The example of the Norwegian terror last week really goes to show that commentators are really just that. Moving lips that are wheeled on who have about as much knowledge of events as you, I, and Divesh down at the local superette.
It was particularly evident with the terror in Norway. Looking back on the Norwegian terrorism perpetrated by a calculated gun-man, and driven by a far right, anti immigration ideology, the really interesting thing for me was just how many people jumped to the conclusion it was the work of Islamic extremists.
"Norway has been in Al-Qaeda's crosshairs for quite some time," says Paul Cruickshank, the CNN in house terrorism analyst. I don't know whether Cruickshank received a crank call from a schoolkid on holiday but it certainly seemed like it. The bombing: "bears all the hallmarks of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization at the moment".
Although as the media watchdog group FAIR (fairness and accuracy in reporting) pointed out, he added almost as an afterthought: "we don't know at this point who was responsible". Well gee, cheers for that Paul.
Of course there's that comedy show FOX news. Their sources are impeccable. "Deadly terror attacks in Norway, in what appears to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists," says host Laura Ingraham. Once again! So, people across the US, are hearing those words... once again, nodding and taking it all in.
And what about former US ambassador John Bolton. I mean, the guy was somewhat of a loose cannon in the Bush regime, but his comments on Norway went way past being naïve. "This kind of behaviour is very un-Norwegian. The speculation that it is part of right wing extremism, I think that has less of a foundation at this point than the concern that there's a broader political threat here." (Fox, On the record 7/22/11). "It sure looks like Islamic terrorism," Bolton said, earlier in the day. A rather coarse response might be how the f*** would he know, but that's not my style.
Even the Wall Street Journal fell into line, placing the Muslim threat into the media echo chamber. FAIR writes that the WSJ dwelled on the "explanations furnished by jihadist groups to justify their periodic slaughters, before concluding that because of Norway's commitment to tolerance and freedom, Norwegians have been made to pay a terrible price".
And EVEN when the perpetrator was found to be a local, the line was modified, just slightly, to keep the Islam link running. "Co-ordinated attacks are an Al-Qaeda signature. But copycats with different agendas are surely capable of duplicating its methods."
And it goes on: "If it does turn out to be someone with political motivations, it shows that these groups are learning from what they see from Al-Qaeda," says Brian Fishman, another counter-terrorism "expert."
And so it came to be that Anders Behring Breivik didn't actually learn from Al-Qaeda. He learnt from the anti-immigration policies of people like former Australian PM John Howard, according to his online manifesto.
And notice how the word "terror" or "terrorism" was dropped from the language once it was found to be a Norwegian. For, you see, in today's parlance, in order to be a terrorist, you must also have to be Islamic.
This is the end point of living in a world where the idiotic 'clash of civilisations' mantra is turned up to 10, where we live in an "us and them" world fuelled by baying commentary and village idiots screaming or us to ban the burqa! As Ghandi said when he was asked what he thought of Western Civilisation, he said it sounds like a good idea.
Thanks for all your responses to the issue, and keep writing to us at backbenches@tvnz.co.nz or leave a message on the message board . We love using your thoughts in the show.
If you want Back Benches updates, just Facebook me; www.facebook.com/wallace.chapman is the address
No comments:
Post a Comment