So, now Norway, one of the most peaceful and stable countries in the world -seemingly, at least - is afflicted by mass terrorist slaughter. Understandably enough, we all thought it was the work of Al-Qaeda or even agents of The Mad Colonel (Gaddafi) at first. Commentators (on the BBC at least) seemed shocked to learn that intead of the perpetrator being an Arabic Muslim fanatic, he is a Norwegian Christian fanatic -or more accurately, a local extreme right wing terrorist.
I won't go into details of the event, which are appearing in every media outlet today and can be read HERE.
What I'd like point out is the fact that European neo-Nazis are not so different from Islamic Jihadi terrorists as might be believed. There are, of course, obvious differences: Islamic terrorists, unlike fascist terrorists, are not racist. Anyone can be a Jihadi, whatever their racial origin. Also, there is the faith aspect - Jihadis kill in the name of their faith in Allah, while neo-Nazis usually, but not always, kill in the name of racial supremacy, and have no religious motivation.
Nevertheless, there ARE similarities:
1. They both hate liberal democracy and freedom of speech.
2. They both want to establish totalitarian states (Jihadis call it a "caliphate")
3. They both want to turn back the clock on women's rights.
4. They both persecute homosexuals (despite many of their number being gay)
5. They are both rabidly anti-semitic (although Jihadis try to disguise it by saying they are "anti-zionist")
6. They both are willing to employ terrorist tactics and kill indiscriminately.
We must not make the mistake of thinking that Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian arrested for yeterday's massacre, is an isolated case. Let's not forget David John Copeland, who carried out several bombing attacks in London in 1999. Copeland was no Jihadi, either, but, like Breivik, a right-wing extremist.
In short, when it comes to opposing terrorism, we must not be blind in the right eye.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When it comes down to it, all people who believe that their destiny permits them to take the lives of others who are not actually their enemies are loathsome, whether they are on the right, left, or are religious fundamentalists, nationalists, anti-abortionists, animal rights extremists, or whatever. This must also include supposedly democratic politicians like Tony Bliar, who deliberately took decisions that condemned 100,000s to death and injury. Much of this callousness can be explained by the concept of "collateral damage", which sounds like red wine spilt on a carpet rather than blood on the street.
ReplyDeleteAnother saying sometimes employed in terrorist situations, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs", is always trotted out by people who saw themselves in the role of the cook, not the egg. Their destiny again, you see, but their delusion too, as many of Stalin's loyal supporters discovered as they faced the firing squad or the gulags.
In relation to Norway, I have reservations about the general acceptance of Anders Behring Breivik's statement that he acted alone; this surely needs close scrutiny. Or are we differentiating here? Violence by Moslems is part of a worldwide mass conspiracy, but a white Norwegian who claims to be a Christian must be a loner. Is there a latent racism even as we categorise mass murderers? I hope not, because that would make it more likely to happen again.