≡ Menu

Geller, Anti-Jihadi Blogs Have ‘Very Real Blood of Children on Their Hands’

“People like Fjordman and Pamela Geller and the right-wing blogosphere who spew apocalyptic rhetoric and refuse to denounce the extremists among them now have the very real blood of children on their hands.”

OK, let take a quiz: who wrote that?  Glenn Greenwald, perhaps?  Andrew Sullivan?  Or even me?  Not a chance.  This fascinating piece of writing comes from none other than Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.  If you’d asked me whether I’d ever agree with anything Johnson wrote I’d have said, hell no.  But the fact is that it’s damn important that someone like Johnson writes this.  Even more important than if Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan or I do.

Many supporters of Geller, Spencer, et al. have taken umbrage at my accusation that they inspired these foul murders.  I can explain all I want but they’ll never buy it.  But they’ll have a far harder time disputing with LGF’s founder.

A Dutch newspaper, Politiken, reports that Breivik’s political awakening occurred during a conference he attended in Copenhagen in 2007 sponsored by the bizarrely named, International Civil Liberties Alliance (originally called the Center for Vigilant Freedom).  At the event, he had his first opportunity to rub shoulders and network with his counterparts from throughout the rest of Europe and the U.S.  Robert Spencer was there, along with Ned May aka Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna, and other far-right bloggers.  According to Politiken, these are a few of the English language websites within the network represented by the Alliance: Gates of Vienna,  Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs, MEMRI, the English Defence League.

I find it almost wickedly funny that Pam Geller is blaming Johnson for the Breivik massacre.  I kid you not.  This illustrates the depth of the woman’s depravity:

Breivik cites LGF numerous times…He includes a long diatribe against Charles Johnson, whom he clearly admired until he felt betrayed enough to snap. The killer speaks about Charles Johnson obsessively and wrings his hands about Johnson’s turn to the left. Could this perhaps have been the provocation? Could this have been what caused him to snap?

The idea that Geller has any skills at psychological analysis is beyond ludicrous.  Also, the notion that Breivik “snapped” is fatuous.  He no more snapped than all the blogs he admired including Geller’s “snapped.”  They are all part of a calculated, carefully developed and nurtured campaign against Islam and those they view as its secular western leftist enablers.   The only difference between Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Pam Geller, et al. and Breivik is that he translated their theories into action.  They, as he pointed out, didn’t have the courage of their beliefs to actually take Islam on physically.  He did.

Read this from Gates of Vienna and tell me what distinction you can make between it and Breivik’s beliefs:

We are in a religious war, whether we like it or not.It is not for us to define the conditions, but we would do well to pay attention to them. We are mistaken if we think that the only enemy is out to kill us. Jihad is again offering the West two choices: We can convert or die.

It should also be noted that this passage matches perfectly the ideological world view of Kahanist settler extremists, who again, Breivik admired.  This is why I argue vehemently against the notion that the Israeli-Arab conflict is primarily religious in nature.  That takes us into the realm of holy wars and Armageddon.  There is only death there.  Rather, the conflict is a political one and like all political conflicts it can be resolved through negotiation.  These are ideas that are anathema to the Breiviks and Gellers of this world.

I’m offended by Breivik’s lawyer’s attempt to label him mentally ill.  In fact, the eminent psychiatrist Dr. Marc Sagemann, whose written about Islamist jihadis, says he’s seen no hint of mental illness in Breivik’s writings.  Of course, there is much delusion, much fantasy, much anger.  But that is not mental illness.  Declaring these crimes to be the result of insanity defangs and depoliticizes them.  Breivik is a political assassin.  His crimes must be understood as fundamentally political.  The answer to his crimes much also be political, as Norwegians are doing successfully in their hundreds of thousands by embracing their fellow Muslim citizens and reaffirming their commitment to democracy and tolerance–all the values Breivik detested.

The right would like nothing more than diagnose Breivik as insane.  It would get them off the hook.  It would create a firewall between them and him.  But he is no more insane than they are.  If he’s insane then they are too and perhaps we should lock the lot of ‘em up in a mental institution.  But seriously, the antidote to Breivik is more freedom, more tolerance, more dialogue with the other.  And that’s the way to face down the hateful Gellers of the world as well.

H/t reader Deir Yassin.

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtube

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • elhrac July 28, 2011, 12:51 AM

    Didn’t you defend the Jihadi who shut up the Seattle Jewish center based on his supposed insanity?

    • Richard Silverstein July 28, 2011, 10:11 AM

      Yes because he was a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic who’d been treated for his condition for 10 yrs & who’d gone off his mess.

      • Duhay July 28, 2011, 10:46 AM

        Actually he was treated for bi-polar and even if he was treated for schizophrenia, don’t you think it somewhat pre-meditated that he chose, the Jewish Center, of all the places to go and shoot people in the whole of greater Seattle.

      • elhrac July 28, 2011, 12:16 PM

        “So if you can follow that: he’s mentally ill, paranoid and delusional. In fact, during the shootings he shouts out nasty comments about Jews hurting Muslims and this is the reason for his actions. But somehow the paranoid, delusional beliefs that motivate his crime do not constitute insanity.”

        • Richard Silverstein July 28, 2011, 5:06 PM

          This was a critique of the prosecution & Jewish community’s refusal to concede the obvious, that Haq was mentally ill & not in control of his faculties or judgment.

          Breivik on the contrary planned his crime for yrs., never received any diagnosis of any mental health issue.

          A govt minister today denied there are any suspicions of mental illness in Breivik’s.

          • The Nudnik July 29, 2011, 2:35 PM

            You are painting a really one dimensional picture.
            Any one who speaks against the Muslims is a hater, any Muslim who commit an hatred crime is mentally ill.

            In my opinion, Ignoring the other side of the problem (Muslim extremism) will not lead to a solution.
            Extremist should be pointed out, exposed and condemn whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Christians or anything else.

            fabricating graves in Jerusalem is such an act. Yet you would never speak of it.

            About what the Pfc that was arrested yesterday in TX ?
            was he mentally i’ll too ?

            Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo was charged on Friday with possession of an unregistered destructive device in connection with the bomb plot, according to a criminal complaint unsealed in Waco, Texas. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a maximum $250,000 fine.

            http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0711/072911-fort-hood-plot.htm

          • Richard Silverstein July 30, 2011, 12:14 AM

            any Muslim who commit an hatred crime is mentally ill

            No, actually you’ve got that wrong. Any JEW who commits a terrorist killing of a Palestinian is declared mentally incompetent & sent to a mental hospital, whether they’re cuckoo or not: Jack Teitel, Julian Soufrir, & many others.

            Your complaint that I haven’t covered the Arkansas incident is OFF TOPIC. There are scores of anti-Musliim blogs which are already trumpeting this. Go read them if that’s what’s important to you.

          • The Nudnik July 30, 2011, 12:52 AM

            No, i wasn’t complaining about the TX incident.
            I was complaining about the fact that you didn’t cover the story about Grave Fabricating inside a Muslim grave yard in Jerusalem, by no other then sheikh raed salah.
            http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/262/125.html?hp=1&cat=402&loc=5

          • Richard Silverstein July 30, 2011, 1:12 AM

            I can’t cover something I haven’t heard of. But I’ll read the article. But I have to say I find off-putting the need to find bad things that Muslims have done. There’s a sort of oneupsmanship involved in trying to find the latest Muslim outrage to stoke yr feelings of fear or resentment against them.

            And btw, there are prob. 40 pro Israel bloggers who’ve already covered this story. Why is it so important to you that I become the 41st??

          • The Nudnik July 30, 2011, 1:20 AM

            I have emailed you a link to the same article on the 20th.

            Why is it impotent to me ? I think it’s important that any blogger / reporter would bring a balanced picture of the events. Most of the people in the world are uninformed.
            Reading your Blog, one (in my opinion) get’s the wrong picture.
            You really want to have an influence on a solution, you must cover both sides, if you don’t you are no more then a propaganda trumpet.

            I think that some of your points are valid, to emphasis on their validity you have to cover both sides.

  • Chayma July 28, 2011, 1:08 AM

    Well said, Richard. Charles Johnson’s words were prophetic.

    For those who are not aware of the Johnson/Geller blog politics, i’d like to offer some background information before posting some links at the bottom.

    For the record, Charles Johnson who runs Little Green Footballs was for a while a right wing nutjob himself after 9/11, but he came to his senses. Geller used to be a commenter at his site, before she started Atlas Shrugs. In 2009 he made a very public parting with all his crazy right wing followers, and then banned them from commenting at his website. Geller was one of them.
    Why I Parted Ways With The Right
    Charles Johnson – Mon Nov 30, 2009
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

    He knows these Far Right Wing Zionist crazies so well, because he was affiliated with them for a while and saw their ugliness and moral bankruptcy up close. In a way, he is better positioned than many who don’t know them, that is why he is a good source for learning about Pamela Geller and other right wing crazy anti Muslim and anti liberal/left hate mongers. He broke off from them for this reason.

    I don’t agree with everything he says, nor do you have to agree with everything that a blogger writes, or even agree with his/her political ideology, to find common ground on certain views. Apparently Geller, since being rejected by him, (she used to be a heaver commenter at Little Green Footballs) has had a knife in his back and tries to smear him at every opportunity. He recognises her fake and cynical ploys to propogandise hate under the banner of “human rights” and she doesn’t like that nor the fact that he banned her and other extremists from commenting at his website. It’s called Fatal Attraction syndrome.

    Anyhow, Johnson has been following the Oslo massacre, and Geller’s responses, and they make for good reading in his short snazzy postings. He also has good nuggets of information, for example on Fjordman not found elsewhere on the blogosphere.

    For you, and everyone else here here are a selection:-

    ‘Counter-Jihad’ Blog Calls for More Europeans to Emulate Breivik’s Attacks
    Wed Jul 27, 2011
    This is what ‘counter-jihad’ bloggers support

    Right Wing Reactions to the Terrorism in Norway
    Wed Jul 27, 2011
    ‘He attacked because it was a leftist indoctrination camp’
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38941_Right_Wing_Reactions_to_the_Terrorism_in_Norway

    Ludicrous Excuses of the Week
    Tue Jul 26, 2011
    Bill O’Reilly denies everything
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38934_Ludicrous_Excuses_of_the_Week

    NYT: US ‘Counter-Jihad’ Bloggers Heavily Influenced Oslo Terrorist Mon Jul 25, 2011
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38930_NYT-_US_Counter-Jihad_Bloggers_Heavily_Influenced_Oslo_Terrorist

    Forbes Writer Gets Oslo Terrorist Story Very Wrong
    Sun Jul 24, 2011 http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38926_Forbes_Writer_Gets_Oslo_Terrorist_Story_Very_Wrong
    No, LGF is not ‘popular among anti-Islam activists’

    Pamela Geller Lashes Out: ‘The Little Green Shew’
    Sat Jul 23, 2011
    Like a cornered rat on Stoli
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38924_Pamela_Geller_Lashes_Out-_The_Little_Green_Shew
    Obviously feeling backed into a corner, Pamela Geller lashes out with her patented incoherent malice: NORWAY SHOOTER A CHARLES JOHNSON FAN!!!!

    Oslo Terrorist Linked to EDL and European Branch of Pamela Geller’s Hate Group
    Sat Jul 23, 2011
    Breivik was deeply involved in the ‘counter-jihad’ blogosphere and UK far right groups
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38923_Oslo_Terrorist_Linked_to_EDL_and_European_Branch_of_Pamela_Gellers_Hate_Group

    Oslo Terrorism Updates: Killer Funded ‘Counter-Jihad’ Movement
    Sat Jul 23, 2011
    A product of the ‘counter-jihad’ blogs http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38922_Oslo_Terrorism_Updates-_Killer_Funded_Counter-Jihad_Movement

  • yankel July 28, 2011, 2:58 AM

    Politiken is a Danish (rather than Dutch) paper.

  • Deïr Yassin July 28, 2011, 3:00 AM

    @ Richard
    “Politiken” is not a Dutch but a Danish newspaper though the Dutch and the Danish language do have a lot in common.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politiken

    • Elisabeth August 6, 2011, 2:53 PM

      I could not resist meddling here a bit:
      Dutch is MUCH closer to German than to Danish. (Though not as much as Jiddish for instance, which is a German dialect.)

      Dutch and German are both West Germanic languages, while Danish belongs to the North Germanic group.

      These are not divisions based on geography: They reflect true linguistic splits.

      • fiddler August 7, 2011, 7:40 AM

        and to extend the meddling a bit further, Dutch is quite close to both Low German (still spoken as a dialect in northern Germany) and the Ripuarian (German) dialect. The Scandinavian languages were greatly influenced by Low German through the Hanseatic League, hence the many similarities between these. OTOH, what is today the state of Schleswig-Holstein was once occupied by Denmark, which left many place names (including “Schleswig” itself) derived from the Danish language.

  • Chayma July 28, 2011, 3:05 AM

    I just posted a long comment, with links from Charles Johnsons website, but the comment didn’t show. So I reposted, and it said “duplicate comment”.

    So do comments with more than a certain number of url links go into moderation or what?

    • Leonid Levin July 28, 2011, 4:35 AM

      Chayma, this happened to me a couple of times in the past. This is likely some WordPress bug. There is nothing you can now do about it. You can try to post your comment on another related thread.

      • Chayma July 28, 2011, 11:37 AM

        Leonid thanks, but it has appeared now.

        Richard, thank you too. Again great post.

    • Richard Silverstein July 28, 2011, 10:08 AM

      Yes. More than 3 links will be moderated. I will approve yr comment if I find it in the moderation queue

  • Leonid Levin July 28, 2011, 4:34 AM

    But seriously, the antidote to Breivik is more freedom, more tolerance, more dialogue with the other. And that’s the way to face down the hateful Gellers of the world as well.

    I think this is a very important point. We need to spread the message of tolerance, dialogue, respect, understanding and brotherhood. If we offend our opponents (even if they offend us first), there is very little hope that they’d listen to us and be inclined to change their mind. Remember a story of a recently executed man in the US, Mark Stroman, who murdered or wounded several muslims in the aftermath of 9/11? At his trial he didn’t show any remorse. But when one of his surviving victims started advocating against his death penalty, he was moved and showed remorse at his actions.

    May be this is the way to treat hate? So I wondered if people like Geller and Spencer and other haters can be cured like that as well? Also we need to show respect towards the people on this forum who we disagree with, however difficult that might be.

    This is what the teenage survivor Helene Bosei Olsen, who also lost her mother on the island, said: “I lost many friends and I lost my mother. My mother was very kind and I miss her very much. But I ask you not to hate the terrorist, but to show love to the people you love and to nurture good thoughts about the victims and their parents.”

  • TimothyL July 28, 2011, 6:05 AM

    The headlined conclusion is no harder than remembering what your Mom and Dad taught you early-on: “The thought is the Mother of the deed.”

  • Eva Smagacz July 28, 2011, 7:35 AM

    Right after Oslo, I wrote several comments about bloggers who incited Anti-Muslim sentiments. I mentioned Phillips, Geller and Rubin as three harpies. Not a single of these comments made it through mediators in MSMedia.

  • Deïr Yassin July 28, 2011, 8:54 AM

    She was the youngest killed on the island. Sharidyn turned 14 two days before leaving for her first trip to Utoya. She had been a member of the Labour Party’s Youth for about a year.
    I read somewhere, one of the survivors stating that Anders Behring Breivik deliberately selected the most beautiful girls. This young girl was beautiful, and she probably represented everything he hated: ‘leftist’ and ‘multicultural': she was half Norwegian and half New Zeelander (her name ‘Ngahiwi’ is Maori).
    http://aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4185438.ece

    • yankel July 28, 2011, 9:49 AM

      Nga iwi meaning “the peoples” or “the tribes”, the ultimate in multiculturalism.

  • jummy July 28, 2011, 8:31 PM

    a note about Chayma’s backgrounder on charles johnson:

    it may be that geller and spenser and fjordman and the rest are corrosive people trading on bigotry. there are many people who knew that at first glance. perhaps the ability to see these people for who they are at first sight is a better benchmark for clearsightedness than the ability to hate them in suspiciously lugubrious terms only after plucking them from obscurity, establishing their blogging careers, and supporting them for nearly a decade.

    it’s not absolutely clear that johnson “came to his senses”. rather, it appears more likely that johnson was offended that geller and spenser had challenged his authority. there was no disagreement on any of the themes which would later comprise breivik’s manifesto, only on who geller and spenser should disinvite to the brussels conference vlamms belang was to participate in.

    a fair reading of the the back and forth bears that johnson pursued his hatred of geller more doggedly than he did spenser or the others, and more doggedly than geller or spenser ever reciprocated. johnson’s geller obsession had the appearance of a jilted lover’s vendetta. the corrupt and personal nature of johnson’s vendetta against his former comrades was evident in the way charles posted the false meme that anders breivik and the blogger fjordman were one and the same and left it on his front page for 72 hours without commentary. johnson, who had been commenting about fjordman’s blogging of the aftermath of the oslo bombing, knew it was a lie. johnson’s source for the claim was the norwegian nazi party. johnson, however, had a deeper itch to scratch: the meme he was constructing was that the bomber was a fan of fjordman, and geller had invited fjordman to guestblog at her site. without mention of the fact that charles had been a fan of fjordman and reproduced volumes of his writings, charles was able to construct a headline which put the primary object of his obsession, geller, in his headline.

    for a long time before the oslo bombing, johnson’s attacks on geller were mainly limited to her deranged conspiracy theories about the circumstances of president obama’s birth. johnson’s outrage about the thematic content and rhetoric of the anti-jihad movement and it’s bloggers didn’t manifest itself until geller and spenser organized their protests against the “ground zero mosque”, as they called it. it was at that point that johnson began saying things about islamophobia which were in jarring conflict with what he had been saying just weeks prior. for instance, johnson had just previously described the lead clerical consultant for the project an “islamic supremacist” who sought to institute sharia law in the west. in preparation for his new line of attack against his former comrades, he deleted that line, along with several paranoid posts about the “epidemic” of muslim inbreeding and the proposed flight 93 memorial, which he had said was being covertly designed to act as an “islamic victory shrine”, and dozens of his posts which hosted, praised, congratulated, thanked and otherwise supported geller, spenser and fjordman.

    when this revisionism was discovered by third parties, he undertook the additional measures of having google and archive.org delete and cease to cache his website and permanently hid user site content behind a registration wall. it’s because of this last measure that no one can see for themselves whether anders breivik had a posting account at johnson’s site.

    the one measure johnson skipped prior to becoming a strident and vocal opponent of islamophobic bigotry happens to be the only one which is required of a morally serious person. charles johnson has never said anything similar to “i was a racist and the ideas i advocated were wrong.” instead, he would rather we believe that the anti-jihad movement became racist at some point while he remained heroically unmoved, moored to the the rock of reason and decency; that geller was just some pest from his comments section he hadn’t the administrative tools to block from his site; that spenser was a mephistopheles who made charles do what he could not know was wrong; that fjordman somehow forced himself through the door and onto the pages of johnson’s site and wasn’t in any case obviously noxious at the time; that johnson himself never said any of the things he can be demonstrated to have said and that those with the temerity to remember lie with their screenshots and direct quotations. to imagine it from the perspective of the narrative johnson presents, the walls peel away to reveal a dark and foreboding wilderness. everyone else changed into monsters while johnson, pure as a child standing barefoot in his pajamas and clutching his teddy, looks on in horror at what had been his bedroom.

    not quite so, i’m afraid.

    littlegreenfootballs was the hub of the “counter-jihadist” movement. pamela geller herself was a protege johnson plucked from his own commenting community. this was also the case of fjordman, who initially began as “norwegian kafir” at littlegreenfootballs. when he changed his name to “fjordman” and opened his own blog, johnson featured fjordman’s essays as headline items more than two dozen times on his blog, giving fjordman de facto “guest-blogger”credit by prefixing his authorship to the headlines. these posts (i.e.; “Fjordman – Scandinavian Rape Epidemic”) were not less racist or extreme than what fjordman writes contemporaneously, and johnson’s own lead-ins to these pieces, as it was with his own rhetoric, often surpassed fjordman’s and geller’s with luridly racist vitriol (i.e.; “If you’re a Western material girl thinking of marrying that exotic Muslim guy who’s been treating you like a princess, you may want to read the fine print.”).

    with that in mind, there is some confusion as to whom breivik does and does not apparently admire in his manifesto, as the bulk of it’s 1500 pages is comprised of reproductions of others’ works. breivik mentions geller in his own pen only once. he also mentions chalres johnson only once in a neutral citation. at no point does breivik “attack” or “condemn” charles johnson. these passages, as well as all of the rest of the citations, are second-hand from essays written by fjordman. in this collection, one can easily find breivik quoting fjordman praising johnson, and even breivik quoting fjordman quoting johnson’s own hate-speech directly and admiringly.

    by this method, johnson and his website are supportively referenced in the breivik manifesto more than twenty times, more than geller in fact. the bulk of these are because when breivik reproduced a fjordman essay, he referenced the essay as hosted by johnson, because johnson’s site is apparently where breivik read them. this should surprise no one. breivik, geller, flordman, spencer (who’s blog, “jihad watch” was coded pro-bono by johnson himself) are the crowd which johnson cultivated.

    it’s sickening to see johnson is being allowed to exculpate himself with a couple of convenient denunciations. johnson has never chosen to have an “i was a racist, and now i regret it” moment. only a sustained “those people over there are racists and i’m going to make them regret it” moment with his finger pointed at the figures of a movement he created from the ground up and has only recently parted company with.

    absolution comes after reconciliation.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 12:06 AM

      I think there are many important things in what you say & your knowledge of LGF, its history, & personalities is fascinating. I too don’t fully trust Johnson in his new incarnation. But all I can say is he’s a helluva lot better than his former one. Not perfect, but I think he carries more weight as a rightist in good standing who appears to have some standards beyond which he will not stray (as opposed to Geller et al)–than I do in saying many of the same or similar things.

  • Chayma July 29, 2011, 1:51 AM

    jummy

    it’s sickening to see johnson is being allowed to exculpate himself with a couple of convenient denunciations. johnson has never chosen to have an “i was a racist, and now i regret it” moment. only a sustained “those people over there are racists and i’m going to make them regret it” moment with his finger pointed at the figures of a movement he created from the ground up and has only recently parted company with.

    I think your comment is a little unfair. First of all Johnson was NEVER a racist. Racism is not the same as religous bigotry.

    After 9/11 a lot of sane people turned Islamophobic. The more sensible of them returned to their senses. It was not for nothing that Bibi said “9/11 has benefitted us”. The far right Zionists took advantage of that, and Johnson recognised that. So you can say he was a religous bigot for a while, and that is true, but if you consider the circumstances, it’s understandable. (9/11) but you can’t call him a racist.

    You are right that after 9/11 his website incubated the careers of many anti Islam bloggers, after he banned them, but that is hardly his fault. He did discern between religous extremists in Islam and the mainstream Islam followers, and realised how the far right were manipulating and lying to further their agenda, which by the way is not America’s agenda.

    He mended his ways, recognised his bigotry, and he did part ways in public manner that was very brave of him. He acknowledged his mistakes.

    Why do you expect him to be perfect? None of us is perfect. To err is human.

    I agree with you that that internal blog wars probably plays a part in it too, but that is irrelevant, so long as the facts are true. His facts about Pamela Geller and other Islamophobic hate mongers are usually spot on. That was what I was talking about. That’s not to say, that I agree with him on everything else, and it may well be you may not agree with him certain matters, but it’s irrelevant to the subject at hand.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 9:45 AM

      First of all Johnson was NEVER a racist

      Oh, I disagree. He was indeed a racist & I see little diff. bet. religious bigotry & racism. And no, I don’t think the “circumstances” after 9/11 justified the type of bigotry Johnson exhibited.

  • Chayma July 29, 2011, 2:04 AM

    jummy,

    a note about Chayma’s backgrounder on charles johnson

    To lend weight to what i’m saying, i’m Muslim myself, so if we can forgive, surely you can too :)

    Also, I disagree with your last paragraph. Johnson does distinguish between Islamic radicals who abuse our faith, and the real Muslims. He may not have immediately after 9/11, when all the bigotry you talk of was there in his thinking, but I have a feeling you have not been keeping up with his thoughts. He realised and the change was genuine.

    As for Johnson cultivating them, to further that argument, if he HAD cultivated them they would have changed their views with him, as many of his followers did. The fact that they didn’t means he didn’t cultivate them. That bigotry was there before he started blogging. Daniel Pipes was active long before 9/11.

    Don’t misunderstand jummy, I love our allies and appreciate all your support as it’s sincere and without strings attached , but sometimes, I think our allies are more Muslim than the Muslims :)

    • Deïr Yassin July 29, 2011, 2:50 AM

      If you’re a Muslim I find it very difficult to understand how you can state something like the above: “He was a religious bigot for a while and that is true, but if you consider the circumstances, it’s understandable (9/11)”.

      And I find it hard to understand even if you were not a Muslim. In fact I find it difficult to understand how anyone can find religious bigotry ‘understandable’ based on such a tragic event.
      Sorry to have strong doubts about you being a Muslim – not that it’s important at all – and your last sentence about ‘the allies’ confirms my impression.

  • jummy July 29, 2011, 3:54 AM

    i don’t mean to strike a pugilistic tone with you, but you being a muslim or not has no bearing whatsoever. i have my own ideation of self and the opinions i hold are held to serve that, and not the need to be seen as an “ally” to one group or another. pamela geller and robert spencer have a stable of genuine, bona fide muslims whom they can rely on to say exactly what they say at convenient times. sometimes muslims, real and supposed ones, are less muslim than a self-respecting muslim ought to be.

    there is in your reply, as there was in the original post of your’s i felt bound to correct, a degree of interested apologia which bends too far from the truth.

    if a sharp line is to be drawn separating what does and does not qualify as “racism” or what does and does not qualify as conflation of mainstream and radical muslims, then we may as well adopt the criteria johnson employs in describing racists and islamophobes currently. by that standard, yes johnson was a racist and yes he heaped collective recrimination upon all muslims. johnson in fact published at least three separate articles attacking or otherwise mocking the idea that moderate muslims as a “myth”. there is no other meaning to be taken from his sneering epithet, “religion of peace” and it’s many permutations ( “the religion of beheadings” or the Religion of Misogyny, Religion of Mass Murder, Religion of Market Bombs, Religion of Masks and Rifles, Religion of Children with Weapons, Religion of Revenge, Religion of Suicide Car Bombs) other than that the whole of islam is, as he once remarked, a “cult of blood and death.”

    he did conflate radical militants with ordinary muslims. to the extent that he supposed that there was a “silent majority” of moderate muslims, it was only as a cheap rhetorical hobby horse to conclude that there was something wrong with them that they hadn’t sufficiently presented themselves and rebuked cair, which is precisely as far as geller goes in distinguishing “good” muslim from “bad” muslim. further, when a genuine group of conservative/libertarian leaning muslim moderates did organize to stand, amongst other things, against cair, charles johnson discouraged his readers from trusting it, claiming that the organizer, kamal nawash, was some communist agent provacateur.

    i want to be clear on this point: you said that, “He did discern between religous extremists in Islam and the mainstream Islam followers.” i’m saying that’s not true.

    when you say he “acknowledged his mistakes” and particularly that he has in any form “recognized his bigotry” you are making an untrue statement. it’s never happened. not on any of the myriad issues related to counter-jihadist representations of islam.

    johnson was not a bigot only “immediately after 9-11″. six years is not a moment. ordinary people did not become islamophobic in reaction to 911. ordinarily hateful people found it socially forgivable to hate muslims in the immediate wake of 911. the bloom fell off that tulip by 2004, and charles was still at it, which is why everyone who didn’t have a stake in defending the man who defended president bush’s honor against cbs in 2004 readily called charles out as a hate-monger.

    how is it “hardly his fault” that he “incubated” geller and spenser and then banned them. try the sentence with a neutral object: “it’s hardly his fault that he microwaved a burrito and then ate it.” the apologia is so far strained that it’s lost logical coherency.

    finally, you say something that is a shade creepy. it is sometimes said that the people who thrive at charles johnson’s blog have a weird, cult mentality. charles is a god/father, outsiders are suspected, there are forbidden words, websites they’re not supposed to visit. you said that “if johnson had cultivated them, they would have changed their views with him” and that, “The fact that they didn’t means he didn’t cultivate them.”

    you do realize that he is only a blogger, don’t you? a mortal blogger. not a deity.

    to say he “cultivated” geller and spencer is only to say that he coded their blogs, endorsed their views and writing and got their posts a high rank on google. the expectation underlying the above-quoted sentence is that when charles johnson “cultivates” someone, he is remaking their soul. if their soul is not remade in the perfect image of charles johnson, they are not of the charlesly spirit, and so don’t factor either for or against the truth of the one true charles johnson.

    • Elisabeth August 6, 2011, 3:38 PM

      I absolutely loved this post.

      (And in particular:”ordinary people did not become islamophobic in reaction to 911. ordinarily hateful people found it socially forgivable to hate muslims in the immediate wake of 911.”)

  • Chayma July 29, 2011, 3:58 AM

    Deir Yassin

    And I find it hard to understand even if you were not a Muslim. In fact I find it difficult to understand how anyone can find religious bigotry ‘understandable’ based on such a tragic event.

    I find it hard to understand how you find it hard to understand that the worlds only superpower can have the twin towers brought down, despite it’s supposedly impenetrable air and military might. That coupled with all the media hype at that time, about OBL, that was designed to scare and frighten, in a country supposedly the worlds greatest superpower, and which had not till then suffered terrorism from outside. How would that not rouse religious bigotry considering that the media played up the religion as being the reason?

    Maybe if there was not TV, and images being played out, round the clock, minds would not have been influenced.

    What is so hard to understand about being in shock and influenced by irrational fear? and I don’t appreciate your takfir, Deir.

    • Deïr Yassin July 29, 2011, 8:05 AM

      @ Chayma
      “And I don’t appreciate your takfir”
      Don’t play it melodramatic. As ‘jummy’ I see no reason for mentioning that you’re a Muslim at this right moment and it seems suspicious to me. As if trying to give authority to your opinions by merely being a Muslim.

      • Chayma July 29, 2011, 9:09 AM

        Deir

        Don’t play it melodramatic. As ‘jummy’ I see no reason for mentioning that you’re a Muslim at this right moment and it seems suspicious to me. As if trying to give authority to your opinions by merely being a Muslim.

        There is no melodrama in my post. but there is a lot of hypocricy in yours, and don’t ever try to pigeonhole me in what your narrow definition of what a Muslim is.

        Jummy hasn’t tackled the points, and she/he was wrong about Johnson. Also, she/he more or less admitted her problem is personal.

        What’s yours? Address the points I raised. Your judgmental post doesn’t do your credibility any good.

        • Chayma July 29, 2011, 9:12 AM

          and Deir, I want an apology for your takfir

          • Deïr Yassin July 29, 2011, 9:48 AM

            I don’t have a narrow defintion of what a Muslim is. It’s a very personal matter, and I couldn’t care less about how you define it. I’m NOT the one here asking other commenters about their faith. I could’t care less …

            You wrote in your first commet to ‘jummu':
            “I’m a Muslim myself so if WE can forgive …” What’s that supposed to mean ? Being a Muslim, you speak for the rest of us ??
            “I love our allies and appreciate all your support …. sometimes I think our allies are more Muslim than the Muslims”.
            What a bunch of crap. You speak for youself. If you have allies, they are yours, NOT ours. I’m not memeber of some kind of ‘Muslim International’. And I see no reference in Jummu’s comment to Muslims or not Muslims but to universal values.

            And you better read about what ‘takfir’ is before asking me for one. What a joke. I wonder if you’re all right.
            And I’m not answering you anymore. You can continue your ‘domestic scenes’ with Kalea, just keep me out of it.

          • Chayma July 29, 2011, 12:06 PM

            Deir,

            What a bunch of crap. You speak for youself. If you have allies, they are yours, NOT ours. I’m not memeber of some kind of ‘Muslim International’. And I see no reference in Jummu’s comment to Muslims or not Muslims but to universal values.

            don’t give me this multi culti universalism, religious beliefs shape a persons views, thats why i asked, and just because they don’t (i don’t) dosn’t mean you can accuse practice takfir and put yourself on a pedestal. that’s just smarmy hypocricy.

            You can be so intolerant as to not forgive, and hold grudges but don’t expect everyone else to subscribe to your “universalism” (read grudges and petty meaness)

            It’s noteworthy you didn’t address any of the points i how raised, namely show me any bigotry after 2009,

            reading your post one would think he was a bigger enemy than Geller.

            And I’m not answering you anymore. You can continue your ‘domestic scenes’ with Kalea, just keep me out of it.

            Don’t flatter yourself. I dont have time for these silly flame wars, Deir. You can still address the points I raised, or skulk away like a loser, who doesn’t have the grace to apologise.

            Coward.

          • Richard Silverstein July 30, 2011, 12:33 AM

            multi culti universalism

            That could’ve been written by Anders Breivik himself. Don’t you think you should be a bit more circumspect in your insults?

            Deir Yassin is one of the most generous, kind readers of this blog. How you got on her wrong side I do not know. But you should consider when you’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest with her you’ve done something quite rare–and that’s not a good thing either.

          • Chayma July 31, 2011, 2:05 AM

            Richard

            multi culti universalism
            That could’ve been written by Anders Breivik himself. Don’t you think you should be a bit more circumspect in your insults?

            No. It wasn’t meant as an insult. Besides, her so called “univeralism” doesn’t extend to forgiving Charles Johnson, which further lends weight to what i said, regardless of what Anders Brievik said.

            Deir Yassin is one of the most generous, kind readers of this blog. How you got on her wrong side I do not know. But you should consider when you’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest with her you’ve done something quite rare–and that’s not a good thing either.

            Richard, just because Deir Yassin is your pet poster, doesn’t mean that she has the right to declare her fellow Muslims as being infidels, if our views do not meet with her approval.

            How would you like it if Shmuel or Leonid declared you to be an Apikores?

            We do not come here to have our faith and identity robbed by Deir Yassin. She has no right to commit takfir, and classify me as being a kufaar. She owes me an apology and needs to retract her outrageous statement.

          • Deïr Yassin July 31, 2011, 10:04 AM

            @ Chayma
            Something is not turning right in your head. I already noticed that in your harassment of Kalea.
            I don’t care at all whether you’re a Muslim or not neither how you define your religious beliefs.

            In your comment, you write:
            “classify me as being a kufaar”.
            “Kuffaar” is the plural. In singular it’s “kaafir”. Astonishing how a ‘Muslim’ doesn’t know that …

          • Chayma July 31, 2011, 10:44 AM

            Deir Yassin

            No something is not right in your head. Do not project your mental sickness on me, propogating all this universal mumbo jumbo, when you cannot practice it yourself.

            Read again, I meant kufaar as in the plural. Have you lost your comprehension skills?

            I note you didn’t address any of the points regarding Charles Johnson. What’s the matter hypocrite? Can’t you bring proof of his bigotry against Islam since he made his public retraction from his former sins?

            Something that you’re unable to do?

          • Richard Silverstein July 31, 2011, 9:27 PM

            I’m getting very uncomfortable w the level of vitriol & name calling in this post. I want it to end. No more attacks on Dep’t Yassin. You are welcome to comment anywhere on anything. But the sniping has to stop. And when you stop she will not feel the need to respond.

          • Deïr Yassin August 1, 2011, 12:46 AM

            Yes, I won’t respond. Particularly as I didn’t even write ONE thing about this Johnson-guy – that I hardly know – but about the difficulty I have in understanding how someone who claims to be a Muslim find his – or eveybody else’s for that matter – religious bigotry ‘understandable’ even after 9/11.

          • Chayma August 1, 2011, 1:04 AM

            Richard

            I won’t respond either particularly as I wouldn’t have had to name call if Deir hadn’t started it by robbing me of my identity, when her problem is that she finds it hard to understand how anyone can overlook someone’s past sins. When she finds it hard to understand doesn’t mean that she has the liberty to rob people. The bottom line is that your pet poster started this, and now you’re chiding me.

            That is unfair and unseemly. You should be neutral, not siding with the person who start this. With all due respect, I would suggest that you keep a tighter leash on your pet.

            That said, I will now do as you wish and shut up in this thread.

          • Richard Silverstein August 1, 2011, 10:14 PM

            I resent your calling Deir Yassin “my pet” & find it offensive. she is not my pet, but rathe a reader who’s been commenting here for several yes while u have been commenting here for a few months.

  • Chayma July 29, 2011, 4:07 AM

    jummy

    you do realize that he is only a blogger, don’t you? a mortal blogger. not a deity.

    Look,

    I don’t where all this hostility to my comment on Charles Johnson is coming from,

    I’m not a great fan of Charles Johnson, I do however like that he keeps tabs on the far right nutties, like Pamela Geller, Fjordman and others. What is wrong with that?

    I didn’t say he is a deity. Nor that he is the greatest blogger on the net. For the record what ruins his website, are his commenters. They post so much rubbish, that it detracts from he has to say.

    Please explain what is bugging you. Have you had a personal encounter with him? I recommend him for his keeping tabs on our enemies, and I get all this flak from you and Deir, I don’t understand …..

    Please explain, if it’s something personal with him

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 10:21 AM

      I think you’re misconstruing strong disagreement with hostility. Both Jummy & Deir Yassin see Charles differently than you do. And I think Jummy has far more & longer history with him than you do, so I think Jummy’s views deserve a lot of weight & respect.

      And just because Jummy’s dislike or disagreement with Johnson has a personal basis does not discredit it in any way. I have the same feeling about David Abitbol, but that doesn’t discredit my criticism of his views.

      Just to be clear, I think JUmmy is being a bit tough & hard on Johnson based on what I’ve read of LGF. But Johnson’s views before his change were so repellant that I think he deserves scrutiny to ensure that he’s being transparent & sincere now.

  • jummy July 29, 2011, 4:15 AM

    uh huh.

  • Chayma July 29, 2011, 4:21 AM

    jummy

    uh huh.

    That is very eloquent Jummy, and surely helps me understand your opinion more.

  • Chayma July 29, 2011, 4:55 AM

    jummy

    i want to be clear on this point: you said that, “He did discern between religous extremists in Islam and the mainstream Islam followers.” i’m saying that’s not true.

    You are mistaken. In 2009 he did repent

    Why I Parted Ways With The Right
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right
    Charles Johnson
    Mon Nov 30, 2009

    9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

    All the things you accused him of was before then. And you are mistaken when you call him racist. He was never a racist. What you described above was religious bigotry not racism.

    Are you saying we should not forgive and give him a chance to join normal people? If you have proof of his bigotry against Muslims after this date, i’d like to see it, because I havn’t seen anything.

    It appears to me, that you think we should not forgive him and continue to think he is a bigot, when he made it clear he realises his mistake.

    If anyone here has proof, that i’m mistaken in my thinking or i’ve missed something, please post some proof, so that I can review my opinion of Mr Johnson.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 10:13 AM

      The idea that you are a Muslim or claim to be & defend Charles Johnson is entirely whacked out. I don’t know what to make of it. But I smell a rat & if I’m right I won’t take kindly to what you’re doing. If I’m wrong I’ll apologize. But nothing in my experience could justify any Muslim saying what you have about him either in the past or present. And I want to make clear that I share some of yr feelings (though not all) for his turnaround. So it’s not because I feel Johnson is evil incarnate or doesn’t deserve some credit for changing his mind.

      If you look in the dictionary you are creating a distinction w no diff. bet. racism & religious bigotry.

      • Chayma July 29, 2011, 10:43 AM

        Richard,

        don’t know about the rat you smell, nor what you mean by “not taking kindly to what im doing?” I hope you don’t mean i’m planted here by him? I am not!

        i cant believe this, and i want an apology from Deir for takfir, this is between me and her, nothing to do with you, with all due respect,

        but I’m not defending Charles Johnson for his previous views, though admittedly i was never his fan or read him much, i’m merely saying he is a good source for finding out about Geller & co., and since 2009 i’m repared to overlook his previous sins unless someone can show me he still holds to them. No need to make a big conspiracy where there isn’t one.

        I am glad that there is a prominent blogger out there who keeps on eye on Geller and reports it like it is. That’s ll, i’m not defending his previous Islamophobic views, but i can forgive him since 2009.

        • Richard Silverstein July 30, 2011, 12:51 AM

          We do agree on one thing. Now that Johnson has adopted diff. views he is a good source on certain subjects as you said.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 10:25 AM

      ‘Parting ways’ is not repentance. It’s merely saying “I have a disagreement w. them & I’m going my separate way.” Yes, he dislikes them & criticizes them & for that he deserves credit. But I’ve never seen Johnson say, gee I was wrong about my previous views. I think you’re inferring that he believes that & would say it if you asked him to do so. But that’s not the same as actually doing so.

  • ChenZhen July 29, 2011, 9:04 AM

    Yes Johnson had a very public breaking with particular bloggers who used to be his pals…

    but..

    With regard to his prior posts and statements (like those cited in Breivik’s manifesto), we can only assume that the articles that CJ disavows are those that were quietly deleted and tossed in the memory hole (there are dozens, like the ones about the Flight 93 memorial, the Fjordman threads, and others). Otherwise, if he’s publicly disavowed himself from his own articles I must have missed it (one exception, I do remember CJ coming out and saying that he was wrong about his stance wrt torture). For the most part, he defends his past statements when someone brings up something specific in the archives. And as far as those archives is concerned, Jummy’s description is pretty accurate.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 9:33 AM

      That’s interesting. When a right winger here brings up a post I wrote 9 yrs ago & notes a contradiction w. my current views, I try to acknowledge that I’ve changed my views on some things (like ROR & to a lesser extent BDS). But then again, I haven’t made as much of a turnaround politically as Johnson has. I also think if I was going to jettison an entire section of my blog post archive I’d explain why I was doing it publicly. I think these things should be transparent because there are so many out there looking to make hay out of any mistake or error they can find in one’s actions or writings.

      I think it’s important to acknowledge mistakes when you make them. We’re only human after all.

      • pat July 29, 2011, 10:21 AM

        I am not quite sure if by right winger you mean ChenZhen, but if you do, that is simply wrong. CZ is a left of center blogger and always has been. Because of his politeness and willingness to discuss issues without rancor, his personal views are sometimes left to guessing. But his politics are well known to old LGF readers.

        • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 10:28 AM

          No, of course I don’t mean ChenZhen. You prob. haven’t read enough of this blog to know that there are several readers who like to trot out things I wrote a long time ago & say “Aha” you’re a hypocrite or something ridiculous like that. Because by golly I do change my mind about some things & have reasons for doing so.

          But that wasn’t at all directed at ChenZhen who’s never done that.

          BTW, I welcome all the current & former readers of LGF who are commenting here. I think this discussion is important & am glad to have it here.

          • pat July 29, 2011, 10:38 AM

            OK

      • ChenZhen July 29, 2011, 11:08 AM

        One other exception: global warming. Johnson has expressed he was wrong about that numerous times.

        Interestingly, exploring that provides a nice snapshot of the type of blogger Johnson is. When he was an AGW “skeptic”, he attacked those on the other side (ie. Al Gore, etc.) with a great helping of snark and vitriol. And now that he’s seen the light, he attacks the skeptic side -his previous side- the same way.

        I dunno, maybe that’s his draw. Nasty and hypocritical to the point of being surreal. You’re seeing it here with this “blood on their hands” crap.

        Anyway, you say that Johnson attacking Geller is significant, and I agree. But probably for a different reason.

        BTW- Charles made the decision to block the archived comments on threads before the Nov ’08 election to unregistered visitors. He doesn’t want people poking around in there (at least, without being able to monitor them) LOL

        • Richard Silverstein July 30, 2011, 1:08 AM

          I agree. There’s something not entirely trustworthy about Johnson’s views. It’s a bit like the cheating husband. He gets caught & swears he’s turned over a new leaf & will never do it again. But if he did it once why wouldn’t he again? His views about Muslims were so deeply offensive once & the language he used to describe them was so over the top, it seems a bit surreal (as you wrote) that he could simply abandon them & turn over a new leaf.

          But all that being said, he serves a useful role & offers good information about the far right. He certainly knows the ‘enemy’ better than I do.

  • pat July 29, 2011, 9:44 AM

    Somewhere it seems too have been forgotten that this fellow did not murder Muslims. Nor did he advocate murdering Muslims. Nor do any of the blogs mentioned. This is a false narrative by grievance mongers.

    • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 10:08 AM

      If he didn’t murder Muslims it was merely a tactical rather than strategic choice on his part. If he’d escaped his next target would’ve certainly been Muslims.

      • pat July 29, 2011, 10:15 AM

        So now we are guessing. Reading the mind of a psychopath?
        His objective motive was clear: politics. The rest is merely imputed and wishful thinking on the part those that would have preferred another agenda.

        • Richard Silverstein July 29, 2011, 10:31 AM

          No, there is plenty of homicidal thought directed at both ‘secular Marxists’ who he did end up killing, & Muslims who he didn’t (yet). It’s quite a small jump to infer that if he went on a homicidal rampage against one group that if given half a chance his next attack would’ve been against Muslims. In fact, he says explicitly that such attacks against Muslims would draw return fire fr. Muslims which would create the sort of religious wars that would advance his cause. He also makes clear that he thinks Geller, Spencer, et al are chicken shit & don’t have the courage of their convictions to do what needs to be done. Is there any doubt what that is? Of course it’s violence. Violence against all his enemies whether they be Norwegian white ‘Marxists’ or Muslims. And did you not catch that he considers himself a Knight Templar Crusader. Do you remember from yr history lesson what Crusaders did? They killed Muslims, of course.

          Or did you miss that in the manifesto which it appears you haven’t read??

          • pat July 29, 2011, 10:44 AM

            I have read excerpts. A fraction. Nor did I read the Unabomber’s manifesto. I have seen the Geller, Spencer stuff ad nauseum of course. I stand by my comment. Which was echoed by his attorney, btw.

            “Asked if the rampage was aimed at the Labor Party or at Muslim immigrants, Mr. Lippestad said: ‘This was an attack on the Labor Party.'”

          • Deïr Yassin July 29, 2011, 11:26 AM

            @ pat
            I’ve been reading about this guy since Friday, and it’s clear that his goal is a ‘Muslimerfrei’ Europe. The ‘cultural Marxists’ are the White traitors that permit the multicultural society, that’s why he went for the Labor Party.
            His first choice was NOT a massacre but to establish a Pan-European anti-muslim organization but as he lacked money he changed plans and decided to perpetrate a massacre. This is not the end goal. He stated in his diary, and during the interrogations that he’s waiting for the trial to be his politcal platform.
            In articles on the Norwegian blog ‘document’, there are lots of articles by Behring Breivik on his project of developing the ‘Vienna School’. Why do you think he called it so ? And do you think “Gates of Vienna” comes out of nowhere ? Vienna is a symbol of the battle against the Muslims.

          • pat July 29, 2011, 1:00 PM

            Vienna a battle against Muslims? A minor point, but I was taught the Siege of Vienna was in the defense of an aggressive attack by the Ottomans against Christianity. An attack that was unrelenting for a century and resulted in the death, rape and slavery of millions of Christians.
            Again I am seeing a great deal of projection here.

            That being said, I think that his goal is indeed clear enough. But he sought to punish Labour rather than Muslims. And that is the fact.

          • Richard Silverstein July 30, 2011, 12:48 AM

            For the anti-jihadi right, Vienna symbolizes a battle against the Muslims. Yes, Deir Yassin is correct.

            An attack that was unrelenting for a century and resulted in the death, rape and slavery of millions of Christians.

            And if you think for even half a second that this blog is a place where you’re going to proselytize for yr anti-Muslim views, you’ve lost yr mind. Don’t do it again.

      • Deïr Yassin July 29, 2011, 11:10 AM

        Today the first two victims were buried. They were both Muslims or of Muslim origin at least: Bano Rashid, a 19 years old girl of Kurdish origin, and Ismail Haji Ahmed, 18 years old.
        There are many non-ethnic Norwegian names among the killed: a proof that young people of immigrant origin are eager to integrate and participate in the political life of their new country. Behring Breivik must have hated that idea.

    • fiddler July 30, 2011, 10:01 AM

      There were indeed Muslims among the victims, but rather incidentally. I agree the attack didn’t target Muslims directly, but it’s nonsense to conclude that this is unconnected to the pest of xenophobic bigotry, however pseudo-respectably dressed up as “Islam critique”, that’s been plaguing the West for the last decade.

      For those who read German, there’s an interesting analysis in yesterday’s Süddeutsche Zeitung:

      “The massacre of Norway reveals the grave errors of Islam critics: Not a Muslim went to war against the West – the perpetrator belongs rather to the same school of thinking as the critics themselves. This shows: The true enemies of the anti-Islam movement are not the Muslims. They are their own fellow citizens.”
      [...]
      “July 22, 2011 has shown the most obvious fruit of Islam-critical activities nowhere to be the suppression of Islam but only the division of just the society Islam critics purport to speak for, want to defend and strengthen. The Others, we are learning now, are we ourselves. The anti-Islam movement has nurtured hatred not against Islam but against modern Europe, each European citizen, and especially every politician who fails to be cowed by them.”
      [...]
      “To differentiate among the Islam-critical movement, as will be necessary after July 22, means to strike “Islam” from its name, and ask them, naked, as they will then stand before us: What do they want?”

      http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/das-dilemma-der-islam-kritiker-nach-oslo-das-haben-sie-nicht-gewollt-1.1125711

  • Chayma July 29, 2011, 10:53 AM

    The latest from Charles Johnson, apparently Geller altered a post that, an email from Norway, which he thinks was from Brievik, it has this line, that Geller deleted now

    Pamela Geller Edits Post to Conceal Violent Rhetoric in ‘Email from Norway’

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38949_Pamela_Geller_Edits_Post_to_Conceal_Violent_Rhetoric_in_Email_from_Norway#rss
    Ineptly hiding the evidence of incitement
    Charles Johnson
    Fri Jul 29, 2011
    As you can see, the line Geller edited out is:

    We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast.

    Google’s cache also has a copy of Geller’s page, captured on June 30, 2011 — and the line about “stockpiling weapons” was still there at that time.

    • Chas July 29, 2011, 3:32 PM

      Chayma–Thanks for posting this–you beat me to it. This story is absolutely HUGE.

    • Richard Silverstein July 30, 2011, 12:58 AM

      This is astonishing. It appears that Pam Geller received an e mail fr. Anders Breivik in 2007 outlining his homicidal plans. What would you or I have done in this case? You’d have reported it to the nearest authorities if you were a half-way responsible person. Yet what did she do? She merely said the message was shocking & that was it. Leaving Breivik to continue on with his plans to rid Norway of the Marxist menace. Geller is even more repulsive than I could imagine.

  • ChenZhen July 29, 2011, 11:10 AM

    Ineptly? Yea, unlike Geller, Johnson knows how to block the Wayback Machine.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060412041750/littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

  • cordoba1493 August 5, 2011, 7:57 AM

    [comment deleted--sorry, but pimping for Robert Spencer not allowed here]