In no way was this even in any sense of the word necessary. Millions of people recognized the dangers of extreme ideologies without the slaughter of innocent civilians, in fact I think most of us can agree that the slaughter of innocent civilians is bad - whomever the perpetrator may be - without having to flex our moral muscle.

One gets the impression that the Guardianista staff were high-fiving each other in the hallways once they found out it wasn't a jihadist, JUST so they could put out self-righteous, absolutely false moral equivalence arguments like this crap.

@ puddleperfect:

You know it hadn't occurred to me that 'necessary' in the headline could be read that way, but I can see your point. And, of course, it's not the author's argument at all.

I apologise for a poor piece of headline writing and have made an amendment.

One thing that to me seems quite insulting about all this is the SHEER insistence that a Muslim or Christian terrorist is a whack job, and consistently tried to be separated from their religious affiliation. WHY? That's is the worst kind of fear. THe idea that someone who is a Bible or Quran believer can still do the same crimes. People seem to think that Breivik or Bin Ladin's massacres make them less of a Muslim or Christian. Not so. Religion is only a part of one's identity, not the entire thing. So, when people like Andrew Brown say "Anders Breivik is not Christian bu. t anti-Islam" they are missing the point. You can be anti-Islam, a Christian, and still commit the same crimes. I assure you if an atheist, anarchist, or Satanist commits the crimes next, the media would jump that the atrocities are the influence of their off center ideologies

I remember vividly when 9/11, madrid bombing have happened. Some people went on and said Islam is an agresive and blood thirsty religion. Some tried to say it was not.

Discussions today over the Oslo killings mirrors that of 10 years ago. You can get muslims who are blood thirsty, you can get muslims who are just good people.

Same thing applies to Christians you get some who can not bare the thougth of a black person next to them. They even paint Jesus as a blond.

You get some christian they are peace loving and would not hurt anything knowingly.

The heart of the truth is that you get good people and bad people with or without the help of religion.

For those cultural conservatives and Tea Partiers who have taken the time to glance at Breivik's mammoth manifesto (pdf), it must make for uncomfortable reading. With its early and frequent denunciations of "cultural Marxism", "Islamisation" and "homosexuality", it isn't a stretch to argue that Breivik would have felt comfortable at a Michele Bachmann rally, nodding along with her legions of supporters forever fearful of socialism, sharia law and same-sex marriage.

Which is not to suggest Breivik was inspired by the Tea Party or Michele Bachmann, but what Breivik's attack – in common with other under-reported incidents in the United States – demonstrates is that when the attacker looks much like you and believes similar things, it becomes nearly impossible to see him for what he is. Nor, when he could pass for "one of us", are we likely to demonise him with wild generalisations about his race or religion. When the terrorist looks like you, he gets downgraded to "an extremist", or to the more vanilla description, "disturbed individual", and is handled efficiently, and correctly, by the criminal justice system.

I believe that no terrorist groups are overlooked, merely that selective suppression exists for those groups that do not serve a purpose for the regional oligarchy. It is a truism that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. As long as those in power can create and exploit a Power of Nightmares condition, there will be "terrorism."

The first images of the destruction in Oslo's city centre Friday were reminiscent of New York City's

No, they weren't. Not even remotely.

Pseudonyms
26 July 2011 9:49PM
One gets the impression that the Guardianista staff were high-fiving each other in the hallways once they found out it wasn't a jihadist, JUST so they could put out self-righteous, absolutely false moral equivalence arguments like this crap.

This indirectly acknowledges my point.

Honestly, this artcle made me a little queasy.

Because I agree that Republicans have made a conscious and concerted effort to equate Islam with terrorism (the so-called Ground Zero mosque, controversy, for example) and then gone the extra step of trying to tie Obama to it (with their emphasis on his middle name and the "palling around with terrorists" soundbite). And that wasdisgusting.

But this article sails pretty close to doing the same thing.

By suggesting "Breivik would have felt comfortable at a Michele Bachmann rally, nodding along with her legions of supporters forever fearful of socialism, sharia law and same-sex marriage," aren't you insinuating that Bachman's supporters, misguided and illinformed as they may be, are just a hop, skip and a jump away form being terrorists themselves? And that's disgusting, too.

Brevik's "manifesto" apes and distorts the political/social concerns of the Christian right in the same way Al Qaeda's creed twists the meaning of Islam. It doesn't make Bachman's supporters any more complicit with Brevik than everyday muslims are with Al Qaeda.

I think Americans know very well that there are far-right, Christian fundamentalists prepared to commit acts of terrorism. The challenge is not to create an hysteria about it to match the current hysteria about muslim terroroists, but, rather, to lower the rhetoric all around. I don't think this article helps.

GreenLake
26 July 2011 10:39PM
...
I think Americans know very well that there are far-right, Christian fundamentalists prepared to commit acts of terrorism. The challenge is not to create an hysteria about it to match the current hysteria about muslim terroroists, but, rather, to lower the rhetoric all around. I don't think this article helps.

The truism "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" might be reassuring.

The media did jump the gun. Although I recognized Multicultural terrorism. Attacks coming from different portions of society. I tend to believe Islam terrorism holds the larger portion of being threat.
Because of the reactionary history it has accumulated with its well funded and organized groups. To me the article fails to protect the Islamic community from discrimination or instant incrimination. It just going to pull them into a bitter blame game. "See, the Christians can be terrorist too." For the sake of being mediator that declares even terrorism has a multiculturalism.

My British Friends; take a look at this very short video (1.5 minutes).
Today was a gathering at a Norwegian mosque in Oslo, where our Crown Prince and Minister of Foreign Affairs participated. The Minister said: “Norwegians all over the country are now gathering. We come to each other. I experience this is sending the most important message right now; we stand together united! I have just arrived from the hospital where people are fighting for their lives. They know that all this is happening around them right now. I know that this will make more people survive.”
The last sentence being said in the video is from a Norwegian muslim. He has just signed the condolence protocol. His words are: “I am proud to be Norwegian!”
A Symphony of Brotherhood?
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7728515

No religion, ideology, race or ethnicity has a monopoly on political violence.

Uh, not sure where you're getting that. The people who attacked us on 9/11 were right-wing extremists, too.

Their platform is practically identical to the right-wing Christians who run America. Stockpiling guns and glorifying their use, censoring anti-religious or sexual media, supporting torture, war, and the death penalty, opposing feminism, gay rights, and atheists, believing in a black/white definition of good and evil, trying to set up a (Christian/Muslim) theocratic nation.

Granted, there are left-wing terrorists, too, but they're usually burning inanimate objects or freeing animals or other hippie crap. The ones who flip out and murder children are always right-wing religious nuts.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

No religion, ideology, race or ethnicity has a monopoly on political violence.

Remind me of that this next time bomb goes off in Chechnya, or when a comic artist gets threaten for drawing Mohammad.

@ Pseudonyms

In what sense is the moral equivalence between Fascist and Islamist terrorism false?

Harwood seems to have missed that in the US this guy is no longer considered a terrorist since it was found out he wasn't of Islamic decent. Since he is a white European, he is merely an extremist.

@thesavage

I don't know who conservatives view such things on your side of the Atlantic, but over here Islamic terrorists are in a separate category altogether. In their minds a bomb planted by an Islamic terrorist that kills 300 people is far worse than a right-wing terrorist who plants a bomb that kills 300 people. In fact, right-wing terrorists are merely crazy extremists in their minds, not terrorists. It is even not that uncommon for American conservatives to express understanding of underlying causes of right-wing violence, even if they publicly abhor the result.

In the extreme example, some American conservatives, such as prominent blogger Pam Geller, actually blame Muslims for what happened in Norway since without them Breivik wouldn't have had his focus of hate.

Your article is spot on. Glenn Greenwald has also covered the bizarre treatment of the Oslo massacre in the US:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html

The fundamental problem is that Americans (not to mention quite a few Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc.) have bought into a global culture war that mimics their own nativist, xenophobic culture wars at home. They are anxious to conflate religious, political and cultural memes to explain the behaviour of others, but are blind to the same as it may apply to themselves.

The idea that the right-wing Tea Party folks would flinch at the writings of this terrorist is risible. When the "others" are influenced by ideology to violence, it is the Islamist ideology that is toxic. When a Christian commits the same act it is that individual's warped mind at work (in principle we agree with him - we just abhor violence that is not state-sanctioned).

The moment George W. uttered the phrase, "War on Terror", it was done. America was in a forever war with whomever it so chose: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Mexico, Monaco - it really does not matter.

It's us against them, whoever "they" may be.

As you close your argument: "Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes: sometimes, they even look, act and believe as we do", the point is moot. Americans reserve the right to define "terrorist" in their own ever-shifting interests. Kinetic actions to follow. "They must really hate us for our freedom".

@ Jeremiah

Laughable. Claiming that Jesus's sayings in Bible incite less violence than anything in the Koran shows that you have never bothered to look closely at either work. Just as Islamist extremists selectively make use of religious texts, so too do Christians (surprise!).

Furthermore, you may be interesting in noting that, in the US, the Michigan-based right wing militia Hutaree, intent on murdering police officers, has more arms than any terrorist cell busted or prosecuted since 9/11. And at least half the suspected terrorist attacks in the last five years (London nail bombings, Austin tax office among others) have been NON-Islamist. This article was hinting at such.

Wake up.

Because I agree that Republicans have made a conscious and concerted effort to equate Islam with terrorism.

Greenlake - Not any Republicans that I know personally. In fact most go out of their way to distance themselves from such an ignorant generalization.

Because I agree that Republicans have made a conscious and concerted effort to equate Islam with terrorism.
Not any Republicans that I know personally. In fact most go out of their way to distance themselves from such an ignorant generalization.

Agreed. Liberals read too much liberal editorializing about crazy rightwingers. Is that all they think about? Must be a fixation with the rightwing extremist threat?

A fixation with the jihadist threat makes Americans blind to the insidious menace of a rightwing extremist like Anders Breivik

What fixation.

A threat can exist anywhere. Jared Lee Loughner is a slightly liberal nut who appeared to be fixated on Giffords. John W. Hinckley Jr. was obsessed with Jodie Foster. Seung-Hui Cho is psychotic. Major Nidal Malik Hasan - Muslim terrorist. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad - Muslim terrorist.

Still, cancer and car accidents are much greater threats, so mostly, we just get on with our lives. We're kinda busy for these fixation issues.

You never hear Guardianistas urging us to be vigilant about the atheist threat, but that's exactly what Timothy McVeigh was. Why do they continue to be so silent?

Your narrative is the one that is need of correction Mr Harwood.

actually, people hire soldiers to do their invasions for them. they then get the booty while remaining 'innocent civilians,'

unfortunately, some people in the lands that have been invaded don't subscribe to the innocent civilian myth. they take the view that if your taxes pay for the soldiers who invaded, killed, raped, who continue to support puppet dictators, then you are not innocent.

the difference between the jihadi suicide bomber and the western terrorist is this: the jihadi is resisting foreign invasion, the local is resisting local oppression. big difference in motive, not in method.

yes, the issue is obscured by the evident fact that almost everyone in the west doesn't think of their government as 'invader of foreign lands,' or as oppressor of local people. there is plenty of evidence supporting the first, and some for the second. worth thinking about.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

As a muslim reading through articles I get really sad and sometimes scared about my safety , because I am under the threat of extremists of both sides , people just want to believe that Islam is the source of all evil in the world , ok it is not , Islam has a lot of good teachings that no one talks about , as a muslim I am asked not to talk badly about someone behind his back , then imagine how about stealing or killing Innocent people, but no one is ready to listen to that, they want an enemy , the villain!

People always look for someone to hate , at some point it was the jews in Germany , later the soviet union and before that were other people and now it is the muslims , it doesn't matter people will always look for someone to hate and then make it easy and understandable to hate them, muslims suffer from terrorism themselves , look what happened in Iraq , how many innocent people died, it is estimated about over half a million with all its side effects of orphans and injured people but let's ask a question who started all this wasn't it USA who attacked Iraq claiming it had weapons to found later there was nothing there , and then extremists entered Iraq taking advantage of the chaos of war, my point is in this situation who created terrorism wasn't the west???

I hope people come to their senses and look at muslims like human beings before they commit atrocities against them , no Iraqi participated in 9/11 and yet more than half a million human being died there for misguided intel , is that fare ?is not being western make you less of a human? yes there are extremists and they need to be eliminated but does that mean killing or hurting everyone in process?

BarryGold, Loughner is insane, not "slightly liberal".

MC-gangs Hells Angels, Bandidos and Outlaws drove side by side from Oslo to Utoya Tuesday afternoon in sympathy for the perished and their families: http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/07/27/nyheter/innenriks/terrorangrepet/terror_i_oslo/mc-klubb/17466371/

adult
27 July 2011 8:52AM

BarryGold, Loughner is insane, not "slightly liberal".

There's difference? Just pulling your leg. The insane Loughner had displayed liberal tendencies. However, most of the people I listed, and probably Breivik, appear to be troubled more than political.

You never hear Guardianistas urging us to be vigilant about the atheist threat, but that's exactly what Timothy McVeigh was.

What are you wittering on about-mcVeigh was a far right terrorist with extreme beliefs-He didn't bomb Oklahoma to make a statement about atheism.

"You never hear Guardianistas urging us to be vigilant about the atheist threat, but that's exactly what Timothy McVeigh was. Why do they continue to be so silent? 2

are you taking the piss?

McVeigh's actions were dictated by his hatred of the US government, (it was a revenge attack for Waco & Ruby Ridge) not his atheism.

Nothing could be lower than a 'Mer'kin Teabagger - or any "conservative" in North America or Europe for that matter - as their "strategy" literally has two notes:

1. "It's YOUR (Liberals/immigrants/etc.) fault when things go bad, but NEVER when they go well.

2. It's YOUR fault that our "ideas" fail, as they literally always do (unless enriching the top 1% is the be-all-end-all of modern democracy).

In short, to be a "conservative" today is to be either unforgivably, proudly stupid or to be as evil and twisted as a monster.

Until sanity, and probably apology, from those still vaguely desiring to be human beings but now willing to feed the cruel, useless evil that poses as "conservatism" is shown, there is no compromise. As I wish President Obama would finally, finally, finally, finally understand: he's dealing with monsters as deep-dyed as the Norweigian bomber/shooter, however much they pretend otherwise. They share almost all his goals, save that they are far more greedy.

rightwing extremism since 1995:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

It's a pretty big list.

No religion, ideology, race or ethnicity has a monopoly on political violence. Despite this truism, many Americans and US media outlets continue to conflate Islam with terrorism – a fact many media critics documented during the clumsy breaking coverage of Breivik's attack. This may seem understandable as we Americans face the anniversary of 11 September 2001 in little more than a month. Homegrown and overseas jihadists certainly present a clear and present danger to the United States, but they are by no means the only threat or, arguably, the most dangerous.

Pardon me for interrupting, but most of us already know this and understand perfectly the diverse nature of potential threats.

In any particular set of circumstances, however, there are always a few who either don't get the word of fail to reach the common consensus. Thus we always seem to have the "SOME SAY" articles such as that above, wherein a relatively small minority is highlighted, dissected, and treated as if theirs is the prevalent American view.

It isn't.

Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty. Threats exist from every direction for any reason, so it is never wise to ignore any potential advocates of violence against our way of life.

Lone wolves are tougher to identify, isolate and capture, as the Unibomber took longer than Osama bin Laden to find. The greatest focus should be paid to the greatest threats, but if anything the most recent event shows us that no threat should be dismissed as unworthy of our attention.

You know, it's funny. Speaking of Sharia Law in particular. The left seems not to worry about it tremendously much, and figures that in places like the US, it'll never be more than a 100% optional system, to which no one ever has to opt in to. The right is fervently worried that a single man might decide to judge his actions based on Sharia, rather than US law.

Now, let's compare to what ACTUALLY happens in the US. In numerous businesses, companies, contracts... all legal rights are waived in favor of 'arbitration'. This is an arbitrary set of rules, designed by people in power, who get to tell the less fortunate "arbitration or you can't have a job. Arbitration or you can't buy things critical for your life". The company decides the law. The company decides the arbitrator. And, when the arbitrator inevitably decides in the company's favor, the wronged party is legally forbidden to seek a US legal intervention. Because it said in the contract, for instance, "It's legal for us to rape you on company hours, because the arbitrator will never believe your side of the story, and it's illegal for you to take us to court over it". Well, it doesn't REALLY say that, but it's worked that way in practice. And the right consistently supports this! It's good for business not to be held accountable, after all! And the left fears it! The left likes when national, state and local law applies equally to everyone, and doesn't like that you can write yourself immunity in the small print of an employment contract.

The right fears Sharia law because it's muslim, as far as I can tell, but supports private business law, which has similarly negative outcomes, because it's business. The left doesn't care about sharia law because it's not here, while it cares very much about private business law because it's actually hurting people, right now. Huh. As I said... strikes me as a bit funny.I think a balanced budget amendment is a terrible idea. I'd like to see it balanced more often. Shame we can't put Clinton back in to do it again. But! The fed is not a state. It's not a family. It's not a business. It's a federal government. Things come up. There CAN'T be a requirement for a balanced budget, at least not unless we want to go back to not just a gold standard, but to an actual treasury, both of which are terrible ideas.

But seriously, can you imagine? Oops, the country was demolished by hurricanes. Shame we didn't budget for that, hope the repairs can wait till next year! Or, gosh, it's a shame the people of Rwanda chose THIS year to discover alien technology and go on a worldwide rampage. Maybe after the next election we can budget for a war. Till then, keep your heads down, folks!

Similarly, remember the effect of the watered-down stimulus that got passed, which was admittedly little more than enough to do business as usual: unemployment didn't go up. Which it was going to do. Guaranteed. People sneer at paying government workers. Well... if they don't get paid, they're out of work. Which means higher unemployment. Which means more people using government programs, AND less work getting done. Which means it costs even more for those people to exist at all, but they don't do anything any more! Similarly, TARP, the auto bailout... those saved a lot of jobs, and kept a lot of money flowing. Things didn't get better, but they didn't get worse. And that's the way they were headed. It's worth remembering that.

Yeah, let's put people out of work. THAT'LL solve our unemployment problems real fast!

Companies are sitting on huge stockpiles of cash right now. The problem is NOT an inability to pay employees. It's a lack of demand. Priming from the top has never worked. It logically can't work. The only way to fix the problem is to prime from the bottom - increase demand, which makes more work for business, which then hires more people to do work, which increases demand... and it spirals UP, instead of DOWN. It's worked every time so far, no reason it wouldn't work again. Shame our leaders are too cowardly to just do what they already know works quite well.

Umm...I think someone needs to tell kattw what the meaning of "arbitration" is, because that person clearly has no idea what it means.

Huh... not sure where the REST of that post came from.

And pseudo, just look at some arbitration cases. Businesses can literally put into contracts that all disputes must be resolved through arbitration, rather than normal legal channels. And they DO. They then get to choose the arbitrator. They then, typically, win. And, by contract, the wronged party has nowhere left to turn.

This happens. It is fact. There is really no point denying it. You're welcome to LIKE the system that way, or dislike it, but neither will change that it happens.

@ JohannesDeSilentio43
27 July 2011 12:29AM

Claiming that Jesus's sayings in Bible incite less violence than anything in the Koran shows that you have never bothered to look closely at either work.

Please provide a biblical reference to something Jesus is believed to have said, that could be taken as an incitement to violence.

Just one reference and your argument is proven. But don't forget, it has to be something Jesus is believed to have said.

Your credibility is at stake!

The right fears Sharia law because it's muslim, as far as I can tell, but supports private business law, which has similarly negative outcomes, because it's business. The left doesn't care about sharia law because it's not here, while it cares very much about private business law because it's actually hurting people, right now.

And a lot of people fear it because everyone should be living under something called common law. And the fact Sharia's a few centuries behind western law. People get stoned, mutilated, etc. under Sharia, because it's got some primitive barbaric stuff in it, which incidentally has little to do with what the Koran says. And there's the problem of women being denied basic rights, which goes against the US Constitution.

Breivik is really just another example of a "spree killer" , a type which is so common in the USA that it is under reported here in the UK unless the victims include a politician or celebrity. eg Gabrielle Giffords., schoolchildren or a large number of victims.

For example I don't believe the January shootings in which Congresswoman Giffords was a victim would have merited more than a paragraph in the UK papers were it not for her involvement.

That Breivik has chosen to excuse his behaviour in terms of Islamophobia and other current right wing prejudices merely reflects the trends of the day.
I think that Simon Jenkins said something pertinent on this subject the other day.

Americans had rapidly to re-evaluate their comfortable post 9/11 belief that only swarthy jihadists engage in terrorist atrocities.

Except that no one believes ONLY swarthy jihaddists engage in terror atrocities.

Everyone knows Its just MOSTLY swarthy jihaddists.

And nothing makes my point better than your own example of O.K. City, which was 16 years ago. You have to go back that far to find a successful, large scale terror attack in the us by a right winger. Really says it all.

Yet, past incidents like the shooting at the Holocaust museum; the murder of abortion doctor Dr George Tiller; Joseph Stack's suicide attack on the IRS building in Austin, Texas; and a neo-Nazi's disrupted attack on a Martin Luther King Day Parade in Spokane, Washington; all highlight the US media's blind spot to terrorist acts and plots not perpetrated by Muslims. Rarely are they described as what they are: rightwing terrorists.

These all recieved extensive coverage in the press. But given that these were crazed individuals acting alone...and more importantly that comparatively little damage was done...you can hardly expect them to receive the same amount of coverage as 9/11....were 3000 people died.

We have a Governor in Texas (Rick Perry) who is currently (apparently) being given consideration as to whether he could be a good candidate for the Republican party in the next Presidential election..

In the Republican/right wing slobberings and attempts to discredit President Barack Obama, much was made of his "middle name", his "pal'ing around with terrorists", his membership of a Christian church with a loud-mouthed pastor (whoactually happened to be a patriotic US Marine vet, don't forget), much less all the racist-based "he must be from Kenya" "birther" drivel.

As it turns out, President Obama has mostly enraged his original supporters by being pretty moderate. And he has had a hell of a time coping with the financial mess piled on him by his predecessor--a person who ran away from his duty and commitment to his term of military enlistment, and then abrogated his fiscal responsibilities to the US (much less his duties to any/all patriotic US military personnel who have died in Iraq.)

I have never- gotten over--and will never will get over, two (I saw it with my own eyes) videos of our current governor--and the reality of some of his current "backers"--all of which go to the underlying point I think the writer of this thought-provoking article has made.

Perry is a handsome, apparently physically fit (white) guy with rural roots.. And with a good 'head of hair" as my Mother might have said. Plus he is a graduate of Texas A&M (where, like Bush the Lesser, he was a sideline cheerleader.)

There is a "dashboard video" of --taken by a highway patrolman or other Texas peace officer--taken after Perry's car was stopped on a highway for significantly exceeding the speed limits. (Happens to Texans all the time, believe me.) The video shows Perry getting out of his car--aggressively walking towards the patrol car shouting--"Do you know who I am?" conveying intention of being allowed to go on his way (without a ticket being issued, presumably) sooner rather than later.

There is also a video of a "tea party event " (last year, I think) that was literally he4ld on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol. In the video are several persons giving their alleged grievances (a Constitutionally protected right) but several of them call for the secession of Texas from the United States,

Perry is in attendance, speaks --and absolutely, positively neither denounces them on that position, or disabuses the idea,. I believe that, in total, he gave aid and comfort to the belief.

That is playing around with treason, I think.

The US Civil War has been fought, followed by about 100 years of the most concerted, constant and "legalized" wave and tsunami) of terrorism by US citizens against US citizens imaginable (mostly white folk against black folks under Jim Crow).

Anyone--regular citizen or elected official--who would condone or whitewash that kind talk of, or even advocacy of, treason might just be an incipient terrorist.

Separately, Perry is now fronting and stumping for a kind of Prayerpalooza in Houston.

The event has clearly drawn a line as being to feature or favor a Christian version of "religion" (and prayer)--as opposed to Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist prayer, I suppose.

Several of the "backers of the event are truly radical "ministers" (mostly of the on-tv-and-own-their -own "ministries" variety--who each--in their own way--present a hate-filled and/or exclusionary form of "Christianity' that makes anything said by that awful, terrible, no good, very bad Rev. Wright seem like child's play in the incipient terrorist category.

But--as I said--US Republicans are actually looking at Governor Good Hair , and touting him (and all he stands for, I suppose).

Why?

Mostly because he looks like us, I suspect.

Andm, more likely, is perfectly willing to play to our worst natures and to smile and nod as we express our most basic fears and resentments about all those "others".

But, believe me--he isn't LIKE us. (yet)

THANK GOD!!l

I'm still concerned about his links with the EDL

He apparently attended an EDL demo in Newcastle. last year. Appears to have given guidance and advice to them. Rumours that he was funded by Alan Lake, the man who gave £100k to the EDL in order to perpetuate a genocide against muslims (his words, not mine) and who is apparently referenced in ABB's manifesto as the "perfect knight" who was his mentor. He was a member of their facebook group and turned up to their demos, which in EDL-world is about all it takes to call yourself a member.

This is the first terrorist attack inspired by EDL anti-muslim bigotry, but it will not be the last. How many more innocent people must die before we take the right-wing menace seriously?

The hatred and incitement that organisations like the EDL specialise in are responsible for this act of terrorism just as the hate-preaches like Abu Hamza and Anjem Choudray bear responsibility for the terrorists they go on to inspire. I do not believe that ABB was typical of conservatives, even if he used their language and sheltered under their beliefs, but I do believe his violent hatred of "marxism" and islam is typiclal of the violent hatred the EDL espouse.

This is the first terrorist attack inspired by EDL anti-muslim bigotry, but it will not be the last. How many more innocent people must die before we take the right-wing menace seriously?

Yeah, it's a bit worrying, but:
1. A murderous nutter will murder, whatever the ideology. Perhaps the ideology is only used as the justification.
2. His psychosis, fixation with firearms and some very outlandish ideas seem to have been the main cause of the tragedy. His links with the EDL are incidental.
3. Despite all the ranting and rhetoric, most people are adults capable of thinking for themselves and knowing where to draw the line. Very few EDL members would have gone as far as ABB.

jonappleseed posts

''But given that these were crazed individuals acting alone..''

Or individuals in a continuum stretching back into 1939 to 1945 resurrecting in their actions the ideas of that conflict, 1939 to 1945.

Obviously, when history is not taught, 1939 to 1945 did not occur.

The killer in Norway last Friday used the same language as the Norwegians who went to fight on the Eastern Front with the Waffen SS.

Norway's corrective to our post 9/11 terror myth

What exactly is the myth? This tragedy demonstrates what we have known all along.

You don't have to be an Islamist to be a dangerous nut-case.

But you have to admit that it helps.

jonappleseed:

Except that no one believes ONLY swarthy jihaddists engage in terror atrocities.

Everyone knows Its just MOSTLY swarthy jihaddists

That's right!

Except for the IRA, INLA, UDA, UVF, Red Brigades, ETA, Tupac Amaru, Shining Path, various Corsican nutjobs, Baader Meinhof, McVeigh and his like etc.

Not one swarthy jihadist amongst them, just a bunch of bloodthirsty inadequates who dressed up their desire to matter and somehow count for something through killing in the garb of nationalism, politics (leftwing or rightwing) or religion.

But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance and prejudices.

And nothing makes my point better than your own example of O.K. City, which was 16 years ago. You have to go back that far to find a successful, large scale terror attack in the us by a right winger. Really says it all.

So, what? Something that happened 10 years ago (9/11) is indicative of a present threat and something that happened 16 years ago is history? I mean, we're talking "successful, large scale terror attacks in the US", right?
Do you even know how many planned terror attacks by right wing losers the FBI have nipped in the bud, versus those by Islamist losers? I don't , but I'm willing to bet that Islamist terrorism isn't running away with the game.

It's really striking how an article that basically states the undeniable truth that right-wing, blond Christian failures are just as capable of depravity and mass murder as right-wing brown-skinned Muslim failures gets the response from jonappleseed and his like: "B-b-b-ut, the ragheads are worse! They gotta be! They're mooslims and swarthy! And foreign!"

One's religion or ethnicity has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not someone turns into a mass murdering terrorist. McVeigh, Breivik, the 7/7 bombers, the 9/11 hijackers all have someting in common: they're narcissists and egomaniacs with deep-seated feelings of inadequacy. Apallingly adjusted young men with a hatred and fear of the different, the female, the modern and the inclusive, who retreat into fantasies of a new Knights Templar, a new global Caliphate, a Fourth Reich, a proletarian utopia or whatever. In other words, losers. Dangerous people, but failures at the end of it all.

GreenLake
26 July 2011 10:39PM

By suggesting "Breivik would have felt comfortable at a Michele Bachmann rally, nodding along with her legions of supporters forever fearful of socialism, sharia law and same-sex marriage," aren't you insinuating that Bachman's supporters, misguided and illinformed as they may be, are just a hop, skip and a jump away form being terrorists themselves? And that's disgusting, too.

I agree. A few of the articles on CiF this past week have implied to various degrees that anyone who disagrees with their govts immigration policy is automatically a potential mass murderer.

On a totally different note, I am surprised that those who learnedly discuss the growing extreme right in Europe have failed to notice one important difference in this case: up to now, the violent right has attacked the "other", e.g. immigrants; Breivik attacked people from his own community.

So it appears libs have finally found a terrorist they can accurately call "right-wing". Congrats! Of course there is still the Loughner fiasco, where a liberal lunatic was portrayed as a tea-partying Fox viewer.

It now appears that Pam Geller and other conservative bloggers have now made it to the top of the lib enemies list. Leftoids may want to think of the ramifications of using these attacks for domestic political gain...I personally dont care to see media/political figures on the left blamed for the actions of Muslim terrorists who may share their views on American foreign policy.

By the way, i've heard several posters call muslim terrorists "right-wing". I find this interesting considering the fact that both lefties and muslim terrorists share similar views on America's influence in the world, and many lefties throughout the world view islamic communism with varying levels of sympathy.

By the way, i've heard several posters call muslim terrorists "right-wing". I find this interesting considering the fact that both lefties and muslim terrorists share similar views on America's influence in the world, and many lefties throughout the world view islamic communism with varying levels of sympathy.

That's right - whether you're right-wing or left-wing politically is purely determined by what you think of America's influence in the world. Nothing else.