Islamophobic Bloggers Using Defenses They’d Never Accept from the Other Side

In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance – The Plum Line – The Washington Post

Bruce Bawer, writing in the Wall Street Journal, was beside himself that “this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam.” He then casts Breivik’s concerns, if not his actions, as defensible, describing “the way he moves from a legitimate concern about genuine problems to an unspeakably evil `solution.’”

It would be hard to imagine a conservative showing such empathy for Hamas, concluding that while terrorism is evil, they are nevertheless acting out of legitimate concerns about Palestinian suffering. What’s pathetic is not so much their reasoning, but the knowledge that their arguments would be the same in substance, if more enthusiastic, had Muslim extremists been responsible. [ed. – that last sentence doesn’t make much sense to me, but anyway…]

The most telling reaction was from the anti-Muslim bloggers Breivik cited by name in his manifesto.

Pamela Geller, who along with Professional Islamophobe Robert Spencer has been active in opposing the construction of mosques in the U.S., wrote: “This is just a sinister attempt to tar all anti-jihadists with responsibility for this man’s heinous actions.” Spencer, for his part, wrote: “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.”

Most of Geller and Spencer’s blogging consists of attempts to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism. At CPAC last year, Geller and Spencer drew a large crowd for their documentary referring to the proposed community center near Ground Zero as “the second wave of the 9/11 attacks.” Yet they’re now pleading for the world not to do what they’ve spent their careers doing — assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association. What’s clear is that they understand that the principle of collective responsibility is a monstrous wrong in the abstract, or at least when it’s applied to them. They are now begging for the kind of tolerance and understanding they cheerfully refuse to grant to American Muslims.

These bloggers are not directly responsible for the actions of Anders Behring Breivik. But make no mistake: Their school of analysis, which puts the blame on all Muslims for acts of terrorism perpetrated by Islamic extremists, has been fully discredited — by their own reaction to the Oslo attacks. While it’s obvious that few if any of them will take this lesson to heart, the rest of us should — terrorist acts are committed by individuals, and it is those individuals who should be held responsible.

 

8 comments on “Islamophobic Bloggers Using Defenses They’d Never Accept from the Other Side

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. “Yet they’re now pleading for the world not to do what they’ve spent their careers doing — assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association.”
    That is the crux of it. So a salient question in the past has been the one about Timothy McVeigh and why his terrorist act didn’t cause people to be prejudice against all the people with backgrounds (poor white army vets) and beliefs (Christian) like his?

  2. Scott Miller wrote:

    So a salient question in the past has been the one about Timothy McVeigh and why his terrorist act didn’t cause people to be prejudice against all the people with backgrounds (poor white army vets) and beliefs (Christian) like his?

    Well, it did, in a way. People in general arguably did become a lot more suspicious of people who reminded them of McVeigh, upgrading them from comically pathetic (like the survivalist couple in TREMORS) to possibly dangerous (stock villains in action thrillers). And, after Breivik, it will be a little bit more difficult to function as an Islamophobe in whatever public squares. It won’t stop Spencer or Geller or other careerists, but it will harm their political prospects.

  3. Well it served as a great cudgel for the Clinton administration, in the short term, and there were some errant troublemakers, that fellow Roeder who shot Tiller, was from the Montana militia, Posner, points out in How America Slept’ that id did demoralize the counter terrorists
    for a time, Cannistraro, namely among them,

  4. @ CK MacLeod:
    If you’re right, and you may be, then I have to switch back to the point of the article which is that it would be better if we didn’t take any one act as an indicator of what a whole group of people are like. It’s sad, of course, that it even warrants pointing out, since it’s so obvious. But if we were going to take one act as an indicator of what a whole group of people are like, it would make more sense to be suspicious of people like McVeigh because white army vets have shown an interested in acting violently. Pacifists don’t join any army. I would think that all religious groups have at least some pacifists as members and maybe all religious groups have a pretty good percentage of pacifists. I hope that’s true.

  5. Well you can’t judge a group by one member:

    John Kerry was introduced at the 2004 Democratic National Convention by Wade Sanders, a retired Navy Captain and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy who served as a Swift Boat officer in Vietnam. Like Kerry, Sanders was the recipient of a Silver Star for gallantry in action. During the 2004 campaign, Sanders functioned as Kerry lead attack dog against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, repeatedly denouncing the veterans on the air as liars and comparing them to Nazi propagandists.

    Wade Sanders is now in Federal prison, serving a 37-month sentence for possessing child pornography. Now the Navy Times reports that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has revoked Sanders’ Silver Star. The highly unusual decision appears unrelated to Sanders’ felony conviction. A Navy spokesman cited “subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself.” John Kerry has to be hoping this doesn’t become a trend.

  6. miguel cervantes wrote:

    Well you can’t judge a group by one member

    why not? every now and then, you seem to judge as untrustworthy somebody who has family member in a group that you don’t like.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*