Monday, July 25, 2011

The Oslo Factor: Blame Free Speech

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

In Dashiell Hammett’s nonpareil detective novel, The Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade, the street-wise and glib private eye, toys with and manipulates the contentious members of a gang of hustlers in order to nail the person among them who murdered his business partner. He pretends to ally himself with their purposes, but warns them that someone must take the rap for that murder and others, someone who can be turned over to the authorities. They must have a “fall-guy,” he explains to the gang leader, Casper Gutman. He at first nominates Wilmer, the leader’s psychotic “gunsil” and bodyguard.


“Let’s give them the punk.” He nodded pleasantly at the boy in the doorway. “He actually did shoot both of them – Thursby and Jacobi – didn’t he? Anyway, he’s made to order for the part. Let’s pin the necessary evidence on him and turn him over to them.”
The horrific attack in Oslo, Norway last Friday, in which 84 Norwegian youths were mercilessly gunned down by Anders Behring Breivik, a psychotic Norwegian Christian fundamentalist and anti-Muslim who also allegedly planted a devastating and lethal bomb in central Oslo, has produced an “Islamaphobic” fall-guy, made to order for the part.

You see, he was “Islamaphobic.” He was also crazed and insensitive and insulting and perhaps even saw his country being stealthily taken over by the enemy in the guise of Muslims and Marxists. So, anyone who criticizes Islam or Muslim behavior in Western countries – or even in Muslim countries – will be branded by association with Breivik. Well-reasoned arguments, evidence of stealth jihad, connections between multiculturalism, Islamic hubris, and the Islamification of the West, impeccable scholarship, reputations for truth-telling and fact-finding, will be dismissed as “Islamaphobic,” intolerant, bigoted, and hateful.

I do not believe in “evil geniuses.” So I will not make the argument that Al Quada or some other Islamic terrorist group put Breivik up to committing the crime in order to divert attention from Islam’s own and numerous depredations – although the idea is a credible one.

However, there are several legitimate observations to make and questions to ask.

An Australian TV news report at least hypothesizes that the double attack was too well organized and had a jihadist M.O. Based on statements by survivors of the massacre, police suspect that a second gunman was involved.

Up front, the “Christian fundamentalist” nature of the attack makes little sense. Was Breivik unbalanced? Was he so out of it that jihadists could convince him that it was fellow Norwegians who were the “enemy” and not Muslims? If he were a Christian fundamentalist, would he not have wanted to slaughter Muslims, instead?

Norway’s ruling Labor Party is friendly to Muslim immigration, which, in light of the demonstrated purposes of such immigration, to impose Sharia law on Western nations, is prima facie an irrational policy. Breivik attacked the ideological offspring of the Labor Party. But, if Breivik hated Muslims, why did he not attack Muslims, instead? Why mow down nearly a hundred liberal-left Christian children? This answer may or may not come out during his trial.

Norway has gun control laws. How did Breivik procure his automatic weapon? How did he acquire explosives? If he rigged the bomb or bombs that created so much devastation in Oslo, where did he get instructions? From Inspire, the jihadist online magazine? From whom? Through whose weapons network? An M16 ammo clip does not hold enough ammo to mow down 84 people. Was he wearing an ammo belt of clips? Who procured the policeman’s uniform? How did he travel from Oslo to Utoya Island loaded with weaponry and not have been noticed? Where was Norwegian security at the camp? Was there any? Was there a second, or even a third gunman?

Jihadists apparently helped Timothy McVeigh blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Is this some kind of diversionary terrorism, organized by jihadists, to shift attention away from Islamists? Is this a form of taqiyya – an orchestrated pointing of fingers at the other guy?

Is Anders Behring Breivik an example of cool reason, calm reflection, and fealty to reality? You be the judge:

In his first comment via a lawyer since he was arrested, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik expressed willingness to explain himself in court at a hearing likely to be held on Monday about extending his custody.

"He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary," lawyer Geir Lippestad told independent TV2 news, adding that his client admitted to both the shootings and the bombing….

Breivik hated "cultural Marxists," wanted a "crusade" against the spread of Islam and liked guns and weightlifting, web postings, acquaintances and officials said. A video posted on the YouTube website showed several pictures of Breivik, including one of him in a scuba diving outfit pointing an automatic weapon.
But the incident will work to the advantage of Islamists everywhere.

Adrian Morgan, editor of Family Security Matters, details the beginning of the smear of critics of Islam and jihad. I left this comment on his article.

In short, Mr. Morgan is describing the attempts by the MSM to link Anders Breivik with a number of legitimate and coolly reasoned anti-Islamist websites and blog sites whose sponsors and writers would never condone the mass slaughter of anyone or the bombing any government buildings. That the MSM is attempting to pull this Three-Card-Monte switcheroo reveals just how morally and intellectually bankrupt the MSM is and how desperate its minions are to discredit and not refute any and all criticism of Muslims and Islam. It is called “guilt by association.” This is tantamount to accusing Hitler’s mother of influencing the murderous content of her son’s mind because she taught him how to tie his shoelaces.

But, perhaps more importantly than diverting attention away from the legitimate concern with Islamic jihad, is the blank check the MSM is handing our government to monitor and perhaps repress legitimate criticism of Islam. Many of these “Islamaphobic” websites are sponsored, edited and written for by Christians. Because Breivik is alleged to be a “fundamentalist Christian,” ergo, would go the “reasoning,” all Christian critics of Islam are potential mass murderers and must be reined in.

If censorship comes to this country, it will be by the invitation of the MSM and the left-liberal political and intellectual establishment.
This whole thing smells of a frame-up, and Breivik more and more to me looks like a fall-guy. I do not doubt there are Christian fundamentalists who would resort to murder to “spread God’s word.” I will remind readers here of the murders of abortion doctors .

Whatever the Norwegian authorities find, they are going to be reluctant to release any information that might implicate Islamists and Muslims. It might rile up the immigrant “Norwegian” Muslims, provoke them to stage “spontaneous” demonstrations, and step up their spiraling rape spree of non-Muslim Norwegian women.

Norway police officials gave the gunman’s name as Anders Behring Breivik at a news conference Saturday morning. Norway’s national broadcaster, NRK, and other news outlets in the country also posted pictures of the blond and blue-eyed Norwegian.

“What we know is that he is right wing and he is Christian fundamentalist,” said Roger Andresen, a deputy police chief. “We have not been able to link him up to an anti-Islamic group.” He said that Breivik had not been arrested before.
But wait. Some funny business has occurred on Breivik’s Facebook page. Who has been altering it to better frame the “fall guy”? Go here for details and images.

The Washington Post not surprisingly contributes its nail to hammer into the coffin of “Islamaphobia.”

Norwegians trying to make sense of the bombing and shooting attacks here turn again and again to the one example that seems to fit: Oklahoma City.

Here, as there, a quick assumption that Muslims were at fault proved to be erroneous. Norwegians now know that a 32-year-old Christian, who railed against tolerance and diversity, is the principle and perhaps only suspect. A Norwegian newspaper reported that he had recently bought a large quantity of fertilizer, which can be used to make bombs — as Timothy McVeigh showed in 1995.
There will be a chorus of hammering by the MSM, and calls for “responsible” speech. Which is not the same thing as free speech.

Oh, yes, let us bring up Timothy McVeigh ad nauseum. Link him to Anders Breivik. And to Waco, the Branch Davidians and David Koresh. To Charles Manson. To the Symbionese Liberation Army. And to other conspiracy theory fruitcakes, who must also be “neo-Nazis.” Then very, very subtly point fingers at Adrian Morgan, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, Steven Emerson, and so many more individuals who have provided ample and irrefutable evidence that Wilmer and the liberal-left guy pointing a finger at him are both guilty.

Wilmer and his friends in the MSM and our Marxist-dominated academia and intelligentsia are not “fall-guys.” They are the guys. They are the punks.

And Islam? That ideological prescription for religious and political tyranny is best represented by Brigid O'Shaughnessy, the duplicitous, lying, victim-card-happy dame and Spade’s true nemesis who committed the original murder.

Anyone who has a problem with Islam being represented by a murderess, well, deal with it.

Crossposted at The Dougout

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

There was one - 1 - single policeman on the island. Trond Berntsen was there as a guard, and not formally there representing the police. He was not armed, and his ten year old son was there with him. Berntsen went straight at Breivik in order to take control, but was shot dead by Breivik.

This policeman was related to Mette-Marit, the Crown princesss, as her stepbrother.

Trencherbone said...

The Muslims and dhimmis will use this abominable crime to attempt to shut down all criticism of Islam by equating the Orwellian thoughtcrime of 'Islamophobia' with active support for 'right-wing' terrorism.

Since the subject of Islamic terrorism will remain deliberately muddied by leftwing moral equivalence for some time to come, we counterjihadists need to increase our emphasis on educating the public about all the other evil and destructive effects of Islam on our cultures, as described in this comprehensive list of counterjihadist resources.

D Charles QC said...

"But, if Breivik hated Muslims, why did he not attack Muslims, instead?"

Some will argue that Islam and Muslims are the excuse, extremists need a catalyst, the objective and true enemy is those that disagree or are an obstacle to power.

The argument begins to make more sense considering the extreme-right politics globally. The E-R in the US goes on about Islamists but the real target and hate is for the Left and the Obama Administration.

It is feasible that the Norway gunman's hate for Islam was the catalyst but the impedement in his view was the Left and the government that he considered as traitors.

Personally, this item is trying to white-wash. The guy was fed from the internet, particularly the self-proclaimed anti-jihad movement and considering how innacurate, un-controlled and full of hate - it inspired him rather than filled him with facts. Sure he was murderous, probably insane and would have committed something else, but the catalyst and notions are nevertheless there and some responsibility must be taken. Avoiding that, in itself, is not only an error but worse....

D Charles
Gibraltar

Anonymous said...

Excerpt from teh Nut Job

"Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

Doesn't sound real Fundamentalist to me.

Damien said...

That's odd, does someone have the exact same user name as me, because I don't remember posting that comment here.

midnight rider said...

Indeed, Damien (the REAL Damien). We have a poser, an imposter. A *gasp!* barrister with the same name as you but a generally far worse attitude who believes everyone in the counter-jihad should be sharing the blame for Oslo and Utoeya.

His full name is Damien Charles QC Barrister Gibraltar. He is very impressed with himself (bit of a self righteous toad) and less so with us. Meanwhile we are very impressed with ourselves (rightly so) and less so with him.

By the way, I received your email but haven't had a chance to go through it yet.

Damien said...

Midnight Rider,

Thanks, I didn't know that two people could have the same user name. That makes things very confusing.

Well, anyway, I'm glad to hear you got my email.

midnight rider said...

Well, in his latest rehash of blaming us for Norway he has now changed his suer name to Damien Charles QC. He left out the barrister, probably because he is ashamed to be associated wiht such a community, and Gibraltar, probably so he can hide his foolishness in anonymity.

He's been such a joy to ahave hanging around these last few days. Funny the first time we heard from him was right after Norway. . .

D Charles QC said...

Those that avoid the issues and would rather attempt to discredit the writer or the source is almost always a sign of admission to having no real point at all.

I worked out how to change the name only because there was another with that name first, which is a lot more respect and maturity than you have given.

Damien said...

Damien Charles QC,

I'm sorry if Midnight Rider hurt your feelings in someway. I don't think he intended to. He is normally a very nice person. I hardly ever remember him saying anything remotely rude. Please try not to be angry at him.

By the way, thanks for switching to a different user name. It makes things less confusing. Now we will be able to easily see who said what.

D Charles QC said...

Damien,

No problem in the name change, I had to ask my daughter (primary school teacher) if it was possible. You were first and I am new at this so I cannot claim to have had the name on the internet for long.

Perhaps it is my old age but I have neither the patience nor respect for childish behaviour and those that play games rather than be serious.

I followed a link to this because at times I make comments on Always On Watch's blog. Though we disagree on many things, she gives a solid argument, respects others' opinions and actually will discuss and debate the matter.

For me I want to try and understand why the American Right, in particular those that claim to be anti-jihadists think the way they do. I am anti-jihad and I have a special dislike for anti-integrationists but I take the matter in a totally different way. I avoid inacurate data, basic rumours and gossip, hate and links to any that do so. You may totally disagree with me but I think this is critical if the case is to be presented correctly.

Damien said...

Damien Charles QC,

Although I would consider myself to be a moderate right member of the American right, I can already see that you and me agree on some things. I do not like people who oppose racial equality. To me that's just ridiculous. There's no meaningful difference between two different people just because one is a black man and the other is a white man. Racism of any kind is inherently stupid.

The battle between Jihadist and the free world, is not between races. Its between Muslim fundamentalists and anyone who doesn't want to live under an Islamic theocracy.

As for Breivik, if he really wanted to help the anti Jihad movement, or fight cultural Marxism, he did it in the worst way possible. His actions were that of a terrorist. He murdered innocent people. I despise murderers, especially people who murder children. I don't have any respect, or sympathy for him. He's evil, and I hope he rots in jail for the rest of his life for what he did.