Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.

Associated Press

The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber.

In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik, who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam.

His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture.

More broadly, the mass killings in Norway, with their echo of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by an antigovernment militant, have focused new attention around the world on the subculture of anti-Muslim bloggers and right-wing activists and renewed a debate over the focus of counterterrorism efforts.

In the United States, critics have asserted that the intense spotlight on the threat from Islamic militants has unfairly vilified Muslim Americans while dangerously playing down the threat of attacks from other domestic radicals. The author of a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report on right-wing extremism withdrawn by the department after criticism from conservatives repeated on Sunday his claim that the department had tilted too heavily toward the threat from Islamic militants.

The revelations about Mr. Breivik’s American influences exploded on the blogs over the weekend, putting Mr. Spencer and other self-described “counterjihad” activists on the defensive, as their critics suggested that their portrayal of Islam as a threat to the West indirectly fostered the crimes in Norway.

Mr. Spencer wrote on his Web site,, that “the blame game” had begun, “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.” He did not mention Mr. Breivik’s voluminous quotations from his writings.

The Gates of Vienna, a blog that ordinarily keeps up a drumbeat of anti-Islamist news and commentary, closed its pages to comments Sunday “due to the unusual situation in which it has recently found itself.”

Its operator, who describes himself as a Virginia consultant and uses the pseudonym “Baron Bodissey,” wrote on the site Sunday that “at no time has any part of the Counterjihad advocated violence.”

The name of that Web site — a reference to the siege of Vienna in 1683 by Muslim fighters who, the blog says in its headnote, “seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe” — was echoed in the title Mr. Breivik chose for his manifesto: “2083: A European Declaration of Independence.” He chose that year, the 400th anniversary of the siege, as the target for the triumph of Christian forces in the European civil war he called for to drive out Islamic influence.

Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”

“This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

Dr. Sageman, who is also a forensic psychiatrist, said he saw no overt signs of mental illness in Mr. Breivik’s writings. He said Mr. Breivik bears some resemblance to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who also spent years on a manifesto and carried out his mail bombings in part to gain attention for his theories. One obvious difference, Dr. Sageman said, is that Mr. Kaczynski was a loner who spent years in a rustic Montana cabin, while Mr. Breivik appears to have been quite social.

Mr. Breivik’s declaration did not name Mr. Kaczynski or acknowledge the numerous passages copied from the Unabomber’s 1995 manifesto, in which the Norwegian substituted “multiculturalists” or “cultural Marxists” for Mr. Kaczynski’s “leftists” and made other small wording changes.

By contrast, he quoted the American and European counterjihad writers by name, notably Mr. Spencer, author of 10 books, including “Islam Unveiled” and “The Truth About Muhammad.”

Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.”

“If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote.

Mr. Breivik also quoted European blogs and writers with similar themes, notably a Norwegian blogger who writes under the name “Fjordman.” Immigration from Muslim countries to Scandinavia and the rest of Europe has set off a deep political debate across the continent and strengthened a number of right-wing anti-immigrant parties.

In the United States, the shootings resonated with years of debate at home over the proper focus of counterterrorism.

Despite the Norway killings, Representative Peter T. King, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he had no plans to broaden contentious hearings about the radicalization of Muslim Americans and would hold the third one as planned on Wednesday. He said his committee focused on terrorist threats with foreign ties and suggested that the Judiciary Committee might be more appropriate for looking at non-Muslim threats.

In 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security produced a report, “Rightwing Extremism,” suggesting that the recession and the election of an African-American president might increase the threat from white supremacists, conservatives in Congress strongly objected. Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, quickly withdrew the report and apologized for what she said were its flaws.

Daryl Johnson, the Department of Homeland Security analyst who was the primary author of the report, said in an interview that after he left the department in 2010, the number of analysts assigned to non-Islamic militancy of all kinds was reduced to two from six. Mr. Johnson, who now runs a private research firm on the domestic terrorist threat, DTAnalytics, said about 30 analysts worked on Islamic radicalism when he was there.

The killings in Norway “could easily happen here,” he said. The Hutaree, an extremist Christian militia in Michigan accused last year of plotting to kill police officers and planting bombs at their funerals, had an arsenal of weapons larger than all the Muslim plotters charged in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks combined, he said.

Homeland Security officials disputed Mr. Johnson’s claim about staffing, saying they pay close attention to all threats, regardless of ideology. And the F.B.I. infiltrated the Hutaree, making arrests before any attack could take place.

John D. Cohen, principal deputy counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security, said Ms. Napolitano, who visited Oklahoma City last year for the 15th anniversary of the bombing there, had often spoken of the need to assess the risk of violence without regard to politics or religion.

“What happened in Norway,” Mr. Cohen said, “is a dramatic reminder that in trying to prevent attacks, we cannot focus on a single ideology.”

  1. #1 by Wally D. on 07/25/2011 - 9:34

    The Jews have fabricated their Golem, a mindless monster which kills on their behalf.

  2. #2 by galwayspaniard on 07/25/2011 - 9:34

    With all their fancy education, our leaders know less than people in the street. No criticism of evangelical Zionists will come out of this. US intervention in Iraq will not come up. Remember how in Iraq when things were going poorly in 2003-2005, the blame game going on involving Wolfowitz, Perle, Frum, Feith…all trying to say it was not their idea to invade, and to this day all the stupid evangelicals still standing by their sides.

  3. #3 by Anon on 07/25/2011 - 9:34

    Salafism (aka Wahabism) is a British creation.
    So when it’s said that there are no Muslim terrorists, they just (and rightly) point to Wahabi’s and say “can you deny that?”.

    They play both sides… The Wahabi’s aren’t Muslim by any stretch of the imagination but they are, for lack of a better word, corporeal. They exist to terrorize and divide/conquer.

    You can’t say “well it’s Western creation, etc etc”… they’ll just call you a nutcase/kook. That gives them an easy excuse to discredit you/your message.

    Real terrorists don’t exist! Period.

    Whenever you see anything remotely resembling it, you can bet your life that it’s done by an “intelligence agency”.

    When you hear “Wahabi this, Wahabi that”… remember British, British, British. (my take on the TUT netcast).

    Happy Reading:

  4. #4 by nooralhaqiqa on 07/25/2011 - 9:34

    Just that photo of Pamela Gellar made me toss my cookies.

  5. #5 by Ingrid B. on 07/26/2011 - 9:34

    In the meantime, the big time, world class, state funded terrorists, are living in the lap of luxury..
    Ever noticed how the Zionist backed, state controlled, CIA/MOSSAD trained and funded, terrorists, do extremely well, financially?
    Race!!?? as we say in Scotland, black, white, red, yellow, we`re all Jock Thompson`s bairns, (or should be)..
    @Mark : do you, or anyone, know what became of funky d? Hope he is OK..

  6. #6 by mantiqaltayr on 07/26/2011 - 9:34

    This NYT article is typical Zionist Bullshit that not only skirts around the real issues it also is a defense of Geller and Spencer and then points a finger at the “right wing” somehow missing Spencer’, Geller’s and Breivik’s total devotion to Israel. I’m sure that is all just a coincidence.

  7. #7 by galwayspaniard on 07/26/2011 - 9:34

    For Anon- good advice- I didn’t know this but I have been puzzled about Wahabis. Truth is difficult to sort out…remains very difficult.

  8. #8 by Joe Jussac, Jr. (Yusuf bin Jussac) on 07/26/2011 - 9:34


    I have stated a couple of times somewhere else, or here as well, kindly Google (BEST result!) the wahabi myth by an American gentleman who embraced Islam. Forgot his name. Abdullah Smith.

    How can we ever believe in ONE, SINGLE source who has claimed to be the agent of the British re creating “Wahabi”??? I DO NOT BUY it! Sheikh Wahab’s only purpose was PURIFICATION of the FAITH which had been — even till now by the MILLIONS FAKE Muslims who practice “bid’ah” and even the much more DANGEROUS “Shirk” (creating partners of Allah SWT). Want proof? Watch here in INDONESIA which LARGE “Islamic” org. who ALWAYS chant/recite, and spread the Satanic SALAWAT “Nariyah”. It’s (the last two parts “ayat” verses of it) AGAINST the Al-Qur’an, because the chanters believe that it is THE LATE Prophet Muhammad PBUH who, at last will FREE them from any misery/calamity. And that mere THE LATE Prophet Muhammad PBUH’s ‘wink of his eye’ will make rain comes down during DRY seasons. Only IDIOTS believe such prayer!

  9. #9 by funky d on 07/27/2011 - 9:34

    thanks for asking ingrid, am perfectly fine. just got to the point where i couldn’t be arsed anymore to comment. just having a break from it. was looking at starting my own free blog. tis actually alot more complicated than the blog sites make out it is.

    would like to comment on the ‘wahabi’ debate. my family are ‘ahl a-hadith’, or what is more commonly referred to as wahabis. some brailvis say we are not sunni muslims and that they are the only sunnis. certain people i thought were friends refused to attend the mosque for my grandmother’s funeral cos it was a ‘wahabi’ mosque. we are also accused of destroying the ottoman empire. the truth is exactly as joe jussac, jr (yusuf bin jussac) is saying. mr wahab saw that people were innovating and told people that islam is defined/ruled by what is written in the quran and as such they need to follow the quran and not ‘innovate’. he did not start a new version of islam nor did he claim to be a prophet of any sort.

  10. #10 by funky d on 07/27/2011 - 9:34

    for non-muslims not familiar with the term hadith the hadith are the sayings and actions of the prohet muhammed (peace be upon him.)if we need to know how to interpret islam/the quran we look at the teachings of the prophet. for example, i believe there is a hadith regarding alcohol. the quran does not specifically state alcohol is banned, but intoxicants are banned. one little shot of alcohol does not intoxicate/get you p*ssed. but the prophet saw how many worshippers were drinking a glass or two and forgetting some words to prayer. so he stated that if one glass of something intoxicates/makes you lose control of your senses it is forbidden.

    also just goes to show that just like christians we muslims are also divided into many different factions, not just sunni-shia.

  11. #11 by Ingrid B. on 07/27/2011 - 9:34

    @ funky d : glad you`re OK, thanks for the info..

  12. #12 by galwayspaniard on 07/27/2011 - 9:34

    If through the years they do to Quran what they do to Bible, the meanings get distorted plus you get 10 different “scholars” who say that in the 1st or 7th century this is what was meant by these words; modernists saying they know better how to interpret things than they did back in the 1st, 7th centuries and immediate years following these

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: