23.7.11

Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer: Did They Provide Material To The Oslo Terrorist?

The anti-Islamic world knows about the blogs of Pam Geller, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer too well. These three writers have been on a long crusade to inform the public about the violence and brutality that is associated with Islam. But, their message has taken on a new twist.

Anders Behring Breivik, the Oslo terrorist suspect who is accused of bombing a government building and massacring over 80 people at a youth camp, is described as being anti-Muslim and may have been inspired by the writings of Geller, Pipes and Spencer. If this is true, the three writers could be seen as instigators who provided information to Breivik.

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com comments, "But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch...if, as preliminary evidence suggests, 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?" Read on...

The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism"
By Glenn Greenwald 

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning 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 a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an 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 Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):

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 to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting 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 course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had 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 (though not 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 -- whose lengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth reading -- put it:

"So if this is somehow not considered "terrorism," are we admitting that whether something is "terrorism" is solely a function of who did it?" MasMHussain (Twitter)

NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.

One last question: if, as preliminary evidence suggests, 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. As several people noted, here is what the article originally said (papers that carry NYT articles still 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 the inane notion that 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."

1 comment:

Recent Posts

IT Security News

Trending Jihad and Global Islamic Radicalism Videos

Loading...

Computer Security News

Islam News

Jihad News

Terrorism News

Global Security News

The Long War Journal

Middle East News

Al Jazeera

Web Intelligence/Hacker News

Article Search Words

9/11 Abbasid Abd Al-Bari Atwan Abdullah al-Senussi Abdullah Azzam Abdullah Yusuf Azzam Abraham Abu Mohammed al Maqdisi Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Abu Omar al Baghdadi Adam Gadahn Afghanistan Africa African Union Ahmadinejad Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh Al Jazeera Al Qaeda Al Qaeda Training Al Shabab Al-Quds al-Arabi Alerts Ali ibn Abi Talib Allah Amal Kansi Angel Gabriel Anwar al-Awlaki Arab League Arab Spring Arabia Arabs As-Sahab Media Aurakzai Agency Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Ayman al-Zawahiri Azad Ali Ba'th Barack Obama Bashar Al-Assad Beheading Bhai Joga Singh Gurudwara Bill O'Reilly Bin Laden Documents Blog Bomb Making Bosnia Brazil British Burqa Caliphate Catholicism Caucasus Charter 77 Chechnya China Christianity Christians Christmas Day Bomber CIA Clerics CNN Cold War communism Computer Conspiracy Constitution Counterterrorism Covenant of God Crucifixion Crusaders Cyber War Cyber-Jihad Czechoslovakia Dagesta Damascus Daniel Pipes Dar de Islam Dar de salam Dar el Harb Dar-es-Salaam Delhi Democracy Detonator Dictators Digital Information DNS Drones East Turkistan Islamic Movement Economics Editorial Egypt Embassy England European Union European Union Mashrig Extremism Facebook Fata Region Fatah Fatwa FBI Ferdowsi Film Fitna Fort Hood Shooter Game Theory Gary Durrell General Sir David Richards God Ground Zero Group Behavior Gurdwara Haalat al Fihd Hamas Hamid Ansari Hassan Nasrallah Hate Hellenic Hijackers Hinduism Hizb ut-Tahrir Hizbullah Homeland Security Homer IED Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Immolation India Indian Airlines Flight 814 Infidel Innocence of Muslims Instagram Intelligence International Energy Agency Internet iPads Iran Iranian Hikers Iraq Iraq-Kuwait War Ishmael ISIL ISIS Islam Islamabad Islamic History Islamic Shakyhsiyah Foundation Islamization Ismail Khan Israel James Corbett James Pavitt Jerrold M. Post Jesus Jihad John Nash Josh Fattal Judaism Kafir Kenya Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Khalifah Conference Khāmene’i Kharijites Khorasan Group Kufa Kuwait Language Libya Literature Lockheed Martin Madrassas Maghreb Major Nidal Hasan Manouchehr Mottaki Martin Dempsey Martyr Martyrdom Maulana Masood Azhar Mecca Medieval Medina Middle East Militants Minister Nawaz Sharif Mohammad Atta Mohammed el-Beltagy Mongol Mu'awiya Muammar al-Gaddafi Muar Farouk Abdulmutallab Muhammad Muhammad Bouazizi Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak Muhammad Morsi Mujahedin Mullah Omar Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar Muslim Muslim Brotherhood Mustafa Akyol Nairobi Najibullah Quraishi Napoleon NATO Nazi North Caucasus nternational Union of Muslim Scholars Nusra Front Oil Omaima Hassan Ahmad Mohammad Hassad Osama bin Laden Ottoman Pakistan Palestine Palestinian Pamela Geller Peace Talks Pentagon Peter Bergen PLO Poem Power Prague Spring Prime Minister John Major Profiling Qur'an Quraysh Raymond Ibrahim Razzia Religions Review Revolutions Richard Reid Rightly Guided Robert S. Mueller III Robert Spencer Rohan Gunaratna Russia Saddam Hussein Saif al-Islam Salafi Salvation Sarah Shourd Satanic Verses Satellite Phones Saudi Arabia secularism Semites Sentinel Separatists Seymour Hersh Shane Bauer Sharia Sharia Law Sheik Abdul Rahman Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohamed Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi Shi'a Sikhs Six-Day War SkyGrabber Soviet Union Statehood Subsidies Suicide Bomber Sunni Syria Taliban Tanzania Technology Tehran Terror Cells Terrorism Terrorist Terrorist Website The Global Islamic Media Front The Islamic State Time Magazine Tunisia Turkistan Islamic Party Twelvers Twitter Uighurs Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Umma United States Uprisings Uthman ibn Affan Václav Havel Velvet Revolution Vice Adm. William McRaven Video Vladimir Putin Wahhabism Warnings Weapons WWII Xinjiang Yadavaran Yemen Zalmai Azmi Zaydi Zine El Abidine Ben Ali

Jihad Source Rating Scale

★ Poor
Unreliable

★★ Below Average
Hardly Informative, Factual, or Timely

★★★ Average
Somewhat Informative, Factual, and Timely

★★★★ Good
Informative, Factual, and Timely

★★★★★ Exceptional
Scholarly, Informative, Factual, and Timely

(NR) No Rating
Unable to Determine or a Counter-Intelligence Agency

Known Terrorist Groups

Al-Qaida has cooperated with a number of known terrorist groups worldwide including:

  • Armed Islamic Group
  • Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group
  • Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
  • Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya
  • Jamaat Islamiyya
  • The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
  • Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
  • Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
  • Asbat al Ansar
  • Hezbollah (Lebanon)
  • Al-Badar
  • Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
  • Al-Hadith
  • Harakat ul Jihad
  • Jaish Mohammed - JEM
  • Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
  • Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
  • Laskar e-Toiba - LET
  • Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
  • Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
  • Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
  • Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
  • Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)
  • Armed Islamic Group
  • Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group
  • Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)
  • Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya
  • Jamaat Islamiyya
  • The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
  • Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)
  • Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)
  • Asbat al Ansar
  • Hezbollah (Lebanon)
  • Al-Badar
  • Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen
  • Al-Hadith
  • Harakat ul Jihad
  • Jaish Mohammed - JEM
  • Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam
  • Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
  • Laskar e-Toiba - LET
  • Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)
  • Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)
  • Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)
  • Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
  • Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)
  • Jihad and the Internet

    Let’s not fool ourselves. Whatever threat the real Afghanistan poses to U.S. national security, the “Virtual Afghanistan” now poses just as big a threat. The Virtual Afghanistan is the network of hundreds of jihadist Web sites that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in jihad against America and the West. Whatever surge we do in the real Afghanistan has no chance of being a self-sustaining success, unless there is a parallel surge — by Arab and Muslim political and religious leaders — against those who promote violent jihadism on the ground in Muslim lands and online in the Virtual Afghanistan.

    Thomas L. Friedman
    New York Times
    15 Dec 2009

    View the Quran

    Quran Explorer - Interactive Audio Recitations & Translations