« The Best Photographs of the Week
Time To End The Debt Ceiling Game. Time For Obama To Invoke The 14th Amendment »
The Attack in Norway and Jumping the Gun on Blaming Islamists
Jul 23rd, 2011 | 14 responses
James Fallows sounds upset that bloggers jumped the gun in speculating that al-Qaeda or Islamic terrorists were responsible for the attack in Oslo yesterday:
No, this is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too tedious to reserve judgment about horrifying events rather than instantly turning them into talking points for pre-conceived views. On a per capita basis, Norway lost twice as many people today as the U.S. did on 9/11. Imagine the political repercussions through the world if double-9/11-scale damage had been done by an al-Qaeda offshoot. The unbelievably sweeping damage is there in either case. For an example of a sober, dignified, shocked but resolute and democratic way to respond to national tragedy, see the moving and impressive speech by Norway’s Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, here. (Thanks to M. Fullilove.)
Seven Seventeen hours after the Post item went up, six sixteen hours after its claims were shown to be false and hysterical, it’s still there, with no correction or apology.
I don’t recall Fallows making a big deal out of the left’s snort-worthy attempt to capitalize politically on the Giffords’ shooting in Phoenix last January. Before the smell of gunpowder had dissipated, liberal blogs and commentators were blaming the tea party, Sarah Palin, a months-old “bullseye” map of targeted congressional districts, and “hate speech” by righties. This despite the fact that Jarold Loughner, the shooter, had a mind so broken and bereft of reason and logic that the idea he had any motivation for shooting the congresswoman beyond his own warped, paranoid imaginings was silly. And yet, the same “jumping the gun” on culprits and accessories to the crime occurred then as it happened yesterday in Oslo with the immediate blame for the attack being pinned on Islamists.
The same sort of nonsense occurred when Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll was released from her captivity in Iraq and right wing blogs piled on her statements that seemed to be solicitous of her captors. Without waiting to hear from Carroll about why she made those statements (she was coerced), several bloggers put out information hinting that she was a closet al-Qaeda sympathizer. At the time, I wrote:
In people’s haste to be first, or different, or just plain ornery and contrary (all the better to get links and readers) a culture of “shoot first and ask questions later” has arisen in the blogosphere that quite frankly, is proving every bad thing that the MSM has been saying about blogs from the beginning. Many of us – including myself – have been guilty in the past of hitting that “Publish” button when perhaps it would have been prudent and proper to take a beat or two to think about what we just wrote and the impact it might have beyond the small little world we inhabit in this corner of Blogland.
I wrote that in 2006 and, if anything, it has gotten worse on both sides of the political divide. On the left, blaming the right for the Giffords shooting had been proceeded by a similar exercise in stupidity when a shooter, hell bent on committing “police suicide,” murdered three policemen in Pittsburgh. Before anything was known about the perpetrator, the left was screaming about the telling news that a book by Sean Hannity had been found in the murderer’s home. Despite evidence that emerged later that his motivation was to draw down on police and die at their hands, no “apologies” as Mr. Fallows demands from Jen Rubin were forthcoming.
James Joyner doesn’t necessarily give those who jumped on the Muslim terrorist bandwagon a pass, but his explanation is logical:
When tragedies are unfolding and information is scant, however, the incentives are to get as much information out as fast as possible, even if much of it is inaccurate. And as much air time as possible is filled with “experts,” whose expertise is often tangentially related to the crisis and are hamstrung by the need for rampant speculation, to do instant analysis. The inevitable result is that they will fall into their comfort zone, analyzing by drawing analogies with past events that have some similarities.
We’ve now shifted from “this is Norway’s 9/11? to “this is Norway’s Oklahoma City.”
The investigators still don’t have complete information about this monstrous crime and they’re almost certainly not sharing everything they have with us. But, if the Oklahoma City analogy holds up, it would be fitting in one respect: The instant analysis in Oklahoma City was that it was the work of Islamist groups. While a natural assumption two years after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, it was completely wrong.
We can’t all write for The Atlantic and wallow in the luxury of being able to sit back, wait for events to sort themselves out, and then pontificate on how someone else who is paid to post and comment on breaking news got it wrong. The immediate speculation that it was a Muslim terrorist attack wasn’t widespread; it was universal. First reports of a Muslim terrorist group (that we now know doesn’t exist) claimed responsibility for the attack contributed to the notion that it was al-Qaeda or one of their murderous imitators who carried out the attack.
But was the promotion of a political agenda at work as well? As with previous instances where bloggers jumped the gun on assigning motives or intent to a fast breaking news story, trying to be first in order to garner links and readers took second place to advancing a particular political point of view. Speculation was unavoidable. But how much did our prejudices and pre-conceived ideas about terrorism lead most of us to get it so wrong?
It is the nature of the beast, as Joyner says. But perhaps the beast has learned a small lesson and next time, will reign in the natural desire to promote a particular agenda at the expense of the facts.
14 Responses to “The Attack in Norway and Jumping the Gun on Blaming Islamists”
There’s nothing to be surprised about, and obviously not ashamed of about assuming initially it was the work of Islamic terrorists, particularly when they have attacked before in Europe.
(It’s also no surprise someone on the ugly Euro far Right did this.)
“There’s nothing to be surprised about, and obviously not ashamed of about assuming initially it was the work of Islamic terrorists, particularly when they have attacked before in Europe.”
Well, actually, out of all the terrorist attacks in Europe in previous years, those carried out by Islamists were a minor percentage. Mostly, it was right-wingers followed by left-wingers.
So you overestimate the danger posed by Islam. But that’s natural for you.
What an astonishing series of contortions to justify mindless bigotry.
It would be best in my view to just lump all ethnic and religious fundamentalists into a single group regardless of religious or ethnic group. If instead of saying “Islamist” people would have instead said religious fundamentalist or ethnic fundamentalists they would have been correct about almost every terrorist attack committed in the last century. It is our desire to ignore our own religions or ethnic groups terroristic tendencies that causes us to try to link it to specific groups that may or may not be involved. Not because we are trying to hide them but because we see them only as “lone nutcases” and never a real problem like that other groups versions of “lone nutcases.”
In short it is fundamentalism that is the problem and each groups defense and ability to ignore their danger if they are not “other” that is the problem. We whine and cry that Muslims do not properly gnash their teeth at the crimes committed in the name of Islam while we explain away the crimes committed in the name of say Christianity or along racial lines or in the name of Hinduism. Until we can honestly assess the danger in our midst that threatens others and treat it and discuss it equally it is ignorant to expect the others to address their own issues.
Nice post. It is utterly wrong to make politics out of this, whether it was an Islamic terror group or a far right group or a far left group.
Extremists are extremists, period.
Color me unconvinced, MSF. This is all about framing a debate in society and one quickly learns what’s acceptable to criticize in one’s own society and what’s not.
It’s true that some on the left tried to politicize the Giffords shooting for their own ends. But in light of a right-wing Christian fundamentalist attack, Rick Moran and Logan Penza are quick at work to either shift the goalposts of larger debate about these attacks or to offer mealy mouthed, weak-ass “Both sides do it” arguments. These are attempts to stifle debate and opposing opinions regarding right-wing Christian fundamentalism.
I mean for God’s sake, Logan had an article full of posturing and speculation and what’s appropriate about the motives and inner thoughts and desires of Muslim terrorists. He then quickly followed up after the fact with a weak justification that white Christian fundamentalists are exactly the same as brown Muslim fundamentalists.
If that’s the case, why are the white terrorists “lone nuts” or “crazies” while Muslims are an existential threat?
Why are we kept in fear over Muslim terrorists but not Christian terrorists?
Why do we treat brown terrorists differently from white terrorists?
And more importantly, why do we accept white terrorism in the form of school shootings, serial killings, family shootings, church shootings, death-by-cop attacks, etc to the point where it barely makes A12 news but breathlessly listen to reports of al-Qaeda “sleeper cells” that may or may not exist?
Why are we forbidden to speculate on white homegrown right-wing terrorism in the West but not Islamic terrorism?
My point is we are treating this killer and reacting to him differently than we would other killers. And that is very interesting.
Sky — the righty is probably moved by ideology, as are others on the far Right. Muslim terrorism is now what moves it, because it makes the immigration problem (responsible for the rise of that far Right already) even worse.
* * *
As for stupid mis-criticism of me (unreal) and other errors:
???
We don’t accept white terrorism. [rolling eyes and shaking head]
Some people are willing to convince themselves to believe anything.
I think what we see as “lone nutcases” are people unlikely to harm or attack me and mine. What we see as “terrorists” are those likely to attack me and mine. Where humanity needs to grow is in understanding that any threat to anyone is equally unacceptable and likely the result of a nutcase yet that in no way excuses it. Fundamentalism and intolerance are a problem, the very root of the problem. The views, background, race and or religion of the attackers is beside the point. Once society shifts from viewing the race/religion/views of radicals as the focus and starts to view fundamentalism and intolerance as the problem we may start to resolve things. Until then we will merely cry about the crimes against us and explain away the attacks against others ignoring that this is precisely what allows the wound to fester.
Jumping the gun… exactly how much time had passed between the bomb explosion and the camp massacre? I can understand the assumption that the bomb blast was an act of islamic terrorism, even though those in the US should be well aware of Ok City. I think any idiot could have figure out what was going on after the island attack and most sensible people should have held back judgement…or at least publishing in opinion.
Blaming Islamic terrorism after the island information was, in my opinion, done in a desire to attack Islam.
DLS-I dont think anyone is attacking you here, I am merely noting that the problem with terror is that we try to define it along the lines of what threatens us. For example the Giffords shooting was used as a cudgel by the left specifically due to many incidents ignored by the right or explained away as “lone nuts.” Calling them lone nuts in no way makes it less than terrorism. Giffords turned out to be off the mark which is why we hear about that one over and over from righty posters yet we never hear about the guy that shot up the church in TN screaming about liberals because it is more difficult to explain away, see he was a lone nut.
In a similar vein the Weather Underground were lone nuts in the lefts explanation in their attempt to ignore their complicity in the environment they helped to create that fueled the underground. They were terrorists, the antiabortion people that commit violence are also terrorists. If we start calling them what they are instead of lone nuts I think we as a society will begin to get a better handle on the problem while also gaining the defense of our ideological enemies that are being attacked by our sides terrorists.
Or we could continue the lone nut mythos while creating environments that fuel extremist terror on “our side” while denying the results.
I just think this is a great chance to discuss it since this happened in Norway and therefore it has no real connection to our own demons in the US. When it happens here it cant be discussed without it hurting a side and therefore they get defensive while their opposition greatly desires to paint them with that broad brush to hurt them as well. This is one of those rare moments where people in the US can have a more balanced discussion on the topic without it harming anyones “side.” I could be wrong on that but I think that is the case.
[...] The Attack in Norway and Jumping the Gun on Blaming Islamists (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
I didn’t have you in mind regarding negative and false statements, Sky; don’t worry.
I would say there is ideology often as well as (notably the puritanical or fundamentalist versions of) religion involved when we see forms of zealotry. (In the past with the KKK we’ve seen racism, too, e.g..)
Note the interesting angle of the rise of the Right in Europe that includes a substantial anti-immigration (anti-immigrant component to it. (Not only nationalism, but xenophobia.) It has been made worse by Muslim violence in Europe (no doubt claimed by many who hate immigrants as “proof” they are right to hate immigrants, as well as Muslims, effectively).
Here is a story about the European far Right, violent tendencies, and even references to Norway, interestingly.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/23/158887.html
Just as we have individuals as well as groups here (think not only about McVeigh, but also about the man who murdered Tiller, the abortion doctor in Kansas recently), it is likely to be so there, too. It wouldn’t be surprising if the lone suspect is eventually found to have acted alone. Could be delusional, or simply very fanatical.
We’re not that way despite some flirtation here post-9/11 with Muslim extremism and violence. We still have extremism but most of us (unlike the person[s] in Arizona who killed a Sikh after the 9/11 attack) make the distinction between the good and bad individuals and groups. And of course, despite what many on the Left believe, the US center-right public and conservatives among them in particular aren’t all evil, dangerous, prone to violence. And it’s not evil to act on the basic heuristic that violence mainly caused in recent times by Muslim extremists, including in Europe, could likely be behind what happened in Norway. There was nothing wrong with so many people suspecting it initially, at all.
Sky, the Giffords attack was a lone-nut attack, and other cases are that way, too, though you have at least a rhetorical and maybe a stronger point that they may be (and I know how to know — it’s if these people want to deter others from being as their victim is or was, or to compel others to do something against their will through intimidation and violence) it also is terrorism.
(If it’s simply and only personal, then it’s a lone-nut attack, that’s all. Wanting others to be threatened, too, then we may have terrorism.)
@Sky
I think the ‘wonderings’ you have made, are accurate. my .02 is that there appears to be abject madness, what we call functional disorders, in any who murder others, in those moments, planned, or not. Despite whatever ideology, religion, political grievance, desire to be ‘known,’ and the many other characteristics one might carry. Regarding the tragedy at the meet and greet of Giffords, Cho, Army officer, Harris and Klebold, Charles Starkweather, Georgia child who murdered other children, the slaughter of the Amish children, any number of others, including susan and andrea, including timothy and charles manson and his coven, including the murderer of doc tiller, mohammed ata and his troop of insane men, lockerbie, there are so many, so so many. And on. It appears to me that none, none are in right mind. And not being in right mind, are broken by any fantasy that divides the world into evil and good, with the one who murders carrying the delusion that they themselves are acting for ‘good.’ Schizophrenia, for instance, allows a person to read, write, plan, build. Delusion and hallucination are often the infection of reason. But the ability to drive a car, build a house, go to school, can remain more or less intact, throwing off those more reasoned who might intervene before the fact of a tragedy.