Norway’s ‘Beloved’ Terrorist Heads Back to Iraq

Pages: 1 2


In September, Conservative Party leader Erna Solberg said she was pleased with an Oslo court’s ruling that Krekar was a danger to Norway.  In her view, this meant the path was clear to deport him as soon as possible.  Krekar told Al-Jazeera that if he was sent back to Iraq, he would consider it a crime that demanded to be punished.  The situation was put into the proper perspective in a wise Aftenposten op-ed by retired law professor Edvard Vogt, who compared Krekar, whom he called a “Kurdish politician” (bravo!), to Norwegian freedom fighters under the Nazi occupation.  “During the war,” recalled Vogt, “there were many thousands of us so-called Norwegian terrorists who were saved by the right to asylum that Sweden gave us.” Did Krekar, thundered Vogt with stirring righteousness, deserve any less?


In March, the infidel US, recognizing in Krekar a valiant opponent of its imperialist designs on the Dar al-Islam, put him on a list of five people who finance – well – the “t” word, and Norwegian cabinet minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen said that Krekar could be put on a plane to Iraq within a month or two.  In July, Norwegian officials announced that all Iraqis without residency permits would now be sent home – with, thank goodness, the sole exception of Krekar.  In a June interview with a Kurdish newspaper, the always big-hearted Krekar praised bin Laden and the recently killed al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  “I am proud of what he has done,” Krekar said of al-Zarqawi, calling him a “martyr.”


In June, Aftenposten‘s magazine section ran a heart-rending profile of Krekar by Inger Lise Olsen, who showed every side of him: Krekar the proud man reduced to being a house husband because he’s denied a work permit; Krekar the loving dad, whose kids suffer from the prejudices of their classmates (some of whom actually call him the “t” word!); Krekar the pious Muslim who, in interactions with his fellow believers, seeks to help them “find their way back to the narrow path”; and Krekar the Norwegian resident who, for all the trouble that benighted Islamophobes in Norway have caused him, still loves his adopted land so much that he personally called off a planned terrorist attack on it.  What more could a man do to prove his love?


“Mullah Krekar tells about the tough time for his family when the storms were breaking worst over him.  But he still has a positive impression of Norwegians.” Thus ran the subhead over Lars Akerhaug’s November 25 article in VG, in which he quoted Krekar as saying in an interview with al-Hiwar TV that before coming to Norway he had heard that the country was “Europe’s butterfly, with peace, beauty, civilization, and culture.  Nothing has changed for me, despite everything that has happened.  Norwegians are a peaceful, cultivated, and open people.” Once again, Krekar proved to be the personification of that most Islamic of virtues – forgiveness.


After somebody fired a shot at their Oslo flat, the Norwegian government put up Krekar and his family in a luxury hotel, the Radisson Blu Plaza, for eleven days while a new government-subsidized apartment was made ready for them.  Finally, some respect!

At a June press conference, Krekar warned that if he was deported to Iraq and killed, Erna Solberg, the killjoy who had labored for years to have him expelled, would “suffer the same fate.” In September Krekar was charged with making death threats against a Norwegian who had dared to burn a copy of the Holy Koran.  In the same month it was reported that Krekar had been in regular contact with Shawan Bujak, who had recently been arrested on charges of – well, if you must know – the “t” word.


All good things, as they say, must come to an end.  So it was that in early January came the dreadful news that Gramps intends to leave us soon.  It also emerged that in an interview with Finnish TV just before Christmas, Krekar – persevering in his effort to educate Europeans – affirmed that armed warfare against the West is still necessary.

On February 15, Krekar is set to go on trial for threatening Erna Solberg.  His testimony in court would give his fans yet another opportunity to benefit from his wisdom.  Yet perhaps it was not meant to be.  By then, he may already have returned to his Kurdish homeland to continue his important work.  If so, those of us whom he leaves behind in Norway will simply have to be content with the thought that somewhere in the north of Iraq, yet another small village is being brought closer to God by means of Krekar’s tough love.

He’s not even gone yet, but we already miss him.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Ron Carnine

    I guess it depends on who your hero's are. I told my children about hero's of the Western world. I guess I should have told them about those that "kill, steal and destroy" like the Saudi kid that stole all the credit card numbers from Israelis and got praised by his parents for doing so. In case your wondering about the "kill, steal, and destroy" those are the words of Jesus Christ describing the work of the Devil. So when you see Islam and its adherents stealing, killing and destroying instead of doing so for Allah you know who they are actually working for. But the problem is that the Western world has turned away from the Bible to respect for the Koran and instead of doing good, they have redefined it in Islamic terms and failed the warning of the Hebrew prophet who said there would be those who would call good, evil and evil, good. Those words have come true, again!

  • Alvaro

    That was a nice summary. I live in Norway myself. The Norwegian government has refused to send him to Iraq because of its opposition to death penalty. It will not repatriate criminals unless there is a guarantee they won't be sentenced to death.

    The majority of Norwegians wanted to make an exception for our "dear" mullah. I didn't know he was leaving, but in that case, good riddance.

  • Brujo Blanco

    When terror is tolerated it grows. At some point one has to stop giving one’s lunch money to the school yard bully.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    I hate to rain on this writer's PC multicultural blinded parade, but Mullah Krekar is not a terrorists. Instead, he is a jihadists. As Jihad is always for the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and can be both violent and non-violent. While terrorism, on the other hand, in stark contrast to jihad can be for any number of various political causes, indiscriminately targets civilian non-combatants, and as its name implies is always only violent.

    Indeed, conflating and morally equating jihad, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, which can be both violent and non-violent, with terrorism, which as its name implies is always only violent, enables non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest, to occur completely unopposed and unacknowledged, and the reason it happens is incompetent writers like this writer completely bombard and reinforce the tenets of PC multiculturalism on us on a daily basis. Hence, this writer is either willingly aiding and abetting the stealth global jihad, or otherwise he is a gullible useful idiot.

    • Western Canadian

      I would suggest a drug rehab program for you, or an in depth psych evaluation…. you seem to think you can rewrite the koran and mo’s instructions regarding terrorism (he was very much for it, and attributed his success to employing it)…. Perhaps you think you are him, your mind definitely works like that of a jihadi, irrational all the way.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Years ago when I first became interested in learning about Islam, without naming names I attended a presentation presented by a person who grew up an Arabic speaker first and then later learned English. That person also mentioned in the course of the presentation that in addition to learning English that he had also studied classic Arabic.

        Anyway, during his presentation he mentioned to the audience that when you read the Koran written in the classic Arabic relative to reading one of the approved English language translations, that it actually reads far more vicious, cruel, and barbaric in comparison to the approved English language translations. He said that quite a bit of the meaning is loss in the translation because the English language simply doesn't contain comparable words that are adequate to properly translate the classic Arabic language.

        Ever since I first heard that first presenter make that assertion way back when, it peaked my curiosity and that meaning being loss in the translation ever since became one of my standard questions that I have routinely personally asked to what are now several Arabic speaking first scholars and ex-Muslim apostates, and all of them have confirmed to me that assertion to be true.

        With your atrocious leftwing Canadian education and with your cradle to grave indoctrination into PC multiculturalism, I hate to have to keep raining on your mentally deficient twerp parade, but the English word terrorism is simply inadequate to translate the true meaning of the Arabic word jihad properly into English.

        For instance, jihad is fighting in the cause of Allah only, while terrorism can be for any number of political causes. Indeed, the 9/11 jihadists were mainstream orthodox Muslims fighting in the cause of Allah, while the unabomber, on the other hand, was an environmentalist extremist wacko.

        Additionally, Jihad can be both violent and non-violent, while terrorism as its name implies is always only violent. Thus, the 9/11 jihad attacks constitutes violent jihad, and mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest constitutes non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad. However, because terrorism is an inadequate English word to accurately translate the Arabic word jihad into English, non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad therefore occurs today throughout the West completely below the radar and totally unacknowledged and unopposed since in stark contrast to terrorism it isn't violent.

        Indeed, can you point to just one un-Islamic country anywhere in the world where mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage after decades didn't turn into an unmitigated disaster for the host countries involved?

        Moreover, Jihad primarily targets non-Muslim unbelievers, either civilian non-combatants as in the Madrid Train Bombing or military combatants as in US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. While terrorism, on the other hand, indiscriminately targets civilian non-combatants without regard to whether those civilians are non-Muslim unbelievers or not.

        Meanwhile, Jihad is always fought by mainstream orthodox Muslims in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme. In stark contrast, terrorism is always perpetrated by non-Muslim extremists for any number of political causes and indiscriminately targets civilian non-combatants without regard to whether they are non-Muslim unbelievers or not.

        Further, both violent jihad and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad occurs today throughout the world astronomically far more prevalently relative to terrorism, as terrorism during peace time fortunately is a relatively rare event.

        Finally, Jihad is a manifestation of Islamic civilization only, while terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only. In fact, terrorism in the Islamic world is a capital offense because it is un-Islamic and therefore blasphemous. Thus, when Muslims condemn terrorism it is genuine and not taqiyya, as many in the West naively assume.

        In any event, I'm not surprised that you as a Canadian aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to be able to wrap your mind around Islam, as this is not my first rodeo involving mentally handicapped Canadians.

        By the way, Medina was the first city ever conquered by Muhammad via stealth demographic conquest by mass Muslim immigration, which also happens to be the most prevalent form of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad employed by the Islamic world against the West today, as jihad in stark contrast to terrorism is both violent and non-violent.

  • JasonPappas

    Surreal … too absurd for fiction. Bawer's ironic rendition reminds me of Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic. Has Norway gone islamic chic?

  • PhillipGaley

    Yeah, I know, "terror" refers to activity under color of law, and "jihad" is the expansive term under their perspective, and "terrorist" is from our view, and so on, but for my purposes in view of practical consideration and wished for response, I would say that, you're making a distinction of little substance, . . .

    Shackled by Islam, the world simply cannot move forward—deport them without a sack lunch, execute others, leave them without the Bible; that way, they'll never learn how to think, and the natural resource of those nations can be assumed, bomb them into the desert; for, as in the pattern which Alexander Pope left for us: "It is fitting that animals be prey to man that, man be not prey to them.", . . .

    • Western Canadian

      Expect name calling in return from this poster…. He is in his own world, and does not accept questioning or comments. My first response to his weird comment, was a very mild one, pointing out that mo himself acknowled using terror. His response was pathetic.

  • Ghostwriter

    And hopefully,someone will shoot this creep.