media coverage of the Oslo attacks. Numerous news outlets and commentators initially blamed the attack on Islamic militants. Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline titled “‘Al-Qaeda’ Massacre: Norway’s 9/11.” Here in the U.S., Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal also initially blamed jihadists, reporting that, quote, “Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms.”
But it was not just the Murdoch empire. On the Washington Post website, Jennifer Rubin wrote, quote, “This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists,” unquote. Once it was revealed that the alleged perpetrator was not a Muslim militant, but a right-wing, anti-Muslim Norwegian nationalist, the New York Times still cited experts as saying, “Even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks,”
Glenn Greenwald talking:
When someone goes on an indiscriminate shooting rampage aimed at teenagers, it’s horrific. And yet, at the same time, the United States and its allies have brought killing like this, violence like this, to numerous countries around the world that receives a tiny fraction of the attention that this attack received, a tiny—it prompts a tiny fraction of the interest in denouncing it and in declaring it to be evil. When we think that Muslims are responsible for violence aimed at Western nations, it receives a huge amount of attention in the American media, and yet when the United States brings violence on that level to Muslim countries, kills an equal number of civilians, dozens of people killed by drone attacks and the like, and tons of people killed that way over Afghanistan over the past decade, it barely registers. An attack like this, this level of death in Iraq, for example, or Afghanistan, would barely register on the media scale.
When it was widely assumed, based on basically nothing, that Muslims had been responsible for this attack and that a radical Muslim group likely perpetrated it, it was widely declared to be a “terrorist” attack. That was the word that was continuously used. And yet, when it became apparent that Muslims were not involved and that, in reality, it was a right-wing nationalist with extremely anti-Muslim, strident anti-Muslim bigotry as part of his worldview, the word “terrorism” almost completely disappeared from establishment media discourse. Instead, he began to be referred to as a “madman” or an “extremist.” And it really underscores, for me, the fact that this word “terrorism,” that plays such a central role in our political discourse and our law, really has no objective meaning. It’s come to mean nothing more than Muslims who engage in violence, especially when they’re Muslims whom the West dislikes.
Former Bush administration State Department official, Christian Whiton, who acknowledged the case in Norway wasn’t Islamic terrorism, but he quickly downplayed violent acts committed by those such as Breivik, saying it’s the first of its kind since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Whiton then attacked Norway for its approach to terrorism, claimed European countries are susceptible to terrorism because they’re, quote, “neutral in the war on terror.” He was interviewed on Fox.
If you combine a Bush terrorism official with Fox News, you’re going to get what you got there, which is too many factually false statements to even count.
One is the idea that Norway is neutral in the war on terror. This was part of the reaction, as well, when people thought that Muslims had been responsible for the attack, which is, why would Norway, such a peaceful, neutral country, possibly be targeted? And the reality is that Norway is part of the war in Afghanistan, and has been for many years. They have a contingent of 500 troops, have been involved in a variety of instances where civilians have been killed. They’re also heavily involved in the war in Libya, having dropped more sorties and—or participated in more sorties, dropped more bombs than even, according to the Norway Post, what they dropped during all of World War II. And so, the idea that they’re neutral is simply a myth. They’re actually engaged in active warfare in at least two different Muslim countries where civilians are being killed and bombs are being dropped.
But more to the point, I think, is this idea that Islamic terrorism is some kind of a unique problem in Europe. There are reports issued each year by the E.U. that count the number of terrorist attacks, both successfully executed and attempted but failed. And each year, for the past five years, the number of attacks perpetrated, in general, exceeds several hundred, 200 or 300, sometimes 400. The number that are perpetrated or attempted by, “Islamists,” as the report calls it, people driven by Islamic ideology, religion or political grievances, is minute, something like one out of 294 in 2009, zero out of several hundred in 2007. This is the statistic that the E.U. documents every year. There are terrorist attacks in Europe. Sometimes left-wing groups perpetrate them. Sometimes right-wing groups perpetrate them. Sometimes people with domestic grievances, that don’t really fit into the left-right spectrum, attempt them or perpetrate them. But the idea that Islamic terrorism is some sort of unique threat is completely belied by the E.U.’s own statistic. This idea of equating Muslims with terrorism is an incredibly propagandistic and deceitful term. The idea is to suggest that, as several of your guests were saying, that Islam is some sort of existential threat to Western civilization, to Europe and the like, and it’s propagated with this myth that terrorism is an Islamic problem. And that’s why the idea that the establishment media in the United States and in political circles equates terrorism, as a matter of definition, with violence by Muslims is so problematic, because it promotes this lie that terrorism is a function of Islamic ideology.
Friday, when the attack actually took place, there was quite substantial and intense interest in what had taken place. Everybody was talking about it. There were complaints that—on Friday, that CNN wasn’t running continuous coverage. But in general, there was a lot of media interest, because at the time people thought, based on what the New York Times and other media outlets had said, based on nothing, that this was the work of an Islamic—a radical Islamic group. And at the time, I wrote, when I wrote about the unfolding story, that if it turns out to be something other than an Islamic group that was responsible, especially if it turns out to be a right-wing nationalist who’s anti-Muslim in his views, that interest in this story was going to evaporate to virtual non-existence.
And what’s really amazing is, every time there’s an act of violence undertaken by someone who’s Muslim, the commentary across the spectrum links his Muslim religion or political beliefs to the violence and tries to draw meaning from it, broader meaning. And yet, the minute that it turned out that the perpetrator wasn’t Muslim, but instead was this right-wing figure, the exact opposite view arose, which is, “Oh, his views and associations aren’t relevant. It’s not fair to attribute or to blame people who share his views or who inspired him with these acts.” And it got depicted as being this sort of individual crazy person with no broader political meaning, and media interest disappeared. It’s exactly the opposite of how it’s treated when violence is undertaken by someone who’s Muslim.
– from democracynow.org