I have done some INTENSIVE research on this Norway issue and it's pretty interesting. I'm writing an Opinion Editorial which should be published on the CAIR website soon so I'll post that hear shortly. But before that, here's some basics.
Breivik killed many youth campers in a political camp in Norway (The Labour party) which was on an island. He said it's because he's anti this party, because they're not doing anything about this major "Islamization of Europe" problem. This guy's views have been influenced by people like RObert Spencer and Pamela Gellar (which is just scary, because these people influence a LOT of people), and he's also been parts of groups like Nordisk and some Swedish political party groups in which they discuss how Muslims suck or something like that. Anyway, so he had this 1,500 page manifesto regarding how he was Christian and part of the Christian mission was to stop Muslims or something. So when he did these acts, he committed them not only as a "political extremist" but also a "religious extremist." Oh hey that sounds familiar! "religious extremist" is exactly what the Osama bin Laden types are. Anyway, he did this mainly due to his hatred towards Muslims and Islam coming into Europe and specifically Sweden. When asked why he didn't kill Muslims, he said it was because he didn't want to raise sympathy for them. Had he killed Muslims (there's 100,000 Muslims in Norway, or 2% of the population), people would take the side of the Muslims and this wouldn't help his case. I guess that sort of makes sense, but why would you kill other Norwegians? I guess them being part of the other party made them just as "evil" to him or something.
Anyway, the reaction from the world is quite interesting. Foremost, there was hardly 1 week's worth of coverage in the major Chicago newspapers. Up until it was confirmed that Breivik was the terrorist, media agencies were calling this the act of "Muslim extremists," "Jihadists," etc. Even now, a couple of famous political blogs still state this. Another interesting reaction: Glenn Beck said that Breivik's actions were "right." Why is it okay for him to say that this action was right on mainstream television? I think there's double standard between "Islamic terrorism" and this dude's "Islamophobia-inspired-terrorism." Bill O'Reilly had a temper tantrum over why this dude was called "Christian." Maybe because his 1,500 pages of manifesto-ness said he was? He was Christian according to his own standards, I mean. Just like these psycho Muslim extremists are Muslim according to their own standards. Most Christians would say Breivik is not Christian, despite his own belief that he is, just as most Muslims would say Osama bin Laden is not a true Muslim. Same shit. O'Reilly went on to say that the reason him being labeled as Christian is wrong is because then people will start assuming that many Christians are like this, instead of the "crazy jihadists." Excuuuuuuse me?! I think he's missing the point. Just like all Muslims aren't "crazy jihadists," obviously all Christians are not like Breivik. #doublestandards.
Anyways, more coming. and the next post will be way more professional than this rambling session of useless knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment