On Friday, I included The Atlantic in a list of sources that “ran with the unsubstantiated Muslim-terrorist angle” immediately after the attacks in Norway. I was referring to a they-hate-us-for-our-freedoms piece about an alleged 2010 plot by three Muslims against Norwegian targets. In my haste, I overlooked the July 2010 dateline and wrote as if the article were newly issued background on a pattern of unprovoked Muslim hostility toward peaceful Norway. That was sloppy of me, and I corrected my post to note the error.
But it turns out that The Atlantic did re-post the year-old piece Friday as background on a pattern of unprovoked Muslim hostility toward peaceful Norway. The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg explains:
The question arises, then, why did Jennifer Rubin make this outrageous assertion about jihadism and Norway?
Well, perhaps it was because she was reading the Atlantic. Shortly after the bombing in Oslo, the Atlantic re-posted on its home page a very interesting piece from last year by Thomas Hegghammer and Dominic Tierney entitled “Why Does al Qaeda Have a Problem With Norway?” …
So it would have been possible, from reading The Atlantic alone, to suspect al Qaeda involvement in the Norway attacks. I myself suspected this, and wrote so.
Boy, did he. In a post subtly titled “Mumbai Comes to Norway” — we know what sort of people blow up buildings in Mumbai, right? — Goldberg let his extraordinarily active imagination loose on the situation, even working in a plug for his beloved Iraq War. Goldberg was sure to include an escape hatch, thus proving that he’s smarter than Will Saletan and Dave Weigel, but it’s a doozy:
Of course, this could [be] an act of right-wing extremism, perhaps in reaction to the rise of radical Islamism in Europe. I’m as confused as the rest of you are about the authorship of these attacks. There have been early claims of responsibility by jihadist groups, followed by denials, followed by reports that a blonde “Nordic-looking” man was the one who opened fire on the youth camp. Was this “Nordic-looking” man an Adam Gadahn-type, or someone not motivated by jihadist ideology? Stay tuned.
In other words, at the time Goldberg composed the post, before he added any updates, he already knew that the only reported suspect was not your stereotypical al-Qaeda operative. Yet Goldberg charged ahead anyway, asserting that the killer was probably inspired by radical Islam one way or the other. Look at that first line again: “Of course, this could [be] an act of right-wing extremism, perhaps in reaction to the rise of radical Islamism in Europe.” Not “perhaps in reaction to the very presence of Muslims in Norway” or “perhaps in reaction to the Jared-Loughner-esque voices in some loon’s head.” No, our misguided young Aryan must have been driven to madness by THE RADICAL ISLAMS!!!!!
I believe we’ve just witnessed the birth of a new Twinkie defense.
UPDATE: I expected some competition for stupidest response to this post, but I think I can go ahead and declare a victor. Goldberg had no evidence that the attacks were undertaken by Islamists of any race or ethnicity, there was nothing particularly Islamist about the choice of targets (no synagogue or church or even military base), and there were reports that a “Nordic” guy (who could have been Muslim, of course, but there was no evidence of that) was responsible — and Goldberg still decided to ride the Clash of Civilizations Express. Obvious conclusion: Goldberg is credible and I’m a racist. Well, I’ve learned my lesson: from now on, my default assumption whenever a mass murder takes place will be that the perpetrator is a Muslim (or suffering from Muslim panic).
One thought on “Was I Unfair to The Atlantic?”
It is not just the Atlantic that is doing this.many news papers could not report on this incident without as usual make conection and anolgy to either to Al-Qadea,Islamic terrorism, and so on.They keep bringing that up over and over in order to keep the focous on Muslims.
"Thomas Hegghammer, a terrorism specialist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, said the manifesto bears an eerie resemblance to those of Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, though from a Christian rather than a Muslim point of view. Like Mr. Breivik’s manuscript, the major Qaeda declarations have detailed accounts of the Crusades, a pronounced sense of historical grievance and calls for apocalyptic warfare to defeat the religious and cultural enemy. "http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html
You see here he was inspired by a Muslim terrorist thinkings.
Newspapers were circulating that Helpers of Global Jihad claimed responsibility. It was on Drudge! It would be wise for the media propagandist to wait until the facts are out before they peddle their wares.
No, you have a right to call it as you see it.
" Helpers of Global Jihad " couldn't it be a fake entity rub by some entity to drill and brand the trem Jihad into the psychic and minds of people to keep the wars going on.In my opnion,there many groups with Arabic or Muslim sounding namesthat are nothing but fake .
One thing is dead on Matt, Goldberg is a "twinkie." Sure 'nuff. Oh yeah and by the by, CBSNews reported about "Helpers of Global Jihad" as being behind Friday's carnage in Oslo. I made the ever so polite inquiry with CBSNews and got back… nothing. Which is pretty much the usual.
I was polite too. Really…
Aren't these writers that have come online in the last 15 years or so, that have their head full of ClintonGore, BushPush and ObamaMia and that have to go to Wikipedia to look up Timothy McVeigh or Gudurn Ensslin or even Baruch Goldstein?
What else would you expect from a volunteer prison guard for the Israeli Army, overseeing Palestinians?
It’s the Invasion of the Twinkies and Twitiots.
Buying and installing car seat addresses could possibly be produced easy with these guidelines.The just one online marketing and marketing Lesson you need to Learn Jordan Alpha Trunner
buy thesis online thesis
Comments are closed.