My Terrorist: Good or Bad

Henrik Ibsen, one of the most famous Norwegian playwrights ever, once famously quipped, “The worst enemy of truth and freedom in our society is the compound majority.” Little did he know that this maxim will one day stand true for his own country. So who is this compound majority? And why is this dangerous? The glimpse was seen in the aftermath of the harrowing bloodbath in Norway where a Christian Right Wing fundamentalist killed several dozens of young Labour Party political trainees.

The media jumped to several conclusions to grab eyeballs, accusing one Muslim fundamentalist organisation or the other without even waiting for the official announcement. Observers believe that the pressure to provide viewers, listeners and readers with a quick, simplistic interpretation has been intensified by the arrival of much more immediate online news and social media. Together, they manage to set a discourse that is more often than not premature. Let’s analyse a few of them here.

Breivik, the butcher of Norway, is not alone in his twisted dark thoughts. A section of Europeans believes that Europe is under some kind of cultural or security attack from “dark-skinned Muslims.” This Islamophobia is the dianoetic judgment from an ideological mental descent created by Western regimes and the duteous media.

From Bush’s “you are either with us or against us” to Cameron’s speech in Munich in January this year in which he reiterated the views of German Chancellor Angela Merkel when he on purpose used the toxic words “state multiculturalism is a failure.” Just seconds after the bombing and subsequent shooting, the so-called security experts were conjecturing on the BBC that the attack was the work of Islamists. However, within hours Norwegian police had identified the killer as 32-year-old ethnic Norwegian Anders Behring Brevik. But conjecture continued, Britain’s best-selling The Sun newspaper published a banner headline on Saturday describing the attack as an “Al Qaeda massacre: Norway’s 9/11”.

A column by BBC journalist Jorn Madslien on the same afternoon that started with the words: “If the bomb blast in Oslo turns out to be a terror attack, it will mark a 9/11 moment for Norway” prompted a furious reaction from Muslim News editor Ahmed Versi.

The most tragic part was even when it became pretty clear that the killer was from the Nordic race, speculation did not die. World’s top English language broadsheets went viral, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, as well as President Obama, blamed “Islamic extremists”, minutes after the first official announcement of massacre, and went on to upload scores of inflammatory (and false) headlines and reports. The July 23/24 front page of the Financial Times (of London ), read “Islamist extremism fears: Worst Europe strike since 2005”. Next morning, Fox News anchor asked former US diplomat John Bolton what was his take now that a local is involved. The diplomat hilariously said that one should not jump to conclusion. In other words: presume it’s the Muslims until it starts to look like it isn’t – at which point, proceed to presume it’s them anyway.

Rolling Stone recently reported that Fox News chairman Roger Ailes “has a personal paranoia about people who are Muslim -- which is consistent with the ideology of his network.” No wonder. Meanwhile, NYT concluded that it was done by jihadi groups “angered at the war in Afghanistan.”

They paraded Will McCants, who claimed he allegedly translated an alleged website by the alleged terrorists who did this. Entire Saturday, he translated Arabic phrases from a forum about the type of explosives used, car chases through Oslo and arrests, etc. Several people called NYT office to alert them about the fraud, but it continued with the discourse.

Another aspect of the coverage was that when it was confirmed that it has been done by a Right-wing Christian, they jumped to the conclusion that it was a lone act. He was immediately described as “a lone wolf assassin”, who “acted alone” (BBC) or as mentally deranged, downplaying his political networks. If he had been a Muslim, the press would have immediately declared him a terrorist and the act as terrorism. But since it was otherwise, he is just an “Assailant”, “Attacker” (Reuters), “Gunman” (BBC, CNN & Al Jazeera). It became specially humorous when US Dept of State called it an “Act of violence” (not an “Act of Terrorism”).

One of the BBC reporters, reporting from Oslo, post massacre, asked disbelievingly: “Where could such hatred come from?” One just has to take a look at the mainstream newspapers and channels to understand what a climate of fear and hate can generate.