New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway

Pages: 1 2

The New York Times wasted no time in jumping to conclusions about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo last weekend, claiming in the first two paragraphs of one story that he was a “gun-loving,” “right-wing,” “fundamentalist Christian,” opposed to “multiculturalism.”

It may as well have thrown in “Fox News-watching” and “global warming skeptic.”

This was a big departure from the Times’ conclusion-resisting coverage of the Fort Hood shooting suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Despite reports that Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim.

Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan’s arrest, so by then, I suppose, the cat was out of the bag.

In fact, however, Americans who jumped to conclusions about Hasan were right and New York Times reporters who jumped to conclusions about Breivik were wrong.

True, in one lone entry on Breivik’s gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, “2083: A European Declaration of Independence,” he calls himself “Christian.” But unfortunately he also uses a great number of other words to describe himself, and these other words make clear that he does not mean “Christian” as most Americans understand the term. (Incidentally, he also cites The New York Times more than a half-dozen times.)

Had anyone at the Times actually read Breivik’s manifesto, they would have seen that he uses the word “Christian” as a handy moniker to mean “European, non-Islamic” — not a religious Christian or even a vague monotheist. In fact, at several points in his manifesto, Breivik stresses that he has a beef with Christians for their soft-heartedness. (I suppose that’s why the Times is never worried about a “Christian backlash.”)

A casual perusal of Breivik’s manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word “Christian” similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean “non-Jewish.” In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O’Hair are “Christians.”

I told a Jewish gal trying to set me up with one of her friends once that he had to be Christian, and she exclaimed that she had the perfect guy: a secular Muslim atheist. (This was the least-popular option on the ’60s board game Dream Date, by the way).

Breivik is very clear that you don’t even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.

He goes on to say that a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” is “everything we DO NOT want,” and a “secular European society” is “what we DO want.”

“It is enough,” Breivik says, “that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist.” That statement doesn’t even make sense in America.

Pages: 1 2

  • Steve Chavez

    MUSLIMS COMMIT FAR WORSE ATROCITIES against Christians, Jews, Catholics, and even against their own, EVERYDAY AND IN THE NAME OF "ISLAM!"

    IT ALSO SEEMS STRANGE TO ME that the Norway nutcase, "Given his avowed hatred of Muslims," DIDN'T MASSACRE MUSLIMS!

    LET'S JUST HOPE NO NORWEGIAN DRAWS CARTOONS of Breivik because "those gun-loving Right-Wing Christian Tea Baggers" WILL REVOLT! (Sorry Ann but I thought of it first. ;-)

    (Drawings of Mohammad by a Norwegian cartoonist caused Muslims to revolt.)

    • davidhorowitz

      And Steve, like his brethren, playing the spin doctor, deflecting, deflecting, and defecating.

      • Steve Chavez

        When this first happened, I heard about it on ABC Radio News that's on top of the hour, and several times and the announcer said "Right-wing Christian" and I, and millions other Americans, can be in that category. I then heard other cable news outlets saying the same. So I have been writing the about comment since those same very news outlets, including Obama and Holder, never say "radical Muslim," or anything close to it when they commit their attacks.

        We all know what Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz, and many many others, said when they blamed Palin, Fox, and others, when Jared Loughner did his crime. When the truth came out, they, and the Tucson Sheriff continued and took it even further only to get the American public to hate the wrong group of people who would never excuse or deflect what the boy did.

        Now we have another Ft. Hood RADICAL MUSLIM who was planning an attack but luckily was arrested. He was an AWOL soldier about to a crime "even against his own" fellow soldiers and "IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!"

        ANN AND I ARE CORRECT IS SHOWING THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT!

        There is a group here in Santa Fe who are now organizing to support the Democrat who will run for the retiring NM Senator Jeff Bingaman. Here is a quote that I saved from Don Coveillo: "Whoever becomes Senator I pray they will work for the destruction of the murderous pig state of Israel." This was printed in the Santa Fe New Mexican (.com) and on Monday, Bill Stewart, a former national news writer and now Santa Fe resident, also wrote and faulted "right-wing Christians" and twice, the comments were deleted. Google: Bill Stewart Santa Fe Norway and I'm sure it will get your blood boiling. He deflected the Norway shooter to all of us!

        • Steve Chavez

          By Bill Stewart | For The New Mexican
          Posted: 7/24/2011, 10:00 PM Mountain time

          The news from Norway is both tragic and terrible: more than 90 killed and at least 90 wounded, many of them children, in an appalling act of terrorism.

          What are we to make of a young, right-wing evangelical Christian, adorning himself with assault weapons, bent on murder and mayhem? He says he needed to defend Christian civilization in Norway and Europe from the menace of radical Islam. And so he took forthright and terrible action in defense of his views, wreaking upon Norway the worst violence since World War II. He succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of radical jihadists. Mad? Perhaps; then again, perhaps not.

          • Sage

            you clearly did not read teh article at all. how does he define Christian, in his own words?

        • PRCS

          A minor correction. There is no such thing as 'radical' Islam. There is only Islam; a written ideology. The mistake you're making, as do so many, is to confuse the ideology with its interpretation by a billion or so Muslims.

          Muslims who attempt to follow Islam's teachings–to the letter–are neither extremists nor radicals. They are literalists.

          Somalia's Al Shabab Muslims amputate thieves' hands because–like every Muslim–they think that's what Allah has commanded them to do. They are not 'extremists' for doing so, and they are not 'radicals' for complying with their 'holy' book. They are literalists.

          And there is no 'moderate' Islam, for there is no chapter or verse titled 'for extremists only' in the Qur'an.

          Here's a little analogy: Moderate Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods. Each is either ignorant of their respective belief systems' teachings or has chosen to ignore them.

          Al Qeada, the Taliban, and similar organizations (and many individuals) are not extremists or radicals. They are literalists.

          And that is our problem with Islam.

  • Ghostwriter

    Breivik was a deranged nutjob. End of story.

  • davidhorowitz

    And now Ann Coulter, too, enters the fray desperately trying to deflect the reality of the massacre. I can see her squirming from here, pounding her head against the table, and repeating over and over again, "How could someone on the Right do such a thing? It doesn't fit with my worldview!"

    • Sage

      you obviously did not read the article. for someone to blindly retort with obviously no knowledge of what they're addressing, . what is the reality of the massacre? that he claimed to be irreligious and that he had problems with christianity? i don't see you addressing it. or the left-wing fort hood attacker recently. doesn't someone have to say they're doing such a thing for their religious faith rather than denigrate that faith & claim it as simply a non-Muslim culture? yeah, leftist troll.

  • rockman

    Breivik is a Christian in the same sense that Jeffrey Dahmer was a Chef…Sure, Dahmer had the cutting and chopping part figured out, but at a very fundamental level he just didn't get it.

  • Michael,Canada

    As I wrote before NYT is responsible for Islamo-Fascists atrocities all over the world.(using these warped minded people logic from NYT)

  • http://www.collapseofcommunism.com Robert Buchar

    It's all the smoke and mirrors game. The latest news from the Russia reviled that Brejvik was trained in last spring in secret para-military camp in Minsk. He entered the country with false passport and was known there under the nickname Viking. What about that?

  • tekow

    Well it just goes to show that these christian freaks are working together from Santa Fe, to Minsk, to NewYork, to Jerusalem to Oslo. It just shows that right wing terror threat is real and should be watched carefully.

  • Maxie

    The NYT is owned by a filthy rich Jewish trust fund baby with a guilty conscience. It all flows from there.

  • http://www.toryburchsale-us.com shuijin
  • gatekeepbeta