, thefeatured headline onThe New York > Timesonline front pagestrongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for > the attacks on Oslo; that led todefinitive statements on theBBCand elsewhere > that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrotea > whole columnbased on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, > asJames Fallows notes, remains at thePostwith no corrections or updates. > Themorning statement issued by President Obama-- "It's a reminder that the > entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of > terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on > intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" > -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the > perpetrator was an international terrorist group. > But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an > international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather aright-wing > Norwegian nationalistwith a history of anti-Muslim commentary andan affection > for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, > and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that,The New York Timesis still > working hardto pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim > radicals (h/tsysprog):Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities > ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, > other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and > multiple attacks."If it does turn out to be someone with more political > motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al > Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America > Foundation in Washington.Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, > even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing > European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought > todetonate bombsingovernment buildingsor go on indiscriminate,politically > motivatedshooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate > fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders > Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access > to that material; of coursenobody would have ever thought of using that > substance to make a massive bombhad it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this > proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is. > Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT --first > noticed by Richard Silverstein-- explaining why the paper originally reported > what it did:Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, > in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited > by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American > officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even > exist.There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be > responsible.In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not > Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; > conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by > definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:How's > that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we > call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down > scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a > liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does > that say about the mindset of the western world?What it says is what we've > seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in > American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence > committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the > target. Indeed, in many (thoughnot all) media circles, discussion of the > Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed > Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became > likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whoselengthy Twitter > commentary on this event yesterdaywas superb and well worth reading --put it: > That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the > West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an > IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be > Terrorism,until it was revealedthat the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, > American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. > The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when > it isbeyond questionthat the purpose of their violence is toterrorize > civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims whoattack purely > military targets -- even if thetarget is an invading army in their own > countries-- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, asNYU's Remi Brulin > has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and > thereforethe most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday > provided yet another sterling example. > One last question: if,as preliminaryevidencesuggests, it turns out that > Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, > Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such > that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of > material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring > Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an > assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking > males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will > those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be > secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless > measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims? > > UPDATE: The original version of the NYT article was even worse in this > regard. Asseveralpeoplenoted, here is what the article originally said > (papers that carry NYT articlesstill have the original version):Terrorism > specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism > as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were > mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks."If it does > turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups > are learning from what they see from al-Qaida," said Brian Fishman, a > counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.Thus: > if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone > with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests > on theinane notionthat Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not > political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be > "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of > violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just > proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence). > The final version of the NYT article inserted the word "Islamic" before > "terrorism" ("even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism > as the cause"), but -- as demonstrated above -- still preserved the necessary > inference that only Muslims can be Terrorists. Meanwhile, in the world of > reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in > 2009 as counted by the EU,a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was > perpetrated by "Islamists." > UPDATE II: This articleexpertly traces and sets forth exactly how the > "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the > worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What > makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the > incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and > foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost > always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in > this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to > pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and > are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, > nationalism, ignorance, and shallow > credentialism.http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
