Norway Shootings

Jul 25th, 2011, in Featured, News, by

Indonesian non reactions to the killing spree by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway.

There has been little Indonesian reaction to the Norwegian massacre - the most searched for items on Detik's search engine remain mostly old favourites:

  1. SYAHRINI BUGIL
  2. sex
  3. artis bugil
  4. ari wibowo gerayangi pembantu
  5. adegan panas artis
  6. hot telanjang
  7. 081977391381
  8. HYUNDAI I10
  9. kark
  10. mayangsari

Apart from standard official statements; Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said

We are very shocked and dismayed by the incidents in Norway. We condemn the shooting and bombing that have killed civilians. We express deep condolences to the victims, their families, and the Norwegian government

The apparent fact that the killer was on an "anti Muslim crusade" has seemed to excite little interest within the country.


216 Comments on “Norway Shootings”

  1. avatar stevo says:

    Yes it can be equated.

    Either you believe in killing to protect your society (against the Muslims) or you do not. Simple.

    You cant have it both ways buddy.

    I was not “trolling” merely pointing out the double standard. You know it and the only thing your “not interested in”, is getting your arse handed to you on a plate.

    But feel free to convince us how those Muslim Goat herders are going to invade the USA…………… from a place most Americans could not find on a map.

    Ps: you might want to read the start of your post again, if you want to see “nonsense”

  2. avatar Arie Brand says:

    Oigal, you are nitpicking.

    The term commandos was used in the loose sense of a heavily armed special forces unit, which the SAS is – to explain my use of the term “stormtroopers”. Will you be arguing next that there is no such unit in the Australian army?

    Also, apologists for the Howard initiative might argue that international law is very ambiguous on these matters but that is not what the Norwegian government thought.

    Compare:

    On 26 August 2001 the Norwegian vessel MS Tampa was requested by the Australian Search and Rescue Authority to proceed to and assist a vessel in distress. An Australian aircraft guided MS Tampa to the vessel in distress. The Australian aircraft which directed the operation used the call sign “Coastwatch 583”. Both the Australian Search and Rescue Authority and the Norwegian vessel acted in accordance with their obligations under international law. The Norwegian vessel participated at an Australian request in an Australian led search and rescue operation conducted in accordance with article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is ratified by both Australia and Norway.
    In the prevailing circumstances the rescue responsibilities of Australia under international law continue to exist. These responsibilities clearly include an obligation to allow the persons rescued into the Australian Territory of Christmas Island, which is the nearest harbour. Such a responsibility also follows from generally accepted international standards of humanity.

    Furthermore, it is Norway’s position that the request from the Australian Search and Rescue Authority for assistance from the Norwegian vessel in an Australian led search and rescue operation carries with it an obligation to allow the persons rescued into Australian territory.

    As a result of the Australian refusal to grant the Norwegian vessel access to Australian harbour, and the fact that Australian authorities were unable to get humanitarian and medical assistance to the ship, the Master on 29 August declared a distress situation which could only be solved by approaching the closest shore to find shelter so that medical assistance can be secured. This decision by the Master is fully consistent with international law. Australia has a clear international obligation to receive the vessel and to render assistance under the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. Norway supports the decision by the Master.

    Norway has urged and urges again Australia to comply with its obligations under international law to grant MS Tampa access to Australian harbour without further delay and to allow the persons rescued into Australian territory.

    I will not buy into this any further.

  3. avatar Oigal says:

    You don’t have to buy into it, you are just plain wrong.. SAS and Commando’s are two totally different creatures with different command structures, organizations and roles. They don’t even operate anything like the same. Secondly, in a traditional sense they are not heavily armed at all in fact that would defeat the purpose of flexibility, movement and logistics. If you want heavily armed look for Calvary Regiments etc or even Infantry Battalions.

    apologists for the Howard initiative might argue that international law is very ambiguous on these matters

    Sigh….Did you even read the link? I hardly think a formal legal opinion from NZ would qualify as an apologist for Howard.

    Let’s see what else…Mmm Medical aid was provided both on ship and on shore, AND..blow it read the link or forget it…

    As for other other post a mish mash of abject trolling and some repugnant nonsense.. Frankly boring and I can’t be bothered…(Although I do like its Obama’s war now…that’s just plain funny..

    Sorry Stevo, your opinions aren’t worth my time…have fun

  4. avatar stevo says:

    Although I do like its Obama’s war now…that’s just plain funny..

    Hilarious……….. but who said that?

    Your backed into a corner and have nothing, but your right it is fun, watching you squirm away from the conclusions of your own logic.

  5. avatar stevo says:

    I see the ever compassionate AB does care about Afghan people.

    He is of course correct. Australia should have taken in the illegal immigrants from their neighboring country of……Afghanistan !!! Oh wait …..

    The issue here is not one of maritime law or any thing like it. The issue relates directly to the topic of this tread.

    Why is it that Aussie (or Norway) tax payers should foot the bill of illegal immigrants and any other people (non European) that turn up on their door step.

    Well the answer is simple, they should not.

  6. avatar Arie Brand says:

    Why is it that Aussie (or Norway) tax payers should foot the bill of illegal immigrants and any other people (non European) that turn up on their door step.

    Stevo, I have better things to do than argiung this with you as well. Merely this: the Tampa case was, in a narrow sense, a matter of maritime law. However, in a broader sense, relevant to all such cases, we were dealing here with obligations issuing, inter alia, from the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1958 Australian Migration Act.

    Of unauthorised arrivals it cannot be known beforehand whether they are genuine refugees or not.. This can only be established when their case is vetted. So the term ‘illegal migrants” is incorrect. The proper term is “asylum seekers”.

    The majority of people brought by the Tampa turned out to be genuine refugees.

    Cp this.

    Media use of ‘Illegal’ for asylum seekers and refugees: Guide to making complaints

    The media and politicians often use the term ‘illegal’ to refer to asylum seekers and refugees. This term is incorrect and only cheapens the debate around refugee and migration issues. Find out what you can do to stop the rampant use of the term.
    Why is it wrong

    • The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

    • The UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) stipulates that even if unauthorised entry is illegal according to domestic law (which in Australia it’s not) authorities should not discriminate against and have an obligation to process people that are seeking asylum.

    • It is not illegal under any Australian domestic law, including the Migration Act 1958 which recognises entry without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum. There simply is no such crime.

    • The Immigration Minister Senator Chris Evans last year acknowledged this by ordering that the term ‘unauthorised arrivals’ and ‘suspected illegal entry vessels’ be replaced with ‘irregular maritime arrivals’ in all official government documents. The Immigration Department said the new term was less punitive.

    • To use the term illegal when referring to asylum seekers or refugees, is to accuse them of a crime they have not committed, and indeed does not exist. This is a clear breach of journalistic ethics.

    Press Council rules

    The Australian Press Council has a guideline and has made two rulings regarding the term ‘illegal’ for refugees and asylum seekers:
    1.
    2. 3.
    Guideline No. 262 (2004) states: The Australian Press Council has received complaints about the terminology that is applied, and ought to be applied, to those arriving in Australia who do not have normal immigrant credentials. Technically in Commonwealth immigration legislation they are referred to as ‘unlawful non-citizens’. However, they are often referred to as ‘illegal immigrants’, or even ‘illegals’.

    The problem with the use of terms such as ‘illegal refugee’ and ‘illegal asylum seeker’ is that they are often inaccurate and may be derogatory. The Council cautions the press to be careful in the use of such unqualified terms in reports and headlines”.

    Adjudication No. 1430 (31 July 2009) states: The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint brought by an advocacy group, A Just Australia, against The Australian about some of the language used in four articles and an editorial on boat arrivals published in April 2009 Adjudication No. 1242 (June 2004) states: The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint brought by Mira Wroblewski and others against The Sydney Morning Herald concerning the terminology used in a headline to describe people without the requisite migration documents or authority, who arrive seeking asylum in Australia.

    So under Australian and international law and professional media industry guidelines the term ‘illegal’ should not be applied to refugees or asylum seekers

  7. avatar Oigal says:

    Sorry guys, as you may have noticed I have mixed your posts up in my responses.Still silly is silly. In the the meantime…..Stevo if you want you to join the ignorants and rant about those filthy illegal immigrants until you start ranting about the Illegal British immigrants that arrive by plane then you are just plain racist..be honest about it..they outnumber boat people 3 to one.

    Ari, if you want to argue the other side, do some basic research. To call an Australian Soldier a storm trooper is the height of arrogance considering your mobs record of treachery and collaboration.

  8. avatar Oigal says:

    Still as they used to say at the RSL what’s the the definition of Dutchman = A German with his guts kicked in…

  9. avatar Odinius says:

    The problem here is a double standard of blame.

    People on the political right have been adamant that, when a small numbers of Muslims plot to carry out attacks against non-Muslim (or, as often, other Muslim) civilians, one should blame Islam, and blame Muslims collectively.

    Now that the terrorist is a white, self-avowed “Christian conservative” who did violence to, in his twisted mind, “save” Western civilization from the “Muslim hordes,” we’re expected by some to treat this as an act of individual psychopathia–or worse, as a regrettably over the top but really understandable act of frustration with…wait for it…the “Muslim hordes.” You can read the inverse of this in several popular media outlets in Indonesia.

    What a crock of ****.

    Whether a twisted individual or group commits mass murder for proper noun A or proper noun B makes no difference; it’s the hate and decision to act on that hate that matters. The guilt falls on those who commit the act, and to a lesser but still deeply significant degree, on those who make excuses for them, give them political cover and make their hateful ideas “respectable.” This is just as true in Indonesia as it is in Europe, and vice versa.

    It’s high time people realized that there’s really no difference between Breivik and someone like Imam Samudra, aside from an accident of birth.

  10. avatar Lairedion says:

    Breivik is a Christian terrorist because all Christians are sinners and as such capable of executing the most heinous crimes one can ever imagine.

  11. avatar ET says:

    Arie Brand

    He is asking Wilders to acknowledge that he cannot wildly, like a political adolescent, make statements that, given the presence of other political adolescents, may have very undesirable consequences. It is not enough for Wilders to state now that he wants to operate via the ballot box after having suggested, in so many ways, that the normal political process no longer works in this case – that, in Spruyt’s words, “it is five to twelve”.

    Hasn’t Obama used the same words ‘It’s five to twelve’ in relation to the debt situation of the US? If some lunatic interprets these words as an exhortation to go on a killing spree and starts bombing bank buildings must he (Obama) also be held accountable for provoking “undesirable consequences”? Is free speech only allowed if it is packed in ‘politically correct’ formulations that have become void of any meaning?

  12. avatar ET says:

    Odinius

    People on the political right have been adamant that, when a small numbers of Muslims plot to carry out attacks against non-Muslim (or, as often, other Muslim) civilians, one should blame Islam, and blame Muslims collectively.

    Now that the terrorist is a white, self-avowed “Christian conservative” who did violence to, in his twisted mind, “save” Western civilization from the “Muslim hordes,” we’re expected by some to treat this as an act of individual psychopathia–or worse, as a regrettably over the top but really understandable act of frustration with…wait for it…the “Muslim hordes.”

    Maybe it’s time you start looking at the numbers and the motivations which underlie the attacks. How many of your ‘Christian conservatives’ have committed terrorist attacks or suicide bombings shouting ‘God is great’? Can you quote Christian scripture that exhorts its followers to kill unbelievers and apostates? Or has the Christian adage “Love thy enemy like you love yourself” suddenly got a hidden agenda?
    Given the lack of motivational factors in Christian teachings that incite to violent acts and the profusion of such factors in Islamic doctrine, is it so surprising that when a self-avowed so-called ‘Christian conservative’ goes beserk he is considered a psychopath and that the hundreds of terrorist atrocities committed in the name of Islam, not in the least in Islamic countries themselves, are tarred with the brush of ‘Muslim hordes’?

  13. avatar Odinius says:

    Thanks for making this easy, ET.

    We’ve already had numerous acts of Christian terrorism in the US. Oklahoma City? Oh, just the second worst terrorist attack in American history. Its plotters were zealots inspired by the Turner Diaries, an extremist tract not unlike Sayd Qutb’s writings in most fundamental ways. How about the KKK? Oh, only the biggest and deadliest terrorist organization in American history. Did I mention they were avowed “Christian conservatives?”

    We have numerous militias, white supremacist groups and others possessing “Christian separatist” ideologies, which–in a way that should be familiar to Islamic extremists–seek the total separation of Christian from non-Christian, white from non-white and preach the destruction of “heathen” secular governments that sustain minority rights.

    …oh, and if you really want to cherry-pick uncontextualized quotations from ancient holy books for a “gotcha” moment, you can pick large tracts of the Old Testament, which are also scripture to Christians. The Books of Numbers and Joshua are good places to start. Numbers 31, I’d even suggest.

    Of course, most Christians contextualize these writings historically, and in light of the rest of the Bible. Extremists don’t. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it. Similarly, most Christians would disavow this kind of thing, and reject the notion that they bear collective guilt for the acts of extremists who purport act in their name. They are entirely correct.

  14. avatar stevo says:

    Whether a twisted individual or group commits mass murder for proper noun A or proper noun B makes no difference; it’s the hate and decision to act on that hate that matters.

    Exactly Odinius, its what I am saying. I bet in a more confronting way !

  15. avatar stevo says:

    Arie Brand,

    Your legal argument is, probably, reasonably sound.

    However……………

    The intent of those provisions was not to allow people to just turn up in any country they choose and expect to be supported by the locals.

    (Try that in most most non European countries and see what happens to you and see how far quoting international law get you. )

    Look at where Afghanistan is on a map, then look where the Aussie battlers live down under. Is that really the only place they could find for ‘refuge’ ?

    By-the-way AB, Afghanistan is land locked, they turned up in a boat !

    See the problem now AB ?

  16. avatar Odinius says:

    Maybe, Stevo. I think maybe you’re being a little unfair to Oigal though…as far as I can tell, he’s just saying that internationally mandated and limited wars are different from unilateral campaigns of aggression…by virtue of that mandate.

    For me, I see no difference between some nutter twisting Christianity into an excuse for mayhem and another twisting Islam into the same. Both religions, and all others, have their passages exhorting peace and others calling for or apologizing for war and brutality. So do virtually all secular ideologies. It’s clearly a human deficiency we all share.

  17. avatar ET says:

    Odinius

    Nice try to divert the attention from what I was actually saying. I was referring to the overwhelming numbers of terrorist attacks by Islamist fundamentalist groups in the present time that has caused people to immediately associate these attacks with the ideology they represent, while those committed by any other side – like the one in Norway – can hardly be considered daily events to be automatically linked to the prevailing native culture rooted in Christianity. Hence the reaction of unbelief and rejection by blaming it on a supposed psychopatic disorder.
    No one denies the existence of fundamentalist Christian groups but if one puts their exploits on a balance with those committed by Islamist fundamentalists it won’t be hard to see to which side it will tip over. Maybe a body count will convince you.
    However the eagerness with which leftwing elements in the media have hijacked the tragedy and use it as a below-the-belt attack on conservative forces that strive with democratic means to maintain and defend their traditional values and lifestyle, is downright stunning. For cultural marxists this tragedy must have come as a gift from heaven.

    Your mentioning of the KKK in the present context as a deadly terrorist threat seems a bit over the top. Fortunately this pathetic phenomenon has largely been reduced to a folkloristic parade which, just like the Hells Angels, mainly serves to overcome the doldrums in medialand.

    You are also wrong in contending that the Old Testament is scripture to all Christians, at least not for those of the Catholic denomination. The Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament and I can still remember the time when the “Bible’ (i.e. the Old Testament) featured on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

    And as for cherry-picking uncontextualized quotations from ‘holy’ books, does it matter whether they are textualized or not, except for academic curiosity? They are there and they are used in whatever way they are deemed fit, be it by navel-gazing imams or by jihadis on their way to paradise.

  18. avatar Odinius says:

    Sorry, ET, but that’s a cop-out. There is a very long history of Christian-inspired terrorism and violence. Its proponents cherry-pick certain parts of Christianity, and willfully ignore the other stuff. That’s exactly what Islamic terrorists do.

    The thing that really gets me is when some people come along and say “because some nutbags makes claims to speak for group x, it means everyone associated with group x are collectively guilty by association with said nutbags”…oh, but this really only applies to “them” because by cherry-picking and selectively observing not only “their” history but “ours” as well, these gallant people can keep believing the fiction of “group y is superior to group x.” You know, the one they’ve invested so much energy into. That’s bullsh**. All this groupist crap is bullsh**.

    Looking around the world, and at modern history, the fact that all religions can be and are used to justify either peace or violence–depending wholly on the individuals involved–is so obvious it’s literally painful. Individuals and organizations that commit violent acts, whether fired up by religion or something else, are guilty of their crimes, and those that enable them are implicated. Those that do not, are not.

  19. avatar berlian biru says:

    The shoe bomber, as has been pointed out, was certainly not a “lone nutter” but part of a major terrorist conspiracy that spanned continents.

    However contrary to assertions made, there are many examples of “lone nutters” who have acted out of Islamic motivation and actually the mainstream media has usually gone out of its way to downplay the Islamic angle and overplay the mental instability side of the story. This phenomenon has been widely discussed in blogs where the term “sudden jihad syndrome” has been coined to describe it.

    I think most notably of the Fort Hood shootings where a Muslim soldier in the US went on a shooting spree, the media immediately rushed to explain that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome even though he had never actually been in combat. There are many others; the Islamist angle to the DC sniper case was never examined in the media even though the shooters explicitly described themselves as soldiers of Islam and glorified the September 11 attacks. There was a shooting at LAX airport in July 2002 where several El Al employees where killed, again the shooter was a Muslim and again he was dismissed simply as a madman. A shooting on Valentine’s Day 1995 in the Empire State Building was covered as if it was just another lone nutter when in fact it was carried out by an Islamist preacher expressly on behalf of the people of Palestine. There are many other examples.

    As for describing Timothy McVeigh as a “Christian terrorist”, this is nonsense on stilts, he was a right wing terrorist who may or may not have believed in Christ but his belief or otherwise in God was entirely irrelevant, trust me the Turner Diaries is not a Christian tract and McVeigh was not trying to create a Christian state.

  20. avatar Oigal says:

    The debate has now moved to the shock-jock introduction of “Not all Muslims are Terrorists but all Terrorists are Muslims.” This of course is actually reassuring to those marginalized in Western Society by virtue an economy and society changing to fast for them to adapt and provides that ever so convenient scapegoat for all their woes. Fear is a pretty handy tool for a lazy politician looking for re-election. The fact is your terrorist is just a psychopath and to suggest the some how christians are operating from a somewhat higher plane is not really valid.

    The suggestion that Christians are less prone to violence ignores history. If anything, is it secularism, science and education that has provided the laws in the majority of previously “christian” countries that curb the excesses of religious mandated barbarity, you don’t have to go back very far in Western History to when the Christian Religion was just as intolerant, violent and brutal as the extreme Islamism is today.

    You only need to look at Serbia to see how fast Christian brutality emerges when those secular controls break down. The primacy of science and education in the developed nations over the essentially hate driven religious dogma was hard won and its role if providing a safe, tolerant society is one of the reasons we should all very concerned at the rise of the christian right in so many countries today (It’s just plain scary to think US Presidential front runners include both creationists and the intelligent design wackos).

    Finally, to bring it more local. Does anyone really think Indonesia has more terrorists (?) or potentials than Australia per head of population? Using the “all terrorists are Muslim” model that must be so. However I would venture that the nutter to rational ratio is about the same, lets say 1% of the population or around 300,000 people. Fortunately thanks to a reasonably adept policing, the mostly likely of these are pretty much under full time watch. If we apply the same model to Indonesia, we are looking at ten times that figure with a policing agencies and educational (content as opposed to volume) standards which are ..well.

    So is Indonesia more prone to violence because of Islam? Or is it just a tad more complicated that the Shock Jock and bar shrill would have us think.

  21. avatar berlian biru says:

    The debate has now moved to the shock-jock introduction

    You may have moved it but the rest of us are continuing to debate the point at issue.

    If anything, is it secularism, science and education that has provided the laws in the majority of previously “christian” countries that curb the excesses of religious mandated barbarity,

    I think you will find that the greatest and most horrific excesses of barbarism in the history of humankind occurred in the twentieth century. They were carried out by people who described themselves as secular and often using the best methods science could produce. These atrocities which caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people were carried out by Nazis and Communists in Europe and Asia and their perpetrators specifically rejected the message of Jesus Christ and all that he stood for.

    Radical secularists haven’t got too much to be proud of in their shameful record of murder, terror and misery.

  22. avatar David says:

    Was this Breivik person – if we’re still talking about him and I’m not sure – a Christian though? I mean a churchgoer, I know he called himself a ‘cultural Christian’ or something like that but that usually means an agnostic or atheist who admires or likes Christianity, but not an actual believing Christian.

  23. avatar Oigal says:

    Look at where Afghanistan is on a map, then look where the Aussie battlers live down under. Is that really the only place they could find for ‘refuge’ ?

    By-the-way AB, Afghanistan is land locked, they turned up in a boat !

    Eeer and so did the Refugees from Europe after World War 2, who were instrumental in creating the nation Australia is today. So what is your real point? It can’t be that there closer countries, so it must be that they are usually Muslims. Let’s call a spade a muslim here and acknowledge the inherent racism that drives this debate.

    The nonsense and ignorance in regards to the so called boat people is equally bizarre. Firstly of all the undocumented, asylum seekers and refugees 95% enter the country by commercial aircraft. Of course, a significant majority of those are visa jumping Brits and Europeans so I guess they don’t count nor for some reason are they placed into detention.

    Never the less, at the current rate it would take another ten years even if all boat people were granted refugee status to get a good size football crowd. So lets put this regressive racism into a real number perspective. About 6,ooo boat people arrived last year, compared to 300,000 ‘legal’ immigrants and 50,000 illegal immigrants over staying their tourist and work visas. Also keep in mind the average “legal” wait time for someone in a Pakistan Refugee camp is 21 years! Do you blame someone for hoping onto a boat? I would be on the first boat I could buy passage.

    Curiously the greatest most staunch defenders of democracy in Australia were (are) those refugees from Communist Countries as they had experienced the evils of those regimes. Other than ignorant racism (I use racism although I guess the term should be religious tribalism) why would we not expect the same from someone who has experienced the evils of an oppressive theocracy.

    I personally don’t deny Australia should demand more from its immigrant and refugee applicants in the form of acknowledging and accepting the rule of law with penalties to suit. Nor should new immigrants be allowed to propagate the hate speech or calls to arms, then again that should equally apply to those shrills on the other side of the fence. However this remains a law and order issue not a reason to place people in detention for longer than rapists or murderers.

    Frankly, Australia has to its shame allowed the shrills and idiots to overtake what should be a fairly simple humanitarian obligation that in the long run would be to Australia’s benefit.

    Oh and for those whining about the Afghanistan immigrants, a little history would tell you that Afghans have also been a major part of Australian culture and before the shrills started we honoured for such (The Ghan anyone?)

  24. avatar Oigal says:

    BB, I will pass on the secular vs religion for now as it is an issue I play with at lenght with Patrick.

    However, the broader point is contrary to your assertion, the media actually falls all over itself to lay any atrocity as ongoing Islamic plot. Your Fort Hood example is a classic example, far from portraying it as lone nutter, how long was it before the nutter’s religion was pasted on every news bulletin? Is there anyone in the world who does not know he is a Muslim? Hardly a cover up in any book.

    To get back to the thread at hand, can anyone really deny the immediate default position of 99% of commentators “its the Muslims” . As for if the nutter was Christian, don’t think church attendance is the key, in his mind he was a modern day Templar Knight fighting the evil Muslims on behalf of Christianity. Therefore surely he wears the cloak as a christian terrorist at least as much as your Fort Hood man qualifies as a Muslim Terrorist?

  25. avatar Oigal says:

    Oh I thought this was an interesting take by a Muslim in Australia by the name of Shakira Hussein

    I spent a sleepless night trying to process my own reaction to the news from Oslo before writing my piece on Monday. As I said, I wait to learn the identity of the perpetrators of terrorist slaughter. I brace myself for the backlash if I should hear a Muslim name.

    But I do not breathe easy — let alone cackle, or gloat, or wet myself with glee — when I learn that this time, there is no trigger for backlash. The aftermath of the attacks in Norway is as complex, as fraught, as difficult, as the aftermath to 9/11, to the bombings in Bali, to 7/7 or any of the other horrors of the past decade. Bolt may not believe it, but the attacks in Norway fit most conventional definitions of terrorism. And I, along with my loved ones, Muslim and non-Muslim, are numbered among those who are intended to feel terrified.

    Rage is an effective emotion for allaying the sensation of terror. And Bolt is doing his best to provide us with the anecdote of rage, with his rants about how “a true Christian does not live out his faith by shooting dozens of young people on an island”, while a true Muslim — well, a true Muslim endorses the murder of innocents.

    Never mind the Muslims — including me and many, many others at far greater risk — who have spent the past decade and more saying that a true Muslim does not live out his (or her) faith through murder.

    I do not wish to allay my terror with the balm of either physical or rhetorical rage, even when an incitement to rage is presented to me on a silver platter. Scorn — I will allow myself scorn. Even for those who are beneath contempt, unworthy of scorn.
    And I will not flinch from the moral responsibilities of belonging to the same religious affiliation of those who commit terror. I considered other possible perpetrators for 9/11, and for the bombing in Oslo — as Bolt and others should have done, and did not.

    Says it far better than I ever could. We continually expect nay all to often demand that all Muslims take some sort of grotesque ownership of every outrage perpetrated in the name of Islam and perhaps that is correct. But my how we squirm and rage when we are forced to even consider that we may have to do the same.

  26. avatar Lairedion says:

    Secularism is a system separating state, government, institutions from religion and/or religious beliefs. It is NOT an ideology so one cannot argue secularism itself is guilty of murder genocide and other atrocities.

    The Nazis and Commies were first and foremost they were fanatical followers of a given ideology and actively imposing their beliefs on others in totalitarian societies. The fact that these ideologies are non-religious or secular if you want, is irrelevant.

    Actually not that much different to what Christians and Muslims always have done with imposing their ideologies with divine characteristics.

    “a true Christian does not live out his faith by shooting dozens of young people on an island”

    As I said before Christians are sinners so yes Christians, among many other fanatical followers of various ideologies, will continue to carry out such atrocities.

  27. avatar berlian biru says:

    Your Fort Hood example is a classic example, far from portraying it as lone nutter, how long was it before the nutter’s religion was pasted on every news bulletin? Is there anyone in the world who does not know he is a Muslim? Hardly a cover up in any book.

    You must follow different news sources than I do. The mainstream media, by that I mean the alphabet soup, news agencies; BBC, CNN, NBC etc ran with the traumatised vet theme and tried to play down his religion (as did the US Department of Defense).

    The reason everyone knows he is a Muslim is because his religion was in fact the key element in the shooting rampage. The same cannot be said for the Norwegian atrocity or the Oklahoma City bombing.

    You appear to be the mirror image of those you criticise, trying somehow to pretend that Islam is not a factor in a huge majority of terrorist outrages.
    Try to understand that the reason people assume there is a Muslim element behind most terrorism is for the rather blindingly obvious fact that unfortunately nine times out of ten these days there is a Muslim element behind most – not all, most – terrorist incidents.

    Not too complicated for you to work that one out for yourself I would have thought.

  28. avatar berlian biru says:

    On Fort Hood coverage let’s have a look at two examples from mainstream media, the BBC and the New York Times, both organisations that would be regarded as standard setters in news coverage.

    The BBC’s two most recent stories on the incident are here;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14052358

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12708152

    In the first story the BBC first mentions the traumatised vet meme and mentions in passing in the end that he was a “devout Muslim”. In the second story the traumatised vet meme is mentioned again but the words “Islam” or “Muslim” do not feature. This despite the fact that the man’s religion and not combat stress (he’d never seen combat) is almost certainly the key factor in the shooting rampage.

    The New York Times has many articles but my favourite is this

    http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/11/09/us/1247465607756/in-war-there-are-no-unwounded-soldiers.html?ref=forthoodtexas

    Thoroughly amazing, a four minute discussion about the shooting and no mention is made whatsoever about Major Hasan’s religious motivation but instead a thinly veiled anti-war piece talking about combat stress.

    Yup, real lynch mob reporting there

  29. avatar Oigal says:

    The reason everyone knows he is a Muslim is because his religion was in fact the key element in the shooting rampage.

    This was obviously transmitted by global mind probe as I said before there would hardly be a person on the planet who does not Know his religion and if it was not the media..then..

    trying somehow to pretend that Islam is not a factor in a huge majority of terrorist outrages.

    Hmmm I don’t think I ever said that, but its simplistic in the extreme to pretend its the only factor, or even in many cases the dominating factor. Some quick examples, are the bombings in Iraq, political, military or religion based or a complex combination. The shootings in India a Islamic outrage or a complex bloody dance between two dysfunctional nation states?

    I should thank you, you actually make my point for me. Here we have a nutter in no way connected to Islam and the discussion is quite reasonably when is a terrorist a christian terrorist or what label should he have if any? The man claims to be a modern day Templar etc etc, so christian terrorist seems fair to me. A reasonable rebuttal would be that’s just the rantings of a lunatic but what do we get

    Try to understand that the reason people assume there is a Muslim element behind most terrorism is for the rather blindingly obvious fact that unfortunately nine times out of ten these days there is a Muslim element behind most – not all, most – terrorist incidents.

    So somehow or other, its like rerun of the “Who’s on third routine” no matter what happens its …ziinggg…back to the Islamic Terrorists again.

  30. avatar berlian biru says:

    “So somehow or other, its like rerun of the “Who’s on third routine” no matter what happens its …ziinggg…back to the Islamic Terrorists again.”

    If you have difficulty in understanding plain English I don’t know what more I can say to you mate.

Comment on “Norway Shootings”.

RSS
RSS feed
Email

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-18
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact