Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Is Anders Breivik a "Christian Extremist?"

Last Saturday, the New York Times labeled Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik a “Christian Extremist.”

It used the phrase in a headline that stretched across the better part of the top of the paper’s front page. As Bill O’Reilly pointed out last night, the phrase could not have been there without the editors agreement. It was not an accident; it was not a mistake; it was company policy. It's almost as thought the Times was thrilled that the terrorist was not a Muslim.

So, the New York Times has slanted a news story in order to attack Christianity. If Breivik were a Muslim, the Times would go out of its way to hide the fact.

Of course, nothing suggests that Breivik was a practicing Christian. The latest report, from Breivik’s lawyer, suggests that he is insane.

As O’Reilly points out, the Times and other mainstream media organizations want to equate the action of a right-wing psychotic like Breivik to worldwide Muslim terrorism.

In his words: “In fact, in the ‘New York Times’ today an analysis piece says that some believe we have overreacted to the Muslim threat in the world. Of course, that's absurd. Jihadists have killed tens of thousands of people all over the world. The Taliban, Iran and elements in Pakistan use governmental power to support terrorism by Muslims. But the left-wing press wants to compare nuts like Breivik and McVeigh to state-sponsored terrorism and worldwide jihad.

But why, O’Reilly asks, is the Times so eager to place blame on Christians? And why is it so timid when it comes time to call Islamic terrorists Islamists? When a man walks onto an American military installation, pulls out an automatic weapon, screams Allahu Akbar, and starts shooting, the Times hesitates before calling him an Islamist. When it feels a need to compromise, it calls him a home-grown terrorist.

Keep in mind that this was the same news organization that could not accept that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq. When forced to face the truth, the Times pathetically started calling the organization: al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

Why, O’Reilly added, are the best and the brightest at the Times going so easy on Islamists when these same Islamists hate everything that the Times holds sacred: women’s rights, gay rights, free speech and a free press.

Why is the Times so lenient on people who would, if they could, imprison or execute the editors of the New York Times, without a second thought?

I would answer that the Times editors are consumed by Islamophobia.

And yes, I do understand that in today’s politically correct America, “phobia” has been confused “hatred.” In the real world, a phobia is an irrational, consuming fear. Phobics avoid the objects or situations that they fear. When they cannot avoid these objects of situation, they panic. People who identify phobia with hatred are ignorant.

The Times editors are excessively solicitous toward Muslim sensitivities and sensibilities because they are terrified that if they step out of line the terrorists will go after them.

They remember Salman Rushdie. They remember Molly Norris. They remember the worldwide riots and murders over the Danish cartoons. They are afraid.

This means that their journalistic integrity has been overwhelmed by pure, raw TERROR. The Times has chosen to submit and to appease Islam.

In order not to offend Muslims, knowing that the least offense to Muslim sensibilities can unleash homicidal rage, the Times equates Christianity with Islam, declaring Christians to be equal threats and equal perpetrators of terrorist acts.

But that’s not all. To fill out our explanation, we should understand that those who most fear Muslims also go out of their way to befriend Muslims.

How can they do it? Well, they follow the lesson of the old Arab proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If you want to befriend Muslims, you need but become the enemy of their enemies. First, you must be critical of Israel. Find fault with Israel; declare Israel to be the moral equivalent of Hamas; call Israel an apartheid regime; insist on a one-state solution... and you will be considered to be a friend of Islam. Certainly, Muslims consider Israel to be an offense against Islam, a mortal enemy.

That’s not all. Israel is only a minor enemy of Islam. Islam’s major enemy, it’s historical adversary is Christianity. Hating Israel is just a prelude for hating Christian civilization.

After all, Christians launched the Crusades. Christians took Andalusia back from Muslims. Christians turned back the Muslim advance into Europe.

For the Times editors, Islamophobics all, it couldn’t have been a very close call. After all, they are terrified of Islam and not at all afraid of Christians. If they were afraid of Christians, they would never have labeled Anders Breivik a “Christian extremist.”


Malcolm said...

I couldn't agree more with you. These people on the left have a premise and try to spin everything their way.

Another good article by Sultan Knish

"Debunking 6 Myths About Anders Breivik"


posicionamiento google said...

Oh my god, there is really much worthwhile data in this post!

tablet pc windows said...

Oh my god, there's a lot of helpful info above!