Shiny Happy Fists of Rage

Hello.

I generally like blogs about anti-racism, feminism (womanism), science, religion, books, vegan recipes, my various fandoms, knitting, and funny shit.

So as you might expect, this blog of mine is some amalgamation of the above.

. . .

You know you love it.

My fandoms:


* Mass Effect
* Dragon Age
* Avatar (TLA and LOK)
* Arrested Development
* Community (sorta)
* Star Trek (DS9 and TNG)
* Song of Ice and Fire
* Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab
* Doctor Who (sorta but not really anymore.)
* Popular Science (Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, etc.)
Recent Tweets @
People on My Dash

offbeatorbit:

Terrorism vs. “Extremism”

somerset:

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits.  The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates.  The morning statement issued by President Obama — “It’s a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring” and “we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks” — appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group. 

But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn’t from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller’s Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch.  Despite that,The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):

Terrorism specialists said that 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.

“If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations,it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda,” said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn’t, even when it’s allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist.  Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivatedshooting rampages.  The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda.  So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.

Then there’s this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT — first noticed by Richard Silverstein — explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.

In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know — by definition — that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant — also by definition — that it was an act of Terrorism.  As Silverstein put it: 

How’s that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can’t call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?

What it says is what we’ve seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target.  Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) tono, this isn’t Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn’t).

Continue reading

  1. jesuisjesuisjesuis reblogged this from keeponlivin
  2. elvenmuggle reblogged this from offbeatorbit
  3. teknikrevolt reblogged this from adanska
  4. axeofkindness reblogged this from meginatree
  5. meginatree reblogged this from complicatedtriangulated
  6. adanska reblogged this from palaceofposey
  7. alekibutt reblogged this from palaceofposey
  8. lafourmi reblogged this from aepocrypha
  9. vieuxtemps reblogged this from vaguelydirty
  10. complicatedtriangulated reblogged this from palaceofposey
  11. megret22 reblogged this from palaceofposey
  12. vaguelydirty reblogged this from sabbatic
  13. theblackestwidow reblogged this from offbeatorbit
  14. keeponlivin reblogged this from iamthecrime
  15. lemuffinmistress reblogged this from offbeatorbit
  16. zoastertoaster reblogged this from offbeatorbit
  17. thebeginningofneverending reblogged this from iamthecrime
  18. andrewgraham reblogged this from logarhythmic
  19. offbeatorbit reblogged this from iamthecrime
  20. karlheinzmarx reblogged this from sabbatic
  21. logarhythmic reblogged this from iamthecrime