Articles

Monday, July 25, 2011

Debunking 6 Myths About Anders Breivik

1. Anders Behring Breivik was a Fundamentalist Christian

Breivik described himself as not a religious person and mentions praying only once. His plans leading up to the attacks involved multiple visits to prostitutes. In one section of his manifesto he clarifies what he means by Christian.

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy

Breivik did call himself a Christian, but meant that in a cultural sense, rather than a theological one. He emphasized that he was not seeking a theocracy, but a secular society. His idea of a Christian Europe had nothing to do with religion.



2. Anders Behring Breivik Hated Muslims

Breivik viewed Muslims as the enemy, but only domestically. He emphasized that; "Knights Templar do not intend to persecute devout Muslims"

And he contemplated collaborating with them on terrorist attacks against Europe. "An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties... We both share one common goal."  The Caliphate was a useful enemy for his cause.


In Breivik's own words, this is how such an arrangement would play out;


"They are asked to provide a biological compound manufactured by Muslim scientists in the Middle East. Hamas and several Jihadi groups have labs and they have the potential to provide such substances. Their problem is finding suitable martyrs who can pass “screenings” in Western Europe. This is where we come in. We will smuggle it in to the EU and distribute it at a target of our choosing. We must give them assurances that we are not to harm any Muslims etc."


Ask yourself is these are the words of a anti-Jihadist who was fighting against Islam. Or a delusional European terrorist who was willing to ally with Jihadist against his fellow Europeans.


Breivik spells out that he is willing to kill Europeans on behalf of just about anyone...

There might come a time when we, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will consider to use or even to work as a proxy for the enemies of our enemies.

Under these circumstances, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will for the future consider working with the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout fractions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations.

Justiciar Knights and other European Christian martyrs can avoid the scrutiny normally reserved for individuals of Arab descent and we can ensure successful deployment and detonation in the location of our choice.   

This should put to rest any idea that Breivik was on a crusade against Islam. He was a deluded man who imagined himself leading a takeover of Europe, even if he had to serve as a Muslim proxy to do it.




 3. Anders Behring Breivik was Inspired by Counterjihad Bloggers

Except Breivik didn't actually kill Muslims. Instead he claimed to be part of a modern Templar Knights organization that was going to take over Europe. Breivik played role playing video games obsessively. One of his favorites was Dragon Age, one of whose characters is a Templar Knight who hacks his way to power.



Did the game inspire Breivik to become a modern Templar Knight? As much as Catcher in the Rye inspired the murder of John Lennon.

Breivik was manic depressive and using steroids while obsessively acting out power fantasies. He built up a fantasy world that convinced him he could become, "...a hero of Europe... A perfect example which should be copied, applauded and celebrated. The Perfect Knight I have always strived to be."

Trying to apply rational standards to Breivik is futile. Like many killers he was of above average intelligence, but below average sanity. Remove the politics, and Breivik fits the profile of most spree killers. He was angry at society, a loner, suffered from mental problems, abused drugs (in his case steroids) and acted out violent scenarios in violent video games.





4. Anders Behring Breivik was Pro-Israel

Breivik was in favor of allying with Israel, India and other minorities in the Muslim world as part of the struggle against Islam. The idea that he was a Zionist or felt any particular affinity for Israel is baseless. Rather Breivik describes the majority of German Jews as disloyal and suggests that if Hitler had deported them, instead of exterminating them he would have become a hero.

If the NSDAP had been isolationistic instead of imperialistic (expansionist) and just deported the Jews (to a liberated and Muslim free Zion) instead of massacring them, the anti-European hate ideology known as multiculturalism would have never been institutionalized in Western Europe

Breivik does mention that large numbers of Jews would have to be executed as Class A or Class B traitors, but urges targeting by political belief, rather than by race.




5. Anders Behring Breivik was a Moderate

Breivik pretended to be a moderate for tactical reasons. He explored National Socialism and formulated his own plan under another name. In his social networking, he describes, "sharing “moderate” resources from my book on debate groups to coach fellow cultural conservatives". The quotation marks around moderate is in the original.

While most have swallowed the idea that Breivik was a counterjihadist, his actual plan was to exploit tensions over Muslim terrorism, in order to conduct a campaign of terrorism against European targets and seize power with a more stable version of National Socialism.

Breivik was not a Nazi himself, for tactical reasons, because he disagreed with Nazi expansionism. But his own plan called for the use of WMD's in Europe and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of traitors. The echoes of the Turner Diaries are very obviously present in his manifesto.




6. Anders Behring Breivik was a Political Terrorist

Breivik was not a member of a terrorist group, except in his own fantasies. His plan was to carry out an attack and become the hero of Europe. This is fairly typical lunacy. His plans were grandiose and detached from reality.

His main target was a children's camp, his final notes are frenzied and he mentions having his thinking clouded by steroid withdrawal.

Breivik did have a plan, but it is detached enough from reality that it can hardly be called a serious political program. He did succeed in killing a large number of people, but so have many other lunatics. Nothing that Breivik did was the work of a sound mind.

Comparisons have been made to the Unabomber, but the Columbine killers and numerous others also come to mind. Including Charles Manson. Breivik's program was just as grandiose as Manson's, and just as deluded. Both hoped that a serious of violent acts would touch off a larger war that would enable them to take over.

Breivik is as much a political terrorist as Manson, and can no more be considered part of any larger cause, beyond the malformed chemicals in his own brain.

49 comments:

Allan Erickson said...

Great work friend. You re much appreciated! Allan Erickson

S. Richard said...

This essay is a needed antidote to the MSM's lazy agenda of labeling Breivik as a right-wing nutjob. They don't care about accurate, detailed, fair reporting, they only want to promote their ideology.
As usual, Mr. Greenfield, your writing is of the highest quality and insightful.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

thanks

Lemon said...

Will be interesting to see what develops.

Yaakov said...

Very good and concise.

Anonymous said...

where are the links to the first two points?

Regarding Israel, he said he supports it's apartheid (as he understands it) towards Arabs. Other Israeli news is reporting that he is pro Israel.

Not that we want him.

HermitLion said...

This person is absolutely disgusting, and to affiliate him with anti-jihad, or Israel, is a great mistake. Not that I expect any better from the usual brain washers, but at least we should act according to the truth.

And Daniel, please reconsider before you link his behavior with video games. There's just as much violence in Lord of the Rings, or Robin Hood, as there is in the game you mentioned - Dragon Age - a role-playing game, where the player has the liberty to choose whether to become a hero, or a villain, and the objective is not to 'take over', but to save the land from a greater threat. The Templar in the picture is, according to the story, the hidden son of the late king, which makes him the heir to the throne.
It's a fairy tale fantasy, not a promoter of violence, and hundreds of thousands of people have played it (and millions, in the case of Modern Warfare 2), without feeling the urge to commit mass murder.

If anything, standing in the line of a government ministry for hours, only to be robbed of your hard-earned money by an obnoxious she-clerk, is a much more likely promoter of killing sprees.

Altalena said...

Sultan,
good to clear up these points, but it should be made clear to the wider public not familiar with counterjihad movements that whatever this guy was reading, or however he did or did not support Israel, those sources have nothing to do with his horrific act. Being a Zionist does not make you a killer, discussing threats of Islam does not make you a killer, etc.
I wouldn't like to see this turn into distancing ourselves from Breivik without stating that even in the theoretical case of him being our best buddy, there was no way he could've found support for what he did at these sites.

What seems to be an assumption in parts of the media is that Breivik's actions are essentially founded in counterjihad ideas, he merely took it to the extreme. This is not so, there is an uncrossable line between national self-defence within a democratic system and going on a killing spree, and this distinction needs to be made explicit.

Andy said...

This was the most clear and concise piece I've read about this subject, nice job.

Anonymous said...

The MSM will keep on underlying that he was an islamophobic racist and some will call him a Zionist too. This distorted part of the story will echo more than any other facet of his crazy plot. Why? In order to hide 2 dangerous facts:
1. that he hated the present political class, and the sheep that support it, at the point of committing such an act. As a political class already in difficulties, you don't want to claim this all loud.
2. that he has been partially the product of the brain-damage policies of european ""leaders"". Again, the failing political class will never admit this.
So he becomes an anti-islamist and a zionist, and so things are settled. This man used violent hitlerian methods and his analysis became more and more delusional - but the political class has failed. Failed to protect us, failed to serve us.

Edward Cline said...

Another bang-up, top-drawer analysis of what Breivik wasn't. A fine job, Daniel. It must come as some relief to you that you weren't cited in Breivik's manifesto. At least, I haven't seen your blog mentioned in it.

Still, you must know that, according to Scott Shane of The New York Times, now you're being scrutinized by the DHS for thought-crime and other "right-wing" misdemeanors.

tenquid said...

I see you also noticed that Breivik's photo looks like a video game avatar. It was the my first thought when I saw the it, too. He chose it to represent himself on social media. It says something about his self-image. It is as if he was in the process of dehumanizing himself, perhaps so he could rationalize his contemplated inhuman acts. The Terminator has no mercy; he is a machine.

Another insightful piece, Mr. Greenfield. Your blog is now my homepage and the first thing I read every morning. It is often the only truly intelligent thing I read all day. Well done!

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

anon, the material is in his 1500 page manifesto. It's not internally linkable. Download the manifesto and do an internal search for it.

He also supported a Caliphate in Muslim countries. It didn't make him pro-Muslim.

Anonymous said...

Nothing justifies the killings and I don't see how analyzing this murderer
"motives" helps.
I do however think that in some countries in the EU, there are no legal, political
Ways to oppose what some believe to be the destruction of their culture.
This inability to oppose peacefully could potentially lead to actions like these

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

HermitLion,

I said that the publishers of the game can't be blamed for what Breivik may have taken from it.

My point wasn't that the game made Breivik kill people, but that a disturbed person takes things in and integrates them into his worldview, whether it's a game, Catcher in the Rye or Jihad Watch. It doesn't make the people behind them responsible for it.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Altalena, maybe it should be, but that means going on the defensive and I don't find that a healthy or helpful reaction.

Andy, thanks.

Anonymous, indeed.

Edward, probably because his manifesto depended on material that predated me. But even if he had, I'm not a major target for the media because I'm not as well known as Robert, etc...

Tenquid, I think that's part of it. He was trying to arrange life into a fantasy world and turning his escapist fantasies into reality.

Anon 2, who's talking about justifying the killings? I'm debunking myths that try to pin blame for it on Christians, the Counterjihad, Jews, etc

HermitLion said...

Daniel,

I know you are aware of the complexities of the situation, but since the gaming industry is conveniently targeted as well, whenever a violent crime is committed, I felt the need to clarify, lest someone erroneously makes the connection.

Like you said, a person integrates things into his own world view, and so if not for games, there would be movies, or books that satisfy Brevik's needs.

And this goes for counter-jihad ideas as well. It's clear from the material brought here that his connection with the movement is circumstantial, at best. The part about him wanting to detonate WMDs in European cities abhors me in particular.

Last note - I re-posted the article on Patriot's Corner (with a link to Sultan Knish), in hope that more people would get to read it.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

I did cite the Catcher in the Rye example, if not here then in my FPM article on Spencer

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/26/in-defense-of-robert-spencer/

obviously Salinger is not responsible for the actions of killers who became obsessed with his book

HermitLion said...

Indeed, Salinger is a good example, and I intend to use it myself :)

HermitLion said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Didn't the Nazis also look on Muslims as a useful ally? Didn't they also employ them as such?

Anonymous said...

Breivik's support of Israel sounds more along the lines of how Hitler initially supported Israel: as a place to deport Jews to.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

indeed

kevin said...

Whether or not a person is "really" Christian, Muslim, etc., is a matter for theologians to decide and such a question is not really answerable (because the substantive terms are undefinable). What counts, is who they identify with and what they do and claim.

If they say they are pro-Christian and identify with historical Christian figures, even if they don't understand "true" meanings, they are functional Christians.

The same is true of Muslim terrorists. Some claim their terrorism is pro-Islamic, others make the opposite claim, and yet others take a nuanced position. What are we to make of this? If they say they are Muslim, identify with historical Muslim figures, and quote scripture to justify their actions, they are functionally Muslim.

To the extent that this is about substantive matters such as Christianity, this provides a stark reminder that humanism (which he condemned) is the good alternative.

Though you're right to focus on the psychological aspects. Anders' father left him at age one. He was raised by his mother, a nurse. Both are members of the Labor Party, his target in this case. He is looking for a father-figure, in history, and probably in his personal life as well.

Where did he get his money? He spent a lot of it, in foreign travel, renting a farm, tons of ammonium nitrate; and foregone income while working on the project. He claims to have made millions in some unspecified business, but until recently lived at home, and he depended on bank loans. He rented the farm from a person sent to prison for marijuana cultivation. He spoke of "investors" whom he would have to pay back.

Connect the dots.

soopermexican said...

Great post... of course, the media and the Left intend to willfully ignore the truth in order to fulfill their political goals. I had a similar post: http://bit.ly/nWSMnW

Isahiah62 said...

I saw some more debunks at PJmedia by a poster
Brievik is not a “fundamentalist.” In fact, his ideology is more closely aligned with the “Social Gospel,” which lies at the heart of “Progressive Christianity.” Consider these quotes from Brievik’s manifest. On page 49, he accuses fundamentalists of contributing to “negationism” (which he defines as the denial of the inherently evil character of Islam) by partnering with Muslims:

“In the U.S., Christian fundamentalists and Islamic organisations are increasingly creating common platforms to speak out against trends of moral decay (abortion, pornography, etc.). Some of these phenomena of traditionalist alliance-building are quite respectable, but they are nevertheless conducive to Islam negationism.”

On page 1361, in the course of a bizarre self-interview, he asks this question: “Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?”

Here’s the main part of his answer:

“It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage(what we do want).” In the manifest “do not” and “do” are in boldface.

He later asks (pg 1403): “Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?”

His answer: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic.”

July 25, 2011 - 11:01 pm Link to this Comment | Reply RL
I left out this passage from page 1307 of the manifest that shows conclusively that he is an adherent to the “Social Gospel” which makes him “Progressive Christian.” Under the heading “Distinguishing between cultural Christendom and religious Christendom,” Brievik writes:

“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”

That may make him a Christian, but it certainly doesn’t make him a fundamentalist.

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/07/25/how-the-new-york-times-spins-the-norway-horror/

I’ve been reading through Brievik’s Manifest. The media is downplaying his anti-globalization ideology. He echoes many of the Left’s critiques of global free-market capitalism. The difference lies in emphasis: the Left sees the free movement of goods and ideas (i.e. American culture)as a threat to distinct regional cultures, while Brievik sees the free movement of people (i.e. Muslims) as a threat to distinct regional cultures. Consider this passage from page 1195 of his manifest:

“As mentioned several times, the ongoing European civil war is not a class war, and as such it is not a war between socialism and capitalism. It is a cultural war between cultural conservatives and cultural Marxists (nationalism vs. internationalism)….Although globalist capitalism is a destructive concept does not mean that localised capitalism mechanics are….laissez-faire capitalism is a globalist concept (no government intervention) and has several drawbacks. Many economical protective measures must be in place securing the economical sustainability of our cultural conservative economic zone (European Federation).”

Gill said...

Sultan,
Loon Watch, the islamist butt licking rag, wrote about your Frontpage mag interview, but didn't credit you, How come you didn't it publish it here?


http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/07/in-defense-of-demonization-frontpage%e2%80%99s-lame-defense-of-robert-spencer/

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

If you take their line of attack literally, then reporting on any social problem or extremist theology is a call for violence against that theology.

Except they still don't have any argument, except that a mentally unhinged loon who killed a bunch of people, pasted in some articles, some of which quoted Spencer, into his 1500 word manifesto.

Gill said...

Of course, and don't forget Spencer quotes from the koran, so they can blame their islamist buddies for that too. It's an outrage. The leftist media is spinning like a top. By they way, who or what is Loon Watch, I mean who is behind it? Some say it's a Media Matters Soros fund, but it appears to be a front for an islamist agenda, or maybe both. Who actually runs it?

Christinewjc said...

Thank you for this very informative post! I am linking to your blog today! Thanks for setting the record straight. We know that the Media of Mass Deception won't!

Anonymous said...

It turns out that the perp was driven mad by islam and took a page from their missionary playbook to express his dissatisfaction with what he believed to be the socialist enablers of the islamification of his country.

It just goes to show that anyone who dwells on the subject of islam long enough is in danger of going mad, whichever side of the fence (Dar al-harb or Dar al-islam) he sits on.

The Infidel Alliance said...

The acid test as to whether or not ones actions are representative of a particular religion is to compare those acts to the teachings and life examples of the founders of those particular religions.

For example, if a 'Buddhist' kills, steals, rapes, enslaves or terrorizes, he does so in direct contavention to the teachings and life examples of the Guatama Buddha. These actions and the perpetrator cannot legitimately be called Buddhist, as the founder of Buddhism never did them nor condoned them.

Similarly, if a 'Christian' kills, steals, rapes, enslaves or terrorizes, he does so in direct contavention to the teachings and life examples of Jesus Christ. These actions and the perpetrator cannot legitimately be called Christian, as the founder of Christianity never did them nor condoned them.

But if a 'Muslim' kills, steals, rapes, enslaves or terrorizes, he does so in direct accordance with the teachings and life examples of the founder of Islam, the 'holy prophet' Muhammed. These actions and the perpetrator are legitimately Islamic, as the founder of Islam actuaslly did these acts and mandated his followers to do the same.

When the chorus of Christophobes
cries that a man like Breivik and his despicable acts are 'Christian', they lie.

When the chorus of Islamic apologists cries that a jihad attack and the jihadists 'had nothing to do with Islam', they lie.

That is the hard truth.

~ The Infidel Alliance
http://infidelalliance.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

@Infidel Alliance

The atheist lieberals don't like any evidence that contradicts their fantasy that all religions are the same.

I always wonder if Yeshua knew or studied under Hillel, because his ideology seems somewhat derivative of his.

2sloe said...

DG,
Thank you for all your hard work.

This guy really is a walking avatar on steroids.
Starting on them at a relatively young age must increase deleterious effects.
Endless engagement in gory role-playing video "games" served as killing simulators, and no less: blunting empathy and dehumanizing others.
He reportedly had plastic surgery "on his forehead, nose, and chin" too: Thus your juxtaposed photos illustrate extreme delusion.
Whatever reality remained, was merely window dressing. Nobody's home.. except perhaps the demons he invited. Anything coming out of his mouth should be construed as for some purpose Other Than what is stated... just as his actions were.

Gary Rumain said...

Children's camp? Seriously? You're peddling that too? And at what age is an adult no longer a teenager?

Glenn Beck had the right idea by describing it as a Hitler Youth camp. This is what those youths were up to -

http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/2011/07/norway-youths-discussed-paleswine-prior.html

You may also wish to correct the sentence beginning with "Both hoped that a serious of violent acts".

1389 said...

Great article! And as I keep pointing out, "crazy" is NOT an ideology!

Anonymous said...

@2sloe

Islam dehumanizes everyone not muslime, on practically every page of their Quran and hadeeths, particularly Jews.

2sloe said...

reply @anonymous: I 100% agree.

I commented on some lesser-discussed aspects within the overall picture of this man's choices. He engaged in powerfully effective neural-behavior shaping methods, in particular, the sheer amounts of them.
Truth does not create ungodly monsters. Such creatures often quote some truth, but they do not love the truth. They damage it, AND the love of it, in others.

Zilla/MJ said...

Well done, Daniel, thank you. I've linked to your post here:

Operation United Front

I am hoping that people will join me in showing those who fight for freedom and human dignity that they have our support! Anyone who wants in will be added to the roll call that is going to be posted when I update the blog in a little while.

Anonymous said...

I am a left-leaning atheist who has read this blog, Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs, Gates of Vienna and others for several years now and I agree with your assessment here.

No one mentioned above need take any responsibility for what this monster did. He alone is responsible and needs to be held accountable. By diverting attention to the very real threat of militant Islam, this situation is being used completely and if they can smear those who have been ringing the warning bell, all the better.

I am well aware that most Muslims aren't militant and have had many interesting conversations about Islam, their prophet and the hadith. Most of them have a very different understanding and don't at all identify with those who create terror - they are as horrified as the rest of us. I've sat with these people and Robert's books and their own personal Koran and gone over verse by verse. None of them were taught the supremacist kind of Islam and on MANY occasions were shocked to find those entries in their Koran. I've also read some extremely vile comments from Muslims all over the internet that can only be construed as horrifying and of course we've got story after story of some disgusting event involving people of the same ilk.

When people objectively look at the facts and read from a variety of sources, they'll come to a more realistic conclusion. Many are still in the kneejerk faze right now but in the end, they can't bury their head forever.

An Atheist Reader

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Yes, it's cynical exploitation. They can't show that researchers into terrorism call for violence, so they draw implicit connections instead.

Muslims are introduced to the Koran differently, often depending on background. Once the presentation is there, it directs how they see things.

Violence is presented as defensive. The Ummah is always under attack.

Anonymous said...

I wish to comment that both Europol and the norwegian security service (PST), deny any other than marginal change in the threat-picture after the mass-murder. Happily, they are smarter than the media

cornholio said...

Hell's bells, the holy Quran and hadeeths are full of explicit, pervasive antisemitism as spouted by the most perfect and holy man in Islam: Muhammad. I haven't noticed ANY muslimes anywhere renouncing or repudiating the antisemitic puke in their holy books -- only trying to obfuscate it by re-defining Judaism.

The bullshit about "good" and/or "moderate" muslimes is pure crap. You can't believe in the f'ed up ideology that Muhammad vomited out and be a "good" person -- unless you're a morally bankrupt
libtard. It's as ridiculous as stating you can be a "good" nazi.

Anonymous said...

Cornholio, your response is exactly why people who may be open to hearing about this threat will shut down and relegate what is said to be the rantings of hate-filled people. You do a disservice to anyone who wants to dialog about this and close down any real and reasonable conversation. I've seen it from both sides and it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
An Atheist Reader

Steve Marbin said...

Anonymous says the egalitarian thing nicely. Even handedness wins the race everytime.
If we had talked nicely to our enemies long ago we would not be in these wars right now. You can bet on that.
But you don't talk you just get mad at terrorists and others. Its just insane.
We need to dialog with Islam more and more to get their understanding and see why they hate the west so much that they would blow up the world trade center and kill people in the streets and on army bases.
Or why they walked into a Jewish Charity and murdered all the defenseless women there. It was because they are misunderstood and no one hears them out! But name calling just makes it worse and worse all along the line you people!
Don't you people get that?
If only everyone listens and talk a whole lot less.
That way there will be no hatred at all and we can all get along nicely and calmly.
People need to feel understood not hated or put down because of momentary slips in behavior.
It is only because some people speak their mind that we have problems at all. If people would just say nice things and try to understand why people are driven to do bad things then it would be a better world.
You don't have to say whats on your mind all the time.
I like it anonymous :).
Thank goodness for calm minds.

Steve Marbin said...

Maybe if bloggers printed some positive things about all this it might make things smoother all the way around.
Every cloud has a silver lining.All the doom and gloom is overwhelming at times.
We need to start seeing the bright side of events.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I doubt that we would be able to get through to the hardliners and those who are so irrational that that they think that by blowing themselves up to kill an infidel, they purchase a one way ticket to paradise. No, those people are a lost cause and I wouldn't advocate that they be negotiated with; it would yield nothing but lies. Their position is completely irrational and inhuman, how does one negotiate with that.

However, my point was that there are many many people who identify as being Muslim that don't adhere to this hardline stance of Islam. I personally agree with people like Robert Spencer who go to the root of the problem, which is the Koran, Hadith, and the whole "tradition of Mohammed". My original post was to state that many Muslims are completely unaware of this and when made aware, do not buy it. They don't identify with it and don't take those verses as something to live by. They pick and choose those verses that they find to be something good and live according to that.

This is why it's not logical to tar all people who are Muslim with the same wide brush. It would be like saying all Christians are the same when we all know that it runs the gammit and there are even those who identify as Christian but are anything but "Christ like".

An Atheist Reader

cornholio said...

@Gary Rumain

Just wanted to give a tip of the hat to you Gary. You might remember me from usenet.

Anonymous said...

Great info. I hate when "right-wingers" defend this prick. As always, Greenfield's articles make you want to go back in time an crush everyone in any debate you had on a topic he's covered.

Post a Comment