To not be surprised that the Norway mass murderer is not being described with terms such as 'Christian Fundamantalist', 'Terrorist' of 'Fanatical Christian'...

[LDNmummy]

.. even though that is exactly the terminology they would be using had it been a Muslim gunman?

I actually sought out the Daily Fail today to see what Its usual readership would have to say about this and was not surprised by the comments.

Somehow a massive focus on Islam as if it is still the fault of Muslim people, and plenty of denial of this man having done this for conservative right wing and CHRISTIAN driven fundamentalist reasoning.

I have seen the terms in the title mentioned a few times in the press but to nowhere near the extent they would have been used had this been a Muslim gunman.

Just my opinion.

YABU because this incident, at the moment, has not been claimed by some affiliated group. Normally they can't wait to take the glory and then we can fairly pin the blame on an 'islamic terrorists' or 'republican paramilitaries' or 'basque separatists' or whatever.. What we have here is a lone operator and a whole mountain of speculation coloured with the snippets we know about his religious or political leanings. I've been struck that I keep being told he's 'blond haired and blue eyed' and 'ethnic Norweigian'... in other words, they're struggling to categorise him.

He was possibly not alone though, and the police is careful with letting information slip, so as not to hinder the investigations.

All the press reports I have seen today have described this individual as a right wing Christian fundamentalist.

When this story first broke yesterday, the press I saw hinted, but did not categorically state, that this was this was a suspected attack by Islamic extremists. The wider public, I have no doubt, assumed this was the work of Islamic terrorists. Unfortunately, this is the assumption in the psyche of this nation, post 9/11 7/7, bomb plots etc. This situation is no different to the 70s, 80s and early 90s, when any explosion/paramilitary style killing was immediately pinned on the IRA.

The difference with a Christian fundamentalist/right wing group/individual doing this is that the public is not reacting by beating up anyone who looks like a Christian or verbally abusing people who are Christian or firebombing Christian places of worship

That's because the "public" minded to do this sort of thing would have to go look in a mirror and beat themselves up. There is not enough "them and us" about this story to allow the self appointed kangaroo court to go out and beat up a few "darkies" or whatever in 'revenge". In the 70s/80s, people with Irish accents were commonly targeted for attack whenever there was an IRA killing.

Some random nut in a country few of us really have any affiliation with is not going to stay news for long. Amy Winehouse has already eclipsed this in tomorrow's headlines. The Sun, being unable to froth rabidly about Islamofascists, is headlining the Norwegian killing with a football angle. Yes, a football angle, Norway has cancelled all football as a mark of respect. This is how the hoi polloi are being fed this news.

As with Timothy McVeigh, a patriot who went to war, then turned against his country, the real concern behind this tragedy should what has driven this man to turn against his countrymen, not whatever trite labels - Christian, Nazi or whatever - should or should not be pinned on him.

Sorry, have not run off, just got distracted.

Will be back later!

There's been plenty of 'christian extremist' type comments in the press.

I don't really understand what the OP is getting at. Over the past 10+ years, the vast majority of terrorist attacks on the west have been by islamic fundamenatalists.

Are people not supposed to jump to conclusions in these circumstances, in case it upsets a terrorist? If this had been the UK in the 70s/80s, it would have been immediately assumed to be the work of the IRA. The balance of probability would have pointed in that direction.

IMO, OP is being inflammatory in defending islamic extremists when it's not unreasonable to think that they would be responsible for a terror attack on a western (NATO) country like Norway.

Have my first

How is the OP defending Islamic extremists?

Think you may have missed the point...

SB, where are you getting that statistic from? It is not true of the UK and I doubt it is true of other countries.

your opinion is nonfactual and provocative op
you and a few conspiray others may pin this as muslim.no one else is
but no doubt you'll further process that as cover up etc

"you and a few conspiray others may pin this as muslim"

Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?

interesting that the gunman is actually an anti-muslim christian fundermentalist extremist. Seems he had issues with norway's liberal views about immigration. Heart goes out to the victims and their families.

The problem is that he's being painted as 'a lone wolf'. Far right extremists are always painted as lone wolves. One wonders how many lone wolves there has to be before people start looking at the pack mentality behind it.

I completely agree - someone has sown the seeds of hate in his mind - how many others?

YANBU.

I found the Daily Mail article on the incidents in Oslo disgusting. Last night, even when a "32 year old blond Norwegian national," was under arrest, all but the first couple paragraphs described fears of or incidents of terrorist acts carried out by "Islamic extremists." Even by morning, when more details of the killer were known, including photos and comments he'd made on internet sites, they kept the bulk of the old article about Muslim extremists in. It would have been just as relevant to splice in an article about TJ Hughes going into administration, or more speculation about the Beckham's daughter, or similar.

I have noticed that the media portray those with extreme right wing views who identify as Christian or from a Christian tradition as "lone wolves," (e.g. Timothy McVeigh, David Copeland - who bombed Brixton, Brick Lane and the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Congresswoman Giffords and killed several others,) as the default position. Connections with others who share their philosophy are played down in favour of arguments that they are mentally ill or just "blew a gasket." Their victims are just as dead as any killed by terrorists motivated by other ideologies.

I've noticed on newspaper website comment pages many people insisting that the killer isn't a true Christian and Christians shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. In the past, I've found when Muslims dare to suggest the same about those who purport to kill in the name of Islam, they are shouted down.

Oh, and the website "Document" has posted all of his comments on their site here - in Norwegian though. www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/ My Norwegian is rusty, but with the help of google, here are a couple of "interesting" comments he made:

"For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies. Not all Muslims, Nazis and Marxists are conservative, most are moderate. But does it matter? A moderate Nazi might, after having experienced fraud, choose to be conservative. A moderate Muslim can, after being refused entry to a club, become conservative, etc. "

"I myself am a Protestant and baptised then confirmed by my own free will when I was 15. But today's Protestant church is a joke. Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like the minimalist shopping centers. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to Catholicism. In the meantime, I vote for the most conservative candidates in church elections. The only thing that can save the Protestant church is to go back to basics. "

And, on 30th November 2009, he posted this comment in response to a CNN report of an incident in Chechnya.

"I do not understand why CNN mention the extreme right and the National Socialists? I have never ever heard of extreme right or National Socialist terrorist attacks of importance on European soil. This sounds like "multi-cultural marxist's" wishful thinking."

I guess yesterday he decided it was time to change that!

I agree OP - people are way too quick to lump any acts of mass violence and attribute as 'Islamic Fundamentalism / extremism'. Would e fascinated to know where the '90% / majority' of acts of terrorism being committed by Islamic fundamentalists comes from too .

And yes I was in London on 7/7 and no i am not making excuses or sympathising with any form of terrorist activity or lone people who commit this kind of atrocity - but dismissing it as 'terrorism' or as the work of someone with mental health problems - not goig to use the terms others have used here, how insulting o anyone with MH problems? - doesn't help to understand it.

people always jump to conclusions, the IRA, jihadists, ETA (first suspected of the madrid bombing).

i wouldn't put much into what is said in the first few hours when the press are desperate to write something but don't know anything.

right wing christian fundamentalists are portrayed as 'lone wolves' beause so far they have acted individually, rather than in groups, even through their ideology is formed is not formed in isolation, their action seems to be.

I don't care if the perpetrator(s) is White or black, Christian, Jew, Seikh or Hindu or an atheist, blowing people up is terrorist activity. Extremists of any kind should spend less time thinking about other people's sins and more time looking at their own failings in my opinion, speck of dust and plank do spring to mind.
My prayers are with anyone who has lost someone to terrorist activity, may they find comfort and peace.

I'm a muslim. And my first thought was 'oh no, a terrorist attack by an islamic extremist individual or group'.
I found it quite upsetting also that in the first couple of hours after the bomb and the reported shootings on the island BBC was talking about muslims, islamic extremists...no-one knew what was going on but this is what was broadcasted.
And now, because the killer was against the so called 'islamilisation' of Europe, that is broadcasted all over...as a reason for his actions.
Sometimes it feels that Islam is forced into negative news even when the extremist minority have nothing to do with it. I in no way defend extremism or the actions of terrorists, I just wish that my religion would not be used in this way. Both, by the terrorists to justify their crimes and by the media to create an almost hostile atmosphere.

and 20 years ago it was the IRA and all irish people were looked at askew every time a bomb went off anywhere. its not new its just that the muslim extremist are better at it than the members of the IRA.
i remember when i first moved to england from ireland, parents wouldnt let there children play with me and our next door neighbours use to tell everyone we were part of the IRA.
if a part of a culture is going to try to create a hate culture then the rest of it will bear the brunt from the world until it passes.

An interesting aspect to the Christian angle, he was a freemason.

Norwegian press has been very careful in its reports, and I must have missed any local references to muslim fundamentalists. The press conference with the police was giving no hypothesis.

However, turning to the British, the Spanish and the French press, not only were new developments broadcasted around 20/30 minutes before the same news broke in Norway, and with much more frenzy, uproar, and bloodfilled images. I would say International press, based on what my sister and myself have read or seen on tv, has been whipping up a storm, whereas the local press have been much more sobre, to the point, and factual. It has been interesting to see the differences in how the press has handled this.

I see that the Norwegian police are currently staging some sort of operation in Oslo, linked to these attacks. So maybe they don't buy the "lone wolf" theory either.

I've found some data on terrorist attacks in Europe here.

If you scroll down to page 36 there's a table that sums it all up. Makes for some interesting reading. I don't know where this "90% of terrorist attacks are by Muslims" figure comes from, maybe they just get more press coverage.

There was a time when if a bomb went off you'd wonder if it was the IRA. Then it was Islams turn and naturally you'd think "was it Muslim terrorists". If you hear about child abuse at a church you are bound to think "Catholics again?"

Each time an atrocity is committed a member of that religion group will come along and say "the important thing is not to blame my religion"

And do you know what? the important thing is that people have died. Not your personal discomfort. If you don't like what your co-religionist gets up to then pick another or tell your god to sort it out.

Glad to know I am not the only one who has seen the hypocrisy in this situation, or at least identified that this is in some strange way still being indirectly blamed on Muslim's.

One of the comments I read online for instance was "But I don't understand why he killed his own people instead of the Muslims who are taking over his country?"

In some way shape or form, this is being attributed to Muslims or linked to Muslims as if this man was reacting to something almost justifiably. As if it would have made more sense and been more acceptable (or at least made more sense) had he stormed into a Muslim establishment and done the same thing.

I also wonder where this 90% theory comes from I think someone is pulling numbers out their backside, sorry.

Thanks for the links KRIKRI and EauRouge, food for thought definitely.

OP, I think you jumped in too soon! The man in a nutter. End of.