New Events


no events posted in last week

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link New Books Worth Reading Mon Sep 19, 2016 23:25 | Sen Sheehan

offsite link 13 Billion ? Lucky for some? Mon Sep 05, 2016 13:04 | Tony Phillips

offsite link Rebuilding Ireland: Long on Promise, Short on Detail Mon Aug 29, 2016 22:20 | Eoin O'Mahony

offsite link Brexit and Other Issues: Comments on the Current Situation Mon Aug 29, 2016 21:52 | Brendan Young

offsite link Bin Charges: From Private Circus to Public Service Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:38 | Michael Taft

Irish Left Review >>

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

offsite link Fake News: The Epistemology of Media Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:52 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Officials and Provisionals Sat Apr 01, 2017 22:54 | James O'Brien

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Orwell’s 1984 arrives in 2018 Ireland

offsite link Elaine Byrne: Not speaking full truth to power Anthony

offsite link Israel/Ireland: Corruption comparison Anthony

offsite link Irish cowboy town and fake regulatory agencies Anthony

offsite link Elaine Byrne: Failing to join up the dots on state corruption Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link May 23, 2018 Biggest ISIS Attack Near Palmyra In Past Few Months Wed May 23, 2018 21:03 | Scott On May 22, ISIS attacked positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the T3 pumping station, near the city of Palmyra, in the province of Homs. The attack

offsite link Will the Russian-Iranian-Syrian alliance hold as the Syrian war draws close to an end? Wed May 23, 2018 10:00 | The Saker
By Aram Mirzaei for The Saker Blog These past weeks have witnessed a lot of tensions running high, with Israel and Iran reportedly facing off near the Golan Heights. Israel

offsite link May 22, 2018 Damascus Is Secured, Daraa Is Next Tue May 22, 2018 22:02 | Scott Late on May 21, Russian air defense systems, allegedly a Pantsir-S short to medium range system, launched at least four missiles at ?unidentified? targets over the Khmeimim air base

offsite link One Year On ? The Truth About The Manchester Bombing Scorpion Tue May 22, 2018 19:43 | The Saker
by Nick for The Saker Blog ?Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time?. Among the Western nations to discover the bitter truth of Bashar

offsite link Tehran eyes path ahead after US withdrawal from nuclear pact Tue May 22, 2018 17:05 | The Saker
by Pepe Escobar (cross-posted with the Asia Times by special agreement with the author) Iran is considering conducting all trade in euro and yuan amid uncertainty over whether Brussels can

The Saker >>

The Norway massacre and the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism

category international | rights, freedoms and repression | other press author Saturday July 23, 2011 16:03author by JoeMc Report this post to the editors

The initial media response was to blame the attacks that caused the deaths of at least 91 people in Norway yesterday on Islamist extremism . Since then a profile of Anders Behring Breivik, the Islamophobe behind the massacre has begun to emerge. A day before the atrocity on the island of Utoya , Labour Youth delegates at the summer camp had held a Palestine solidarity event there.

This article argues that Breivik's views, should be seen in the context of his support for Islamophobic political movements in Europe and the US and his pro- Zionism . Breivik drew inspiration from right wing Islamophobic organizations , particularly from what he calls The Vienna School of Thought, which champions cultural conservatism, anti-racism and anti-Islamization .

author by JoeMcpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 16:11Report this post to the editors

It's interesting that the Islamophobic Vienna School of Thought mentioned in the article should be promoting itself as anti-racist . Islamophobia has become the new racism , substituting religious intolerance for racism directed at people's skin colour . Forty-two percent of French people and 40 percent of Germans questioned by pollster IFOP said they considered the presence of a Muslim community in their country a threat to their national identity according to a Le Monde report last year.

author by Serfpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 18:05Report this post to the editors

just goes to show, right wing christian nutjobs are equally as bad as islamist nutjobs.

Perhaps its time we outlawed ALL religion because it gives rise to this kind of craziness and promotes the idea that not questioning is a virtue.

Religion just gives nutjobs the ultimate excuses to kill people and ignore society's laws because "gods law takes precedence over mans law" and "I'm doing gods work" and "I get to shag 100 virgins in paradise if I blow myself up in the service of allah" etc etc etc.

we need to stop teaching our kids this poison and lets face our reality square on and make this world a better one since there really is no other one except in the minds of fevered nutjobs and the excessively gullible.

otherwise more of this kind of thing is definitely on the cards as tensions escalate between these various irrational faiths.

the time where all religion has a get out of jail free card should now be over. We've seen here in Ireland what feet of clay the high priests of our own most subscribed religion have and how false their exhortations of morality were when push came to shove, (as in shoving your dick into people's children. Not to put too fine a point on it.)

what always gets me is if gods are omnipotent then why do these kind of assholes feel they have to kill people on his/her/its behalf. surely he/she/it can do their own slaughtering of the non believers., complete with lightning bolts and fire and brimstone. A bit presumptuous I would have thought.

no gods or masters.

author by Sane.publication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 18:27Report this post to the editors

He is insane.

Politicians... stop saying it is ideology.

He is mad.

author by JoeMcpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 18:37Report this post to the editors

"I get to shag 100 virgins in paradise if I blow myself up in the service of allah"

An islamophobic lie to add to the lies put about by the media which initially sought to blame Muslims for the atrocity . That is the sort of poison that we need to stop teaching our kids , but first of all the Irish left needs to educate itself on the matter .

author by Sane.publication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 18:47Report this post to the editors

A horse has form.

"The media which initially sought to blame Muslims for the atrocity ."

It's what some Muslims do JoeMac.
It's what they do.

Peaceful Norwegians don't plant bombs ever.

author by Sane.publication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 19:18Report this post to the editors

The last Norwegian to be hanged was Quisling.
He allowed Norwegian women to be used by German Nazis to produce a pure blond race.

(To this day "quisling" means "lick arse".)

I suspect that another Norwegian will swing yet another Viking scaffold.

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 21:19author email tim.johnston33 at gmail dot comReport this post to the editors

"Islamophobia" is racism?? why, what race are Muslims, Joe?

Those seeking to find the ideological context of the Norwegian nutter's political beliefs should remember that Jared Loughner was a left-wing nutter who committed a similar, if less destructive, act of murder.

A nutter is a nutter, irrespective of what beliefs they held - the only difference is the target they select.

The twisted way in which the author of the mondoweiss article tries to connect the killer with Zionism, conservatism or the so-called "right wing" is just using the tragedy to score political points. From reading Breivik's own words it's clear that he was a conspiracy theorist of sorts who collected his beliefs from a variety of conservative and libertarian viewpoints as well as the anti-jihad movement, but strung them together in a unique and paranoid way.

The most telling quote is the following:
"A day before the atrocity on the island of Utoya , Labour Youth delegates at the summer camp had held a Palestine solidarity event there. "

Well, why didn't he attack the camp the day before, then?

author by equilibriumpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 23:47Report this post to the editors

Whenever I hear people slating religion and its' role in wars, murders, bombings, etc., I'm reminded of a quotation given to me by my secondary school English teacher. I don't know who it's by or if its in the correct order bit you get the point! "man will do anything for his religion - he will fight for it, kill for it and die for it. Anything but live for it." Religion doesn't tell us to kill anyone. It is us who have the power to do that or not. Of course there are those idiots who tried to blame this on "the Muslims" as soon as they heard bombings. However this is not a time to point score at the expense of these idiots. There are 91 people dead at least. Shut up.

author by Fredpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 23:56Report this post to the editors

True to form Tom blame the Jews
There is no connection to zionists but blame them anyway and
even in Poland where there are only a handful of Jews left after WW2 --as the Poles were as Priest ridden as we were here - there is rampant anti Semtism
- so we are not so far behind

author by Serfpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2011 23:57Report this post to the editors

@ joeMc
I was equally scathing to all religions. Thats equality. I didn't discriminate. I despise all religions equally.
and it is a well known fact that many muslims believe that they will get to have their way with a bunch of virgins in paradise if they die honourably in jihad. If you consider my stating of well known beliefs of religious sects as discrimination, well I can only say that I was not the one that came up with these daft beliefs in the first place. I'm just stating what some muslims themselves have said. If they truly believe this kind of shite and are prepared to die for it then I think they deserve any ridicule they may get. As do fundamentalist christians or zionists etc etc. All are believers in fairytales. Are we adults here or what??.

I'm not pandering to this nonsense because you get all irate with me joe. Face it, religion is just nonsense. It's just a crutch for the gullible and the weak minded and a vehicle to power for some sociopaths who probably believe in nothing except power.

I see you are hard at work distancing your own zionist lot from this atrocity. Well face facts tim, your crowd are not averse to killing in the name of, or equally disgustingly, killing for land and territory. I think a lot more innocent people were killed in operation cast lead etc etc. This guy is small fry compared to the zionist military machine.

You guys are just more religious nutjobs defending sacred places and killing people in order to do so. Bah!

author by Denis MacEoin - Denis MacEoinpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 00:30author email maceoin at btinternet dot comauthor address 15 Erskine Courtauthor phone 0191 281 8444Report this post to the editors

Those who point out that the killer is mentally disturbed (otherwise defined as a 'nutter') have it about right. To cite his right-wing or Christian fundamentalist views is to engage in irrelevance. He would have killed people even if he'd been a Quaker. To use his undoubted Islamophobia as a counter to claims that this was an Islamist killing misses the point entirely. Christianity of any variation does not preach killing. No Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox, Evangelicals or whoever preach or practise violence. Islam, on the other hand, makes violence towards non-believers a core doctrine. It is in the Qur'an, in the Hadith collections (all of which have a bab al-jihad or chapter on holy war), in the actions of Muhammad (who led and fought in 27 battles), in the whole of Islamic history, from the 7th century Arab invasions right up to today's wars against Israel (which were jihads) and terrorism against the West (badly defined as jihad, which it is not). In other words, for a Christian (so-called) to kill is an aberration, but for a Muslim to kill is in line with the earliest Islamic doctrine and practice.

author by Anti-nutter campaignpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 02:10Report this post to the editors

Denis' little hate-filled rant is almost identical to the hate-filled rants posted on the website by Anders Behring Breivik.

A selection of Brevik's anti-muslim rants can be found here:

The similarity to Denis' ranting is unmistakable.

Given that Brevik was extremely Pro-Zionist and extremely Anti-Muslim, it seems a pretty good bet that the his massacre was related to the Norwegian Gov'ts pro-Palestinian-Statehood stance.

There are also many reports, with eyewitness statements, claiming that he didn't act alone - that there was at least one more Gun-man, dressed in civilian clothes, and not dressed in the Police-like clothing Brevik wore. Here is one such report, but there are many others from various news-sources -

So it seems that there is a possibility that Brievik may be part of some shadowy Pro-Zionist Anti-Muslim group that has decided not to claim responsibility in it's own name. Equally he may not.

BUT: Reports that both the bombing and the massacre are merely the work of one 'lone nutter' seem unlikely to be accurate given the logistics involved in such a bombing and the eyewitness reports of there being more than one gunman. So that certainly indicates more than one person involved, rather than the 'lone nutter theory' currently being promoted in the Media

Certainly someone has already tried to have Muslims blamed for this. Postings on the net were made in the name of an imaginary group supposedly called 'Helpers of the Global Jihad' -

6.09pm: NRK is reporting that an unknown group called "Helpers of the Global Jihad" have posted a message that this is only the beginning of the reaction to Norwegian periodicals publishing the Muhammed cartoons, according to Andrew Boyle, a journalist in Norway.

Note the attempt to link it to the Cartoons of Mohammad and note also that the notion of 'Global Jihad' is something frequently mentioned by both Neo-Con/Zionists and Al Queada types - in fact it's pretty much only those two groups that promote such a fantasy.
weird how they both love talking about it so much - it would be even weirder if they both turned out to be more or less backed by the same group of people, no?

author by The Gates of Viennapublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 02:27Report this post to the editors


True to form Tom blame the Jews
There is no connection to zionists but blame them anyway and
even in Poland where there are only a handful of Jews left after WW2 --as the Poles were as Priest ridden as we were here - there is rampant anti Semtism
- so we are not so far behind

Fred the killer himself made frequent reference in his Internet rants, to a Website called 'Gates of Vienna' a radical Pro-Zionist website, with extremely paranoid views on Anti-semitism - those guys see it everywhere, even under the bed.

So there certainly IS a connection between the Killer Brevik and Zionism,, whether you like it or not. Simply denying it isn't going to make it go away

The website name is an anti-Muslim reference to wars of the past. And all the people that post there are Zionist fundamentalists.

author by Anti-Brevikpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 03:02Report this post to the editors

This is from Craig Murray's website. It appears to confirm that the suspect was a zionist fundamentalist.

"Anders Behring Breivik posted links to the Atlas Shrugs website of the Tea Partys Pamela Geller. * Pam Geller is a Zionist nutjob and promotes the racist policies of the English Defence League. The EDL frequently displays Zionist symbolism at it's rallies

Here you can see him under the name of Anders Behring (his middle name) posting links to Gellers Atlas Shrugs site. That cache page is being translated from Norwegian.

Here is a video of Pamela Geller addressing the Tennessee Tea Party convention. This is a list of links I just copied off her Atlas shrugs website to a stream of virulent anti-Norwegian Muslim articles Geller has been publishing:

January 2009: NORWAY: Jewish children are not allowed to play outdoors

April 2011: Norway: Muslim Taxidrivers Refuse to Drive Jews to Synagogue

May 2009: More Jewish Graves Desecrated in Norway


2011: Norway: ALL Rapes In Past 5 Years Committed By Muslims

2008: Jewish Genocide watch: Jew Hatred in Norway Part II

2009: JIHAD ON THE JEWS: Something rotten in the state of Norway

2008: ISLAM ATTACKS Death for Writer! Norway Hides

2007: Massive Islamic Terror Plots: Germany, Norway, Denmark

2007: Email from Norway

2006: Norway calls for Israel Boycott

The links themselves appear to have been disabled. You could still see the links on Atlas Shrugs here as I type this. Someone more technically proficient than me might want to grab a screenshot before the list vanishes.

Geller has been actively promoting links between the Tea Party and the English Defence League. Geller states on her website that she had been in Oslo to attend a pro-Israel rally. It would be interesting to know whether Anders Behring-Breivik was also on that rally."

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 04:34author email tim.johnston33 at gmail dot comReport this post to the editors

"So there certainly IS a connection between the Killer Brevik and Zionism,, whether you like it or not. Simply denying it isn't going to make it go away"

The connection is he was interested in it. So what? Maybe he liked Iron Maiden too and drove a Volvo. Are those things bad too because of what Breivik did?

author by Anti-Brevikpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 06:53Report this post to the editors

Both of your rather desperate attempts to portray the killer as a lone insane gunman look silly in light of the numerous eyewitness reports of a 2nd gunman.
"Police already are questioning one suspected gunman, a native Norwegian, but the country's national news agency NTB said Saturday that witnesses on Utoeya island where the attack occurred have told police two people were involved. The man already in custody was disguised as a policeman, wearing a sweater with a police emblem on it, but the witnesses said the second man was not."

Given the obvious logistical difficulties, the earlier bombing is unlikely to have been the work of one man acting on his own. So the 'lone nutter' theory being pushed by the Pro-Zionists seems very suspect indeed.

Of course it suits the Pro-Zionists posting here to propagate the lone-nutter theory because they hope that their precious Zionism, with it's ever-present twin 'Muslim hatred', will not come under the spotlight

such massacres have been carried out before in the name of militant Zionism, most notably the Hebron Massacre. This time the targets were the youth wing of the Norwegian governing party - shortly after Norway declared in favour of a UN vote for Palestinian Statehood.

author by Sane.publication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 07:35Report this post to the editors

"So the 'lone nutter' theory being pushed by the Pro-Zionists seems very suspect indeed."

Some people confuse mental illness with Zionism and other politics.

You use the mentally ill people to spin your own daft myth.

author by Anti-nutterspublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 08:22Report this post to the editors

Some people confuse mental illness with Zionism and other politics.

Well, some people consider that support for zionism is a form of mental illness

You use the mentally ill people to spin your own daft myth.

You use the 'lone nutter' theory to hide the existence of the 2nd reported Gunman. It seems likely that there are at least 2, and possibly more, people involved - so a 'group of nutters' possibly - which seems to be a perfect description of supporters of Zionism and extreme right wing politics: a group of nutters

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 09:40Report this post to the editors

"So the 'lone nutter' theory being pushed by the Pro-Zionists seems very suspect indeed.

Of course it suits the Pro-Zionists posting here to propagate the lone-nutter theory because they hope that their precious Zionism,"

what have Zionists got to do with any of it? What aspect of Zionism is in favour of shooting Norwegian kids at camp, do you think?

Was Zionism Breivik's primary political belief, or were his views a mix of various neonationalist, anti-Marxist and militaristic extremisms?

So he supported the existence of Israel. Maybe he supported the existence of Norway too, and Kazakhstan. Are those countries now suspect because of what Breivik did?

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:03Report this post to the editors

The article writer asserts that Breivik "repeatedly professed his ardent support for Israel" yet only quotes him twice, in instances where it's clear Breivik viewed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the context of a sort of 'global jihad', rather than his being particularly interested in Israel.

There's no doubt that support for Israel's existence formed part of his worldview, but whether it was a major aspect of it is unlikely. The attempt to turn him into a sort of Zionist-crusader is tentative at best, and that's giving the author some major benefit of the doubt as to his motivation in making the connection.

And a rather large number of people in the world regard Israel as having a right to exist.

His rather paranoid worldview is evident to anyone reading his ramblings. He clearly hated Norway's ruling party.

author by Anti-Brevikpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:38Report this post to the editors

they really must be terrified that people might begin to realise that most of the race-hatred in Europe being stirred-up between Christians and Muslims is being spread by people who are also big supporters of Zionism.

One thing the extreme right-wing, Al-Qeada types, and Zionists all have in common is that they all attempt to promote the 'Jihad' view of Muslims to people in the west. Almost as if they are all reading from the same script.

author by Anti-Brevikpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:49Report this post to the editors

There's no doubt that support for Israel's existence formed part of his worldview, but whether it was a major aspect of it is unlikely.

He makes frequent reference to 'The Vienna School' - this is a direct reference to the ideology of theanti-muslim hatred promoted at Zionist-Fundamentalist website "Gates of Vienna"

He was also a contributor to the commentary at Rabid Zionist Fundamentalist Pam Geller's "Atlas Shrugged" another site that promotes an ideology of anti-muslim sentiment bourne entirely from Zionist indoctrination

SO it's pretty safe to say that the extremely anti-muslim race-based Zionist-worldview heavily influenced this guy.

If the anti-muslim race-based Zionist-worldview did not heavily influence this guy how then is it that the very few English-Language websites he made contributions to, JUST HAPPEN to be anti-muslim race-based Zionist-Fundamentalist websites?

author by disgustedpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:55Report this post to the editors

And a rather large number of people in the world regard Israel as having a right to exist.

Believing Israel 'has a right to exist' is one thing - spreading Anti-Muslim hate while pretending to defend Israel 'has a right to exist' , like most of the Zionist-Fundamentalist websites mentioned in this thread, is quite another.

Note also that most of the comments in this thread that seek to object to this guy being labelled Zionist also contain a lot comments which are best described as Anti-Muslim hate

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 13:04Report this post to the editors go to Zionism for the roots of European racism.

It long predates the nineteenth century pseudo-science race theories that produced it in parallel to Aryan self-worship.

To a large extent, despite a religiously reinforced tribal exclusiveness, Zionism was a defensive reaction to the long-running European master-race complex that had seen Jews persecuted for centuries. But ask the Carib or Australian natives if the jews had a monopoly on victimhood and they may just laugh.

That it became a counter racism should be a warning to us all. We might be better employed examining the European origins of racisms, including Zionist strains, than thinking Zionism is exeptional or qualitatively more extreme. We in Ireland need have little pride in our treatment of our own Traveller people, and are often deeply inimical to outsiders and refugees. Its always easier, and useful, to see an obvious enemy's vices than our own.

Rather look to European racism for the roots of Zionism.

author by Joe Mcpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 13:58Report this post to the editors

Whether Breivik acted alone on the island or not, he was well connected beforehand to a European network of Islamophobes and pro-Zionist filth including the English Defence League (EDL). His 1500 page Islamophobic and anti-Marxist manifesto discovered yesterday on the internet has a cover that seems to amalgamate elements from Iron Cross and Cross of St George symbolism.

Breivik had begun to use the English translation of his name in his writings. On 6 December 2009 he posted to a right-wing site called expressing his admiration for EDL tactics :
But I must say I am very impressed with how quickly they have grown but this has to do with smart tactical choice by management.. EDL is an example and a Norwegian version is the only way to prevent Flash / SOS to harass Norwegian cultural conservatives from other fronts. Creating a Norwegian EDL should be No. 3 on the agenda after we have started up a cultural conservative newspaper with national distribution.

In his writings Breivik also admitted to having conversations with unnamed English Defence League members and his admiration for the Islamophobic organization Stop the Islamification of Europe a free speech group that was set up in support of the 2005 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons provocation.

author by JoeMcpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 15:19Report this post to the editors

Labour Youth has opened a book of condolences on its facebook site for the victims of the attack.

"We would like to extend our deepest sympathies to Leader of the Norwegian Labour Party and Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg on the deaths of so many people, mostly teenagers and young adults, at a Party event in Utoya and in the bomb attack in central Oslo.

Please add your name and message to our book of condolences to be presented to the Norwegian Labour Party"

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 15:57Report this post to the editors

"He makes frequent reference to 'The Vienna School' - this is a direct reference to the ideology of theanti-muslim hatred promoted at Zionist-Fundamentalist website "Gates of Vienna" "

GoV is also not primarily a pro-Israel website. It's more anti-jihad or culturally conservative, whatever you'd want to call it. It would be like referring to me as a "Zionist"; I'm not really, just recognise Israel's right to exist and defend itself, no more or less than I recognise France's or Uganda's similar rights. Right-wingers tend toward support of Israel broadly, compared to those on the left who are more pro-Palestinian, each for their own reasons, although I'm sure both would support the rights of both.

"He was also a contributor to the commentary at Rabid Zionist Fundamentalist Pam Geller's "Atlas Shrugged" another site that promotes an ideology of anti-muslim sentiment bourne entirely from Zionist indoctrination "

Ditto to above, really. Geller may be more 'Zionist' than GoV (but she is Jewish, so..) but Zionism would not be the primary element of her worldview either. Both she and GoV hold worldviews that incorporate support for Israel, but so do those of millions of other people.

"SO it's pretty safe to say that the extremely anti-muslim race-based Zionist-worldview heavily influenced this guy."

Well nobody has denied that - he was heavily influenced by paranoid versions of various right-leaning narratives.
But what induced him to kill for it is an entirely different scenario.

author by Lotto Loserpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 16:01Report this post to the editors

@ Lazy - find "proof" by following the links - "proof" can always be found on idiotic blogs like the one we were referred to.

author by Geraldpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 18:07Report this post to the editors

I agree, nothing I have seen so far indicates he was a Zionist, rather that he was a rabid anti-Muslim/anti-multicultualist. I guess the pro-Israel part is just a facet of that, ie the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but I would not categorize him as a zionist, mostly because in all his ramblings/videos he makes no reference to Israel at all. His ilk just see some cultural war between european ideals and middle eastern ideals and Israel is seen as been an island of Western/European thought in the area. They aren't really pro Israel, they are just anti Muslim

author by JoeMcpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 18:42Report this post to the editors

Jews that supportmulticulturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.

if one acknowledges that Islam has always oppressed the Jews, one accepts that Israel was a necessary refuge for the Jews fleeing not only the European but also the Islamic variety of anti-Judaism.

author by Anti-Breivikpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 21:20Report this post to the editors

When I wrote my analysis last December on the Axis of Islamophobia, laying out a new international political network of right-wing ultra-Zionists, Christian evangelicals, Tea Party activists and racist British soccer hooligans, I did not foresee a terrorist like Anders Behring Breivik emerging from the movements ranks. At the same time, I am not surprised that he did. The rhetoric of the characters who inspired Breivik, from Pam Geller to Robert Spencer to Daniel Pipes, was so eliminationist in its nature that it was perhaps only a matter of time before someone put words into action.

As horrific as Breiviks actions were, he can not be dismissed as a madman. His writings contain the same themes and language as more prominent right-wing Islamophobes (or those who style themselves as counter-Jihadists) and many conservatives in general. Whats more, Breivik was articulate and coherent enough to offer a clear snapshot of his ideological motives. Ali Abunimah and Alex Kane have posted excellent summaries of Breiviks writings here and here and a full English translation is here. It is also worth sitting through at least a portion of Breiviks tedious video manifesto to get a sense of his thinking.

author by Anti-Breivikpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 21:26Report this post to the editors

Breivik and other members of Europes new extreme right are fixated on the fear of the demographic Jihad, or being out-populated by overly fertile Muslim immigrants. They see themselves as Crusader warriors fighting a racial/religious holy war to preserve Western Civilization. Thus they turn for inspiration to Israel, the only ethnocracy in the world, a country that substantially bases its policies towards the Palestinians on what its leaders call demographic considerations. This is why Israeli flags invariably fly above black-masked English Defense League mobs, and why Geert Wilders, the most prominent Islamophobic politician in the world, routinely travels to Israel to demand the forced transfer of Palestinians.

author by Malpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 21:32Report this post to the editors

Brievik is a freemason.

He is a member of the John lodge St. Olaus TD Three pillars of the Norwegian Masonic Order. He has 3 degree status,


he claims:

'I am the Norwegian delegate to the founding meeting in London, England and ordinated as the 8th Justiciar Knight for the PCCTS, Knights Templar Europe. I joined the session after visiting one of the initial facilitators, a Serbian Crusader Commander and war hero, in Monrovia, Liberia. Certain long term tasks are delegated and I am one of two who are asked to create a compendium based on the information I have acquired from the other founders during our sessions. Our primary objective is to develop PCCTS, Knights Templar into becoming the foremost conservative revolutionary movement in Western Europe the next few decades. This in relation to developing a new type of European nationalism referred to as Crusader Nationalism. This new political denomination of nationalism will become the foremost counterweight to National Socialism and other cultural conservative political denominations, on the cultural right wing. Everyone is using code names; mine is Sigurd (the Crusader) while my assigned mentor is referred to as Richard (the Lionhearted). I believe Im the youngest one here.'

excerpted from his manifesto (presumably the compendium mentioned in the quote.)

whether this PCCTS Knights Templar is real, a hoax, or some other weird stuff I dunno. Breivik was also an on-line computer game player.

you may find the following thread of interest:

media line is concentrating on lone gunmen angle, and as yet there's no evidence of others involved, although ...

2nd Gunman confirmed at Utoya, by witnesses
Published on July 23, 2011 by luckee1 1 Comment
Norway Police Fear Second Utoya Attack Gunman Might Be At Large Report

Further unconfirmed reports have suggested that a second gunman was involved in Fridays shooting rampage on Norways Utoya Island, which occurred shortly after the bomb attack in downtown Oslo.

Eyewitnesses of Fridays shooting rampage on Norways Utoya Island have already said earlier on Saturday that there were two gunmen on the island.

Further tweets on social networks have provided information citing a Norwegian police spokesperson that the police fear the second shooter might be roaming free. This information has not been formally confirmed by Norways authorities.

The unconfirmed eyewitness accounts have first been quoted by the Norwegian newspaper VG, as cited by the BBC, after early Saturday Norways police said they had arrested only one suspect for both the bomb attack and the shooting spree, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik.


The shooting survivors quoted by the VG paper, however, are convinced that there was a second shooter on the island. They claim that they saw another man shooting at them who was not wearing a police uniform, and that they heard firing from two sides. Their accounts remain unconfirmed.


Norway massacre: 6 arrests in Oslo, police trying to gain access to 2 chemical containers at address they have been searching- Sky News

Update - no further action taken by police

Police Guard 'Was Meant To Be On Island'

8:43pm UK, Sunday July 24, 2011
A police guard had been due to be on the Norwegian island where a gunman massacred at least 86 people but detectives do not know where he was, they reveal.[/quote]

author by Fredpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 23:17Report this post to the editors

Is it not strange that if "the zionists " are behind all that is bad in the world
why are they doing so badly and if they were so effective would they not be more
popular ?

This guy is an and out nutter / nazi and probaly hates Jews as much as Muslims

author by poor little Zionistspublication date Sun Jul 24, 2011 23:59Report this post to the editors

why are they doing so badly and if they were so effective would they not be more

we have the Internet now : people can check up on the many many lies told by Israeli supporters - people can research for themselves -

The Zionist method of telling the most massive whopping great big lies imaginable is out-of-date in the Internet age - most Zionists however don't seem to have gotten that message yet.

So the reason they are 'doing badly' as you put it, is because people are beginning to see Zionism for what it really is, a hateful racist Jewish-Supremacist ideology - Twin of Nazism. All one has to do is highlight the attitudes and speech of Zionists themselves.

No amount of idiots screaming 'Anti-semite' is going to change that. The change-of-view is here to stay - get used to it.

author by Rosenbudpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 03:13Report this post to the editors

August 18, 2010 MJ Rosenberg

I remember right after 9/11 when the columnist Charles Krauthammer, now one of the most vocal anti-Muslim demagogues, almost literally flipped out in my Chevy Chase, Maryland synagogue when the rabbi said something about the importance of not associating the terrorist attacks with Muslims in general.

It was on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, but that did not stop Krauthammer from bellowing out his disagreement with the rabbi. Krauthammers point: Israel and America are at war with Muslims and that war must be won.

It was shocking, not only because Krauthammers outburst was so utterly out of place but also because the man was actually chastising the rabbi for not spouting hate against all Muslims on the Day of Atonement.

The following year, the visiting rabbi from Israel gave a sermon about the intifada that was then raging in Israel and the West Bank.

The sermon was a nutty affair that tearfully made the transition from intifada to Holocaust and back again. I remember thinking, this guy is actually blaming the Palestinians for the suffering of his parents during the Holocaust. I thought I had missed something because it was so ridiculous.

Then came the sermons ending which was unforgettable. The rabbi concluded with the words from Ecclesiastes. To everything there is a season. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reapA time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.

He then looked up and said: Now is the time to hate.

author by Anti-Fredpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 03:22Report this post to the editors

Blog written by Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik titled:

Why Europeans Should Support Israel

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 07:08Report this post to the editors

That was written by a blogger called Fjordman, not Breivik. Why would you claim it was?

author by Francispublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:58Report this post to the editors

Claims that Breivik was this or that ethnically and politically are beside the point. Apparently his emotions oscillated from left to right in recent years - emotions, not thoughts, and emotions that were compressed into a bag of hate. In the end his bag of hate was directed at a tolerant multicultural society. His hatred was mainly of a paranoid xenophobic kind, so muslims, foreigners and jews became his focus of hatred. He cooly and calculatedly chose his target areas and went on a wave of destruction. He stated that he wanted thereby to build a platform of world publicity for his murderous views. He is in the tradition of the unabomber, the Kansas government offices bomber, and the Italian fascist who bombed Bolgogna central railway station in the 1970s.

Any politics based on compressed hatred is going to swing in the direction of violence, some of it involving a blind striking out at all in the line of fire. There is a sick view that the awfulness of the violence will spread the mixed-up social ideas of the perpetrators. Propaganda by the deed in the early twentieth century was practised by left anarchists (Malatestans in Italy and USA) and by rightwing fascists in Germany, Italy and Spain. Bombs were thrown into restaurants, hotels, railway stations and other places frequented by the public, in the name of some revolutionary ideal of the left or the right.

Politics based on co-operation, thought and love of humanity are more likely to produce positive results in the medium term.

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:22Report this post to the editors

'..he canot be dismissed as a madman..'.

He cannot be dismissed, nor should he be, but his controlled premeditated behaviour is classic psychopath.
Many confuse sanity with intelligence and consider them to be in constant parallel, and that insanity or madness is a consequence of low intelligence; not an accurate analysis.

Mental health, like physical health, is a matter of balance. This deluded individual had tipped over the edge into false definitions of actual reality which resulted in him losing this balance. We all have a tendency to subjectively seek confirmation of simplistic but satisfying understanding, rather than seek the complex counter-arguments to the obvious and comfortable.
It is important to remember that societies can also lose this balance and degenerate into mass hysterical delusions driven by insane individuals with perfectly healthy EGOs. This psychpathology is equally at home within left and right wing superficialities, and is often intelligent enough, as with the classic case of Adolf, of slipping back and forth across the ideological borders and utilising the most diverse resources to opportunistically pursue oblique ends. We can all think of multiple, less extreme, examples of less than psychological salubrity.

The mind is not a machine, with settings for insanity/sanity. We all walk a tight-rope, all carry delusions, most reviewing our opinions as we proceed and maintaining our balance. Deviating from that active, living constant assessment and openness to contrary opinions can result in fixated ideas in closed systems and lowers our chances of retaining a grip on actuality and sanity.
The most vicious acts, such as these mass murders, the abuse of children, waging of wars, rapacious destruction of nature are often the products of those most convinced of their own sanity, and most capable of persuading others of that same spurious mental health. The healthy mind is bigger than the more common healthy ego which often masquerades as sanity.

But thats just my opinion.

author by Denis MacEoin - Denis MacEoinpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 14:25author email maceoin at btinternet dot comauthor address 15 Erskine Courtauthor phone 0191 281 8444Report this post to the editors

Anti-nutter campaign seems to think I share the killer's view and that I engage in an anti-Islamophobic rant. May I assure him that ranting is something I never do. I have an MA in Arabic, Persian and Islamic History and a PhD in Islamic Studies. I taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at a British university, and I have written books, articles, entries in encyclopedias like The Encyclopedia of Islam. I say this, not to boast, but to show that, in all likelihood I know a great deal more about Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad than Anti-nutter campaign does. There's plenty that I like about Islam, and there's a great deal I don't. Why does my having reservations about Islam as a religion, as an ideology, and as a political system turn me or anyone else into a 'racist'? It is an important part of Western freedom that we are permitted to criticize religions, ideologies, and political systems. By jumping for the 'racism' or 'Islamophobia' card every time anyone anywhere says something to upset Muslim sensibilities is to prevent free speech and rational debate. Enda Kenny has just upset the Vatican. Will he be threatened with burning at the stake or accused of racism against Catholics? We need to get our heads together on this, study what we know so little about, reflect on things that scholars of Islam like myself say or write, and use common sense. There is much I dislike about Islam (its treatment of women, its injunctions to use violence against unbelievers, its historical use of violence as a religious duty, its mistreatment of gays, its legally sanctioned use of slavery that created the oldest and longest slave trade in human history, its dislike of innovation (bid'a, which is seen as heresy), and much more), but I do not call for a jihad against Muslims, I have no desire whatever to get a gun and kill them, and I have always promoted the integration of Muslims into Western societies. I do the latter because many Muslims preach a doctrine known as al-wala' wa'l-bara', Loyalty and Enmity, which says Muslims must stick together and must hate non-Muslims, never meet therm, eat with them, associate with them as friends. If you're worried about Islamophobia, then maybe you should worry about this common Islamic viewpoint, because even if you love them, some of them hate you. Have you ever thought that there might be at least two sides to this story?

author by JoeMcpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 16:35Report this post to the editors

I think Anti-nutter was referring in his post to "supporters of Zionism and extreme right wing politics" rather than to genuine critics of Islam .
Your blog "A Liberal Defence of Israel" you describe as :

"A blog designed to correct the false impression that Israel is an illiberal, fascist, or apartheid state. Here, I shall present arguments to show that Israel actually embodies the best in democracy, anti-racism, religious freedom, and rights for women, gay people, and minorities of different kinds."

In the blog you make many unwarranted and false accusations against Palestinians , which are in my view racist t. . For instance :

"Since the 1960s, the Palestinians have been masters of terrorism, hijacking aeroplanes, sending suicide bombers into kindergartens, restaurants, buses or anywhere else. Who is to blame for this? Who launched two intifadas aimed at killing as many Jews as possible? The Israeli solution was not to go into the Wesrt Bank and slaughter civilians, but to build a fence that has now dropped the incidence of terrorist acts by over 90%. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? "

author by Geraldpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 16:36Report this post to the editors

Dennis Mac Eoin, how blessed we are to have someone of your calibre in the ring.

By jumping for the 'zionist' or 'zio-nazi' card every time anyone anywhere says something to upset Israli sensibilities is to prevent free speech and rational debate. Enda Kenny has just upset the Vatican. Will he be threatened with burning at the stake or accused of racism against Catholics? We need to get our heads together on this, study what we know so little about, reflect on things that scholars of Judaism like myself say or write, and use common sense. There is much I dislike about Judea (its treatment of women, its injunctions to use violence against goyim, its historical use of violence as a religious duty, but I do not call for a jihad against Jews, I have no desire whatever to get a gun and kill them, and I have always promoted the integration of Jews into Western societies. I do the latter because many Jews preach a doctrine known as Jews first, goyim second, which says Jews must stick together and must hate non-Jews, never meet therm, eat with them, associate with them as friends. If you're worried about Anti-semitism, then maybe you should worry about this common Jewish viewpoint, because even if you love them, some of them hate you. Have you ever thought that there might be at least two sides to this story?

See, when I just change the words around like this.... You sound like a TOTAL Anti-semite... I think its called a chomsky test or something.

But you are right - You aren't a racist - There is no muslim 'race' - Perhaps the proper term would be bigot.

But I suppose its the most one could expect from a homeopath-hugger.

author by Anti-MacEoinpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 19:17Report this post to the editors

Have you noticed that when the media thought it was a Muslim, he was described as a 'terrorist', and as soon as it became known he was a Christian-Zionist, he is described as a "Madman" or "Lunatic?"

People like Denis Mac Eoin love to promote the so-called 'Clash of Civilisations' narrative, first articulated by Zionist Bernard Lewis. Useful tools of Western Military Aggression such as Denis undoubtedly is, seek to promote hatred of Muslims by attempting to paint all muslims as violent religious terrorists and claim this is all solely because of the contents of the Koran.

People like Denis Mac Eoin ignore similar if not identical violent sentiments to be found in the pages of the Jewish Talmud and the old testament of the Bible. The Old testament of the Bible is in fact mostly composed of the Jewish Canon known as 'The Tanakh'.

Denis Mac Eoin (and Bernard Lewis) consider the violence to be found in the Old Testament (Jewish Holy Book known as 'The Tanakh'. ) and in the Talmud to be merely incidental to both the Jewish and Christian religions - whereas they expressly single out the Koran and claim that expressions of violent sentiment found therein are central to the religion of Islam.

This is of course false.

Denis Mac Eoin can wave his little bits of academic paper around all he wants, in a lame attempt to lend some authority to his hatred of Muslims, to lend some academic 'respectability' to what are at the end of the day, the hate-filled ramblings of a Zionist/Neo-Con willing propaganda-tool. But it won't change the fact that he deliberately ignores the violence contained in the holy books of other Abrahamic faiths, while singling out Islam as an inherently exceptionally violent religion due solely to the violent passages found in the Koran.

No matter what way you look at it, dishonest hate-filled propaganda tool like Denis Mac Eoin, is still a dishonest hate-filled propaganda tool, no matter how many letters he has after his name.

The so-called 'Judeo-Christian' culture in the west is certainly responsible for as many violent deaths over the years as Islam.

For Denis Mac Eoin to insist that Islam is inherently more violent than either of the other 2 Abrahamic faiths is just a plain old lie.

Denis Mac Eoin likes to write fiction under the name Daniel Easterman - he forgot to mention that when he was waving those little bits of Academic paper in our faces. Anyone familiar with the Zionist Bernard Lewis' 'Clash of Civilisations' nonsense, and who also has had the misfortune to actually read one of tDenis Mac Eoins' overt works of fiction( as oppossed to his covert works of fiction - see below.) will notice a common theme.
I unfortunately have have had the dubious fortune to read one of Denis Mac Eoin/ Daniel Easterman's works of fiction (just one though, bought for 1 Euro in a bargain book shop) and immediately noticed that his works of fiction seek to promote Lewis fictional 'Clash of Civilisation' narrative

Here is the blurb to one of Mac Eoin's works of fiction :

""Professor Jack Goodrich has a prestigious job in Cairo and a happy family life with his wife and ten-year-old daughter. When hes offered the chance to authenticate potentially priceless artefacts, including a sword, he thinks his dreams have come true. But as soon as they are in his possession, the nightmare begins with the death of his wife and daughter. The sword appears to be the property of the descendent of the Prophet Mohammed, and the people who want it will do anything to get it. Once the descendent has it he will declare jihad on all non-Muslims

Denis Mac Eoin also is involved in the production of other works of fiction - only this time hed his bits of academic paper to pretend that these other fictional works are in fact factual.

One such fictional academic report Denis Mac Eoin was involved in was unmasked as a work of fiction in 2007.

Denis Mac Eoin was caught lying by the Guardian Newspaper, when he was involved in producing what he claimed at the time was a study of 100 Mosques in the UK - the study called 'The Hijacking of British Islam' and written for the rather innocuously named 'Policy Exchange', A Zionist/Neo-Con front-group, attempted to claim "that books condoning violent jihad and encouraging hatred of Christians, Jews and gays were being sold in a quarter of the 100 mosques visited".

However an investigation of the claims by BBC's Newsnight programme found that
"examination of receipts provided by the researchers to verify their purchases showed some had been written by the same person - even though they purported to come from different mosques.

Several receipts also misspelled the names or addresses of the mosques where the books were supposedly sold."

When comment was sought from the researchers, the Zionist/Neo-Con Front-group Policy Exchange claimed, rather conveniently (and a little bit weirdly IMHO) that
"The researchers were unavailable for comment because they were all on a religious retreat in Mauritania, "

author by the thot plickenspublication date Mon Jul 25, 2011 22:47Report this post to the editors

Isaac Nygren former elected member of the Swedish Social Demokrat Party, received an email from Anders Behring Breivik. The message came just one hour before the bomb in Oslo.

Isaac Nygren, 21 years, was interviewed by Swedish News Org SvD, from a kibbutz in Israel.

Isaac Nygren was a former member of the Sweden Democrats in Katrineholm. He has been replaced in Katrineholm Municipal Council.

He brought bad blood among party members after a written statement on a web forum. He wrote that whites of European origin ought not to have children with someone of a different skin color such as Africans or Asians.

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:24Report this post to the editors

Being 'a group, an ideology and spreading..' does NOT eliminate the factor of mental illness.

Ideological thinking is not the epitome of mental health.
Nor are groups immune from psychological pathology.
Quite the opposite, collective reinforcement entrenches nascent delusional states. Which is one of the reasons mental asylums seldom provide asylum from psychosis, merely containment from our neurotic social consensus of a spurious but reassuring 'normality'.

This same moralistic attitude to crime creates more problems than it ultimately solves. A mentaly healthy human is, by definition, we being social animals, a socially adapted persona, something this man can hardly be considered. Such a moralistic approach can also save us the trouble and expense of addressing the social origins of criminal behaviour, all responsibility devolving onto the agent of crime, and none onto his background and circumstances. A recipe for moral smugness best exemplified in its religious promulgators.

That he may have been manipulated by other and external agencies is a secondary consideration. He should not, however be used in a reactionary fashion to jump to conclusions without evidence. Suspicion becoming conviction without evidence is akin to paranoia. That does not mean suspicions are necessarily unfounded, just they should not be allowed to accumulate the momentum of conviction. Thats where this shrewd and calculating piece of intelligence crossed his border into insane activity.

author by Israeli Schadenfreudepublication date Tue Jul 26, 2011 15:20Report this post to the editors

Remember when they kept saying that some Palestinians cheered the 9/11 attacks? Well, JJ Goldberg - - has a thorough report in the Jewish 'Forward' on nasty sentiment throughout Hebrew websites in Israel, Israelis saying Norway got what it deserved because of its pro-Palestinian positions. This is true self-isolation.

And I do mean nasty: Judging by the comments sections on the main Hebrew websites, the main questions under debate seem to be whether Norwegians deserve any sympathy from Israelis given the countrys pro-Palestinian policies, whether the killer deserves any sympathy given his self-declared intention of fighting Islamic extremism and, perhaps ironically, whether calling attention to this debate is in itself an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic act.

The debate seems to be taking place almost entirely on Hebrew websites. Theres a bit of bile popping up on the English-language Jerusalem Post site as well (for example, there are a handful of choice comments of a now-theyll-know-what-it-feels-like variety following this Jerusalem Post news article - - reporting on Israels official offer of sympathy and aid). In Hebrew, though, no holds are barred. Ive translated some of the back-and-forth from the Ynet and Maariv websites below, to give you taste.

The debate exploded aboveground on Saturday in an opinion essay -,7340,L-4098981,00.html - at Ynet (in Hebrew only) by Ziv Lenchner, a left-leaning Tel Aviv artist and one of Ynets large, bipartisan stable of columnists. Its called Dancing the Hora on Norwegian Blood. He argues that the comment sections on news websites are a fair barometer of public sentiment (a questionable premise) and that the overwhelming response is schadenfreude, pleasure at Norways pain. As Ill show below, that judgment seems pretty accurate.

The comments largely prove the point being made in the article.

author by Zionism = Nazismpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2011 15:24Report this post to the editors

Here are some of the responses to in the above article:

15. Almog, Beer Sheva: they have it coming, period. Your article is pointless. Anyone who acts without mercy towards us, theres no reason I should pity them!!!! Let them continue to respect and honor Muslims.

16. Gidon: I never enjoyed any support from Norway all these years when there were terror attacks in Israel just the opposite you bent, corrupt person let them understand that terror is not a solution to anything you self-righteous Jew

54. Roi, Bet Shemesh: Ziv Lenchner youre a leftist!! If you havent noticed youre a leftist like the rest of the media!!! Enough with the leftist incitement!!! Theres no getting away from it Norway was always against the state of Israel its not new and never will be!! Were not in favor of the attack but to say that maybe theyll understand us better after what happened is entirely legitimate!!!

103. Yossi, the north: Oslo Maybe theyll learn in Oslo that theyre not immune theyll feel what many Israelis have felt and some of them can no longer feel because of the activity of Israelis and Norwegians in Oslo.

104. Ilan, on the stoning of gays [sic]: Anti-Jewish? Have you ever heard of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Suddenly a few little Jew-boys have popped up and invented a new Torah! Before the Torah is moral it is first of all for survival and the destruction of all enemies! Sing to the Lord for He is highly exalted the horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea [Exodus 17:21, after the drowning of Pharaohs armyJJG]

303. Effie: I feel no sorrow about it!!!! Anyone who doesnt feel the no pain of my people shouldnt ask sympathy for his own pain.

392. Were more unfortunate: Enough demagoguery! The Norwegians and Europe generally are super-anti-Semitic. So 100 people were killed there are 7 billion more people in the world. I dont pity them theyre my enemies they hate Israel so they have it coming!!!

393. The whole world dances on Jewish blood. Europe is the same Europe and even more anti-Semitic. The killer is right!!! Europe is defeated, Norwegians are becoming a minority.

458. Very sorry: With all due sorrow they were waving a sign on the island the day before calling to boycott us. So I really dont feeling like showing empathy. Very sorry. If you dont believe me here the link to the lovely picture:

When the first news report appeared Friday on Ynet, the Yediot Ahronot website and Israels most trafficked news site, comments seemed to run about 3- or 4-to-1 (at a rough eyeball guess) hostile rather than sympathetic. The reported death toll at this point was 11, and the perpetrators were assumed to be Islamic extremists. Here are a few typical comments:

181. Noam: Ha Ha Ha! Europeans, this is your liberalism

240. D.A.: Bring the Oslo criminals to justice?

242. Radical Dreamer: Let them eat what they cooked.

243. Just a Person: Speedy recovery to the wounded and condolences to the families.

260. Shai, Tel Aviv: Give Norway back to the Arabs! End the occupation of Norway!

268. Shimon: Good news for Shabbat. So may they increase and learn the hard way.

285. Nir, Hasela Haadom: Allow me a few moments of pleasure.

315. Moshe, Haifa: Im sorry, it doesnt move me. From my point of view, let them drown in blood.

author by nora bpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2011 16:00Report this post to the editors

IReply to opus diablos:
it is not fair to stigmatise people who suffer from actual mental illness who are statistically far more likely to be a victim of an attack than perpetrators of an attack by associating mentally ill people with a killer especially a killer like that who killed for political reasons which is no different to a soldier gunning down muslims in the middle east. (unless ofcourse he actually gets a diagnosis which he has not so far so may not be termed 'mentally-ill')
if he is out to stop the 'takeover of europe by muslims and marxists' he should be seen as a counter-revolutionary killing for political means and muslims and marxists should march in oslo to show they can't be wiped out by the rise of the far right in europe

author by Anti-MacEoinpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2011 22:20Report this post to the editors

Its bad enough that Zionist propaganda has prevented a cure for the Israel-Palestine conflict, but if now that same propaganda is inspiring Europeans in Europe to slaughter their own, the future is very, very frightening.

How much was the mind of Anders Behring Breivik conditioned and warped by Zionist propaganda as peddled with the assistance of Christian fundamentalism by much of the Western mainstream media and many web sites?

In his summary of what the monster had stated behind closed doors in court, Judge Heger said he had argued that he wanted to create the greatest loss possible to Norways governing Labour Party, which he accused of failing the country on immigration and opening the door to the Muslim colonization of Norway and all of Europe.There could not have been a more effective way of inflicting at a single stroke a great loss than gunning down many members of the Norwegian Labour Partys youth wing, the Workers Youth League (AUF), which was assembled on Utoya Island.

Two days before the massacre there, and as Gilad Atzmon has researched and noted, the AUFs leader, Eskil Pedersen, gave an interview to Dagbladet, Norways second largest tabloid newspaper. In it he said: The AUF has long been a supporter of an international boycott of Israel but the decision of the last Congress demands that Norway impose a unilateral economic embargo on the country I acknowledge this is a drastic measure but I think it gives a clear indication that, quite simply, we are tired of Israels behaviour. (My own view is that behind closed doors all Western governments, including the one in Washington D.C. in the person of President Obama, are tired of Israels behaviour).

There are two things we know for sure.

One is that Breivik is fanatically anti Islam and pro Zionism.

The other is that Zionisms propaganda machine has been set to work at full speed, day and night, eight days and nights a week, to demonize, discredit and destroy all who are calling and campaigning for Israel to be boycotted.


author by Anti-Breivikpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2011 22:58Report this post to the editors

The obvious Double Standard - the elephant in the room

So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all culturalMarxists/multiculturalists. - Anders Breivik, Hero of the Zionist Muslim-Haters

I will not shed a single tear for the Norwegians. This is just payment for their obsessive anti-semitism and anti-Israel position. They love the Arabs and the Palestinians. This is the price they pay for their rose-colored glasses view of Arabs and the Middle East crisis.This is the price they pay for allowing a powerful Islamic minority into their country. The tragedy is that the Norwegians will not change , even after this deadly demonstration of their errors." - - A heart-warming quote from an American commenting on Ynet (before Brevik was named)

Okay folks the fix is in. The American (and I use that term very loosely) Main Stream Media is trying to portray mass murderer and ardent Zionist Andres Breivik as a Nazi and is deliberately ignoring his strong support of Israel. Let's start with the favorite paper of all the Jerusalem-Washington-New York Times-Post which has just one article today on the massacre and Breivik entitled : Diary reveals suspect's preparations, ideology -

Oh, so what do we learn about his ideology?

Very little and nothing at all about his love of Zionism and Israel.

How odd, considering that Breivik mentions 'Israel' 223 times in his screed and always in a supportive way.

Funny how they all managed to miss this.

Well, may as well go to fountain of Zionist Bullshit, the New York edition of the Jerusalem-Washington-New York Times-Post and see what they have to say about Breivik's ideology - "Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought In the US" -

Somehow Scott Shane manages not to notice that Pam Geller and Robert Spencer and Breivik are all Zionists. Zionism and Israel are never mentioned. But on the other hand the article tops the Washington version of Jerusalem-Washington-New York Times-Post because it is actually a thinly disguised defenseof Spencer and Geller. In fact, Scott gives the impression that he agrees that there is a "threat from Islam". The opening paragraph goes like this:

"The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber"

Note also that this obvious act of terrorism is called a "killing spree." As we all know (and as other bloggers documented over the weekend) this paper only thinks something is terrorism if it is done by them there Mooselims. Terrorist acts by supporters of Zionism are dismissed as being merely the acts of 'a lone madman' - and are never described in terms of terrorism, never is the Zionist Anti-Muslim bigotry of the Daniel Pipes or the Pam Gellers of this world pointed-out as having influenced the obvious act of Terror

author by Zionism = Nazismpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2011 03:48Report this post to the editors

For Anders Behring Breivik Hitler was 'The great Satan'. but NOT for the reasons one might expect.

From his compendium, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", under the section heading "The great Satan, his cult and the Jews":

Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him.

So far so good, right?

Nothing unusual in that - lots of people say such things, few if any of them mean it, however.

But that Breivik possibly would actually have done such a thing if given an opportunity, is by this stage quite likely. But not for the reasons most people would guess at. Back to Breivik's 'manifesto' for a look at his professed reasons:

Why?... Hitler had the military capabilities necessary to liberate Jerusalem and the nearby provinces from Islamic occupation. He could have easily worked out an agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands. The UK and France would perhaps even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation.

pretty weird, right?

And definitely supports the contention that Breivik was a hard-core Zionist fundamentalist. thing is though that Breivik forgets to mention that <strong>the Nazis actually DID provide material support the Zionists in Palestine.</strong>

This is something that is rarely mentioned when discussing Nazism - Nazis and Zionists were very good friends indeed.

A number of Nazi officials actually visited the Zionist's settlements in Palestine in the late 30's.

None of this should be surprising since Zionism and Nazism are essentially almost identical political ideologies.

the Nazis even coined a medal celebrating the Nazi-Zionist love-fest.


Anyway back to Breivik for some more Class-A Zionist 'logic':

The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn’t be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them

Nazi/Zionist commemoration medal
Nazi/Zionist commemoration medal

author by Anti-Mac Eoinpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2011 04:00Report this post to the editors

Denis Mac Eoin& who was responsible for the discredited Policy Exchange report The Hijacking of British Islam among other axe-grinding anti-Muslim "studies", has posted a  review of Gilbert Achcar's book The Arabs and the Holocaust on the Amazon website. -

Not that MacEoin has actually bought the book, still less read it.

But he has no hesitation in warning potential purchasers that Achcar is an unreliable historian, beginning with the charge that "He's an Arab...."

As one of the comments on MacEoin's "review" points out: "One can imagine the uproar from you and your ilk if the assertion you make was followed by 'He's a Jew'."

author by Multiculturalist Indignadopublication date Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:02Report this post to the editors

Politcally, we are witnessing vast swings to the right all over Europe, more worringly is the growing shift to the ultra right. There is only 1 place this is leading to; Norway and last weekends massacre.

Currently in Norway the extreme right enjoy a vote of 22.9% of the public, third highest in Europe after 2 countries where the vote is over a quarter of the populations... Switzerland (29%) and Austria (28.2%)

We have seen the calm calculated effort by Anders Behring Breivik to create a "NEW CRUSADE" in Europe, to create a Christian revolution to drive out muslims, to end free progressive thinking. He expects his action last weekend (murder of 70 people) to kickstart this new war, how many more Breiviks are out there, hiding, planning, inspired by his actions?

We have seen Europe go down this raod before in the 1930's, let us hope this is not repeated. And we have seen it before in Spain, when in 1609 the "moriscos" (name for the Spanish muslims in that time) were driven out. The Jews were driven out from Spain in 1492 (Ironically, the same year the last muslim stronghold fell in Al-Andalus (old name for Spain for the Muslims); the beautiful city of Granada) and earlier they recieved their eviction order from Catholic Catalunya in the 1420's... Back then, also, it was all wrapped up with those ideas of crusades, red crosses, muslim free lands...

The culture of fear, lack of understanding and hate which fueled Breiviks crazy dreams have to be countered. He states there are more "cells" out there, 2 in Norway and more beyond, probably many in the UK with his EDL friends. All who are supportive of an open mixed society have to stand up against this growing racist culture. Thankfully the vast majority are completely opposed to him, his racism, his lack of tolerance and are united in opposing him. But that small group who are filled with hate, is growing, both in and out of parliament.

Related articles:

- Anders Behring Breivik + Norways far right massacre:

Far-right 'internet warrior' is armed with online hate​ion/2011...a=rel

Defiant from the dock, Breivik boasts more will die​/25/ande...cells

National Front anger over claim it bears responsibility

Breivik sent 'manifesto' to 250 UK contacts hours before Norway killings

Anders Behring Breivik had links to far-right EDL, says anti-racism group

Mass killer was in contact with far-right group's online forum

commentry and debate with Irish ultra right and ohters including anti racists, leftists etc on
Breivik's Manifesto against Multiculturalism & 'Cultural Marxism'

Breiviks 1,500 page manifesto PDF:
2083: A European Declaration of Independence

Vid manifesto: 2083 A European Declaration Of Independence

Defence Lawyer Of Anders Behring Breivik Statement, Oslo 07-26-2011

- Europes swing to the right and ultra right, includes maps.

Europes far right rises​-right-r...ises/

Map of extreme right growth in Europe (Map of extreme right votes in Europe - the green, pink, red, brown map, also gives the current voting figures chart)​11/05/el....html

Tambin en Suecia (Also in Sweden - spanish article with the red dot map from Spanish paper La Vanguardia)​9/tambie....html

La Vanguardia: Escandinavia no es diferente (Scandanavia is not different)

Europe swinging to the right (spanish article with red (socialist) and blue (conservative) map)​1-06-07/...5800/
In a few months Spain will be blue again, as the country is expected to vote massivly in favour of the PP..

Mapa de votos de la extrema derecha (Map of extreme right votes in Europe - the green, pink, red, brown map)
http://retaliacionmasiva.b​​ionalismo-populista-acecha​-la.html :

Anders Behring Breivik revolution for a "NEW CRUSADE" in Europe, to create a Christian revolution to drive out muslims... Must be stood up to
Anders Behring Breivik revolution for a "NEW CRUSADE" in Europe, to create a Christian revolution to drive out muslims... Must be stood up to

Politcally, we are witnessing vast swings to the right all over Europe, more worringly is the growing shift to the ultra right. There is only 1 place this is leading to; Norway and last weekends massacre.
Politcally, we are witnessing vast swings to the right all over Europe, more worringly is the growing shift to the ultra right. There is only 1 place this is leading to; Norway and last weekends massacre.

From Red to Blue, Europe has turned conservative (Soon Spain will also be blue)
From Red to Blue, Europe has turned conservative (Soon Spain will also be blue)

The break up of ultra right votes (obviously in some "green" zones there is much neo nazi activity on the streets)
The break up of ultra right votes (obviously in some "green" zones there is much neo nazi activity on the streets)

Chart of voting patterns for Ultra right in Europe (31% in Poland)
Chart of voting patterns for Ultra right in Europe (31% in Poland)

Caption: Defence Lawyer Of Anders Behring Breivik Statement, Oslo 07-26-2011

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:24Report this post to the editors

Being diagnosed is not the disease or anomaly.
Mental illness has many forms, a chronic depressive is not a homicidal maniac. No more than when someone is physically ill with a cold it is not the same as physical illness with dengue fever or leprosy. That mental illness is stigmatised by the ignorant and generalised into a monoclone condition does not mean our analysis should be dictated by fear of that ignorant stigma. It means we confuse someone going through a confused(often healthy growth stage)with some Jack-the-Ripper.
Think of it this way, would you consider him mentally healthy? He is obviously delusionary. I think moralising acts like this into 'evil', and I include soldiers 'jusy obeying orders', whatever their origins, if they dont excercise their own intelligence, only confuses the issues. To be a non autonomous agent is not a mentally healthy condition.

I would go so far as to think the same is equally true of our attitudes to crime and criminality, largely a throwback to religious moralising rather than attempting to understand the conditions that set individuals up for criminal activity; which is less than useful, though often most morally self-gratifying in that it distances us from any guilt or necessity to adjust social drivers of crime, in a society founded on centuries of feudal criminality elevated to property laws suited to the victors and their progeny.
Many who are classified as mentally ill are simply not functioning too well in an unhealthy social system based on social darwinian competition, a less than sane way to run any society long-term, the result being, as we see, recurring and escalating wars for territory and resources.
Its only my opinion, but I think Breivik is one seriously sick individual. But then so were Cheyney, Bush and many of our most 'successful' egoists. Conventional psychology and psychiatry considers a healthy ego as a healthy mind. I am not satisfied with such an asocial definition, humans being social animals(other than those exceptional hermetically inclined).
To mistake normality for sanity would make Nazi Germany sane, as it appeared to many of its residents, or Apartheid South Africa, Penal Ireland, or Zionist, theocratically founded Israel as perfectly healthy societies. For the dominant is most agreeable to think so. A negro under Jim Crow law might well question the sanity of his lynching and burning white masters. The master must not.
The few psychologists who try to take the discipline into social context do not thrive. But then social questioners in Soviet Russia were consigned to an archipelago of asylums for the insane. Were they?

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Wed Jul 27, 2011 14:03Report this post to the editors

Go to and check out perfectly 'sane' Glen Beck on Fox News calling those Norwegian kids neo Hitler Youth types. The lines blurr. War is Peace, Arbeit Macht Frei(what else is this job-creation/economy worship). The inversion of all values into perverse but 'respectable' indoctrination and cowed compliance. The victim is the terrorist, the state is defending itself(from 40,000ft. with hi-tech drones controlled by the playtstation kids)from peasant villages located over resource reservoirs. But Cameron, Sarkozy, Berlusconi are sane?Half a trillion $ annual budget from compulsory taxation for these wars and the begging bowl for East Africa?Normality, yes. Sanity???Lock me up so.

author by Zionism = Nazismpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2011 14:57Report this post to the editors

From Breivik's Manifesto:

"Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that opposes nationalism/Zionism and supports multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of athreat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all culturalMarxists/multiculturalists. Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, [Hitler] just targeted them all ... He could have easily worked out an agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands ... The UK and France would perhaps even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation. The deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn't be popular but eventually, the Jewish people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.""

The thing is: Hitler DID support the Zionists.

The Zionists and Hitler thought the same way about what they considered were the 'good' and 'bad' Jews.

The Zionists thought that any Jew that could be described as 'assimilationist' was a 'bad' Jew,.

The Zionists essentially supported only racism and racist Jews. The racist Jews were Jews who thought like Nazis, obsessed with their own version of racial-purity. To the Zionists such Jews were the 'good' Jews'.

author by Anti-Breivikpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2011 17:21Report this post to the editors

Robert Spencer has been mentioned in the media a number of times in connection to Anders Breivik's Manifesto.

So who is Robert Spencer?

Is he a Zionist?

Well, let's follow the money trail and see where it leads, shall we?

Robert Spencer's website says: "ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center."

Who is David Horowitz?

A Zionist hate monger, known for spewing the most vile racist and Islamic tripe imaginable - see for your self -

The David Horowitz Freedom Center was established with funding from conservative philanthropies, such as the Olin Foundation the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation

Olin Foundation has closed down.

Both the Bradley Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation have made major donations to the The Project for the New American Century.

Who is The Project for the New American Century

They are the Zionists behind the American Wars of Terror in the Muslim world.

"The Bradley Foundation has provided funding for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC brought together prominent members of the (George W) Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) in the late 1990s to articulate their neoconservative foreign policy, including sending a letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to invade Iraq."

Zionists are financing the Anti-Islamic bigoted hate-mongering Websites which frequented by the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik.

Zionists are attempting to stir-up a religious-hate war in Europe, between Christians and Muslims - and in the case of Anders Behring Breivik they succeeded

author by Rozpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2011 18:54Report this post to the editors

The Loyalist connection. Mad Dog appears.

Oslo killer Anders Breivik 'linked to' Johnny 'Mad Dog' Adair, Ulster terrorist

Links have emerged between the Oslo killer, a British man calling himself “Lionheart,” and an Ulster terrorist, it can be disclosed. 

 By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent 3:40PM BST 28 Jul 2011

Paul Ray, 35, who blogs under the name Lionheart, said he was shocked and horrified by the atrocity but admitted that Anders Behring Breivik may have drawn “inspiration” from his writings. The Daily Telegraph can reveal that one of Mr Ray’s associates is Nick Greger, a German who describes himself as a “former neo-Nazi,” and has been a supporter of Charles Taylor, the former dictator tried for war crimes over his time in Liberia, and a friend of Johnny “Mad Dog” Adair, leader of the Ulster Freedom Fighters. Greger, “known as Nazi Nick,” maintains a YouTube channel, where he describes himself as a “former neo-Nazi-leader, convicted terrorist, militiaman, artist, book writer and preacher”. Breivik wrote of traveling to the Ivory Coast and Liberia in 2002 telling his friend he was planning to “research the potential to smuggle blood diamonds and selling them in London.” In London soon afterwards, he said he had attended the founding meeting of the “Knights Templar Europe” explaining that he “joined the session after visiting one of the initial facilitators, a Serbian Crusader Commander and war hero, in Monrovia, Liberia.” At the meeting he claimed he had been delegated a “long term task” with one other “to create a compendium based on the information I have acquired from the other founders during our sessions” which turned into the 1,500 page document he circulated hours before his attacks. Breivik wrote: “I had the privilege of meeting one of the greatest living war heroes of Europe at the time, a Serbian crusader and war hero who had killed many Muslims in battle. “Due to EU persecution for alleged crimes against Muslims he was living at one point in Liberia.” Mr Ray, originally from Bedfordshire, now lives in Malta as does Mr Greger, who is banned from Britain. Mr Greger has traveled widely in Africa, including spending time in the Ivory Coast. In his 1,500-page "compendium", Breivik wrote that his “assigned mentor” at the London meeting was “referred to as Richard (the Lionhearted).” Referring to the right-wing British group the English Defence League, Breivik added: “I wonder sometimes if one of the EDL founders was one of the co-founders of [the Knights Templar], I guess I’ll never know for sure.” Mr Ray was a founding member of the EDL and has written about reforming the Knights Templar.

Related Link:
author by Rosenbudpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2011 20:03Report this post to the editors

Author - Michelle Goldberg

"You can see it in country after country. While Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of Frances ultraright Front National, is a Holocaust denier, his daughter and successor, Marine Le Pen, is working to cleanse the party of its reputation for Jew hatred, telling the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that it has always been Zionistic. In the early 1990s, the British National Party organized a violent neo-Nazi gang called Combat 18. In 2009, the partys leader, Nick Griffin, boasted that his was the only British party to support Israels war against the terrorists in Gaza.
Norway Suspect Hints That He Did Not Act Alone

Earlier this year, Newsweek ran a story about this phenomenon titled Europes Extreme Righteous: Far-right European politicians find loveand common causein Israel. It opened with three politicians, a Belgian politician known for his contacts with SS veterans, an Austrian with neo-Nazi ties, and a Swede whose political party has deep roots in Swedish fascism, visiting the Holocaust museum Yad Vashem. They met with members of the Knesset and signed something called the Jerusalem declaration, which affirmed, We stand at the vanguard in the fight for the Western, democratic community against the totalitarian threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

Obviously, Islamophobia is responsible for the bizarre alliance between Israel and European white nationalists. Muslims have come to occupy the place Jews once held in the reactionary European imagination; theyre seen as agents of an apocalyptic conspiracy that threatens Europes very survival. "

All of this Zionist-funded Neo-Nazi hatred of Muslims is the product of a truly bizarre inversion of reality.

The Zionist-funded Neo-Nazi racist hate websites are ranting about "The Islamic threat to Europe" - as if massive armies of armed and dangerous Muslims were immediately about to attack European borders. As if armed and dangerous Muslims somehow posed some sort of 'Existential threat' to 'our way of life'.

All of this fantastic nonsense is being spread by these Zionist-funded Neo-Nazi hate websites while European and US military forces have been attacking and invading predominately-Muslim countries, and also while the Zionist state attacks and invades predominately-Muslim neighbouring states, murdering thousands.

The rise in these Zionist-funded Neo-Nazi racist hate websites occurred after Sept 11 2001.

To my knowledge no predominately-Muslim country has launched/initiated any sort of military attack on tany European state, nor on the US itself, yet racist Zionist-funded asshats such as Robert Spenser, Pam Geller etc., and people such as the bigoted 'Clash of Civilisations'-junkie Denis Mac Eoin (see above), would have us believe the Muslims are somehow 'a threat' to our [Western] civilisation.

Seems to me that it is the Military Forces of various supposedly predominately Christian Nations (US and European), and the Military Forces of the Jewish Zionist State of Israel, that pose a verifiable threat to Muslim countries and Muslim (or Arab) civilisation, rather than the other way around.

author by Rosenbudpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2011 22:08Report this post to the editors

Mondoweiss -

by Karina Piser on July 28, 2011

"In light of the Oslo attacks, it is important to pause and contemplate what sparked this event, and indeed where such hatred comes from. One thing is clear: this in no way occurred in isolation.

It was a disconcerting coincidence that an article on the front page of Monday's New York Times coincided with a sensationalist event entitled "Homegrown Jihad in the USA: Culmination of the Muslim Brotherhood's 50-year History of Infiltrating America," presented by Citizens for National Security (CFNS), located in Boca Raton, Florida and sponsored by U.S. Congressman Allen West, a Republican from Florida.

In fact, the Times article reported on the strong influence of a group of American bloggers on Anders Behring Breivik's--the man accused of the Oslo massacre--decision to bomb government buildings and kill so many innocent civilians. His 1,500-page manifesto spoke directly to the alleged failure of Norwegian politicians to protect the nation from the spread of nefarious Islamic influence. His manifesto, which cites Robert Spencer's blog, Jihad Watch, an astounding 64 times, should serve as a reminder of the terrifying influence of right-wing extremism in a world of online media.

CFNS is part of this xenophobic network of ideologues to which Breivik subscribed. Eli Clifton at Think Progress has done great work on unpacking the influential forces behind the manifesto, revealing the frequency in which Breivik cites alleged counter-terrorism experts and Islamophobic bloggers and pundits in justifying his views. Breiviks manifesto cites Daniel Pipes, a board-member of CFNS, and his think-tank, The Middle East Forum, eighteen times. Pipes blog features a variety of extreme, ultra-conservative gems of articles on the Middle East and a whole spectrum of important political issues, such as his confirmation of President Obama's Muslim identity that lists the President's ties to Islamists, or his plan for Palestinian-Israeli peace, which essentially calls for Israel to wage relentless violence on all of its potential adversaries in order to achieve its national goals. Pipes also thinks up clever phrases to describe his ridiculous assessments of the world. My personal favorite, Sudden Jihad-Syndrome, refers to cases whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. The most atrocious aspect of this blatantly racist and ignorant phrase is that, since Pipes coined it, it has appeared on an increasingly widespread basis.

What's particularly frightening about all of thisthe event, Daniel Pipes, Breiviks manifestois not that right-wing radicals exist. That's not news to any of us. But we should take note of the political influence these lunatics somehow manage to have, and the fact that our nation's Congresspeople support events like Homegrown Jihad in the USA. Ignoring these trends would be dangerous.

The goal of the CFNS event was to present an in-depth, 18-month long research project revealing the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in America. The presentation's first slide, THE WAR IS REAL, introduced the one-sided war the Brotherhood has waged against America and the West for the last 50-years. Graphic representations of intricate networks of Muslim Brotherhood affiliatesa cast of super-nefarious organizations like the Muslim Students Association, the Muslim American Society, and the North American Islamic Trustallegedly show the extent to which the Muslim Brotherhood has not only infiltrated America but has transformed every Muslim-American into a raging terrorist, intent on waging jihad (a term undefined by the speaker of course) against the West, threatening the inherently secular nature of the American political climate (this statement was then contradicted, or perhaps unintentionally retracted, by the speaker after I posed a quite simple question regarding his opinion on the potential threat of other groups that conflate religion and politics, like Evangelical Christians or even lobbying organizations like AIPAC).

Even more bizarre than the in-depth research project is the absolute absence of citations or statistics in the pamphlet distributed at the briefing. The only citation is from the Center on Law and Security at NYU which offers graphical representation of prosecutions of homegrown terrorists. The goal was to show a linkage between homegrown terrorists and Islam, clearly to vilify Islam to such an extent that CFNS's hideous conflation of Muslim and Terrorist would seem somehow grounded in scholarship or reality. In this clear misappropriation of important academic data, CFNS used a statistic about prosecution of terrorist activity to implicate the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim-Americans in general.

And what are we to make of the database of 6,000 names generated by CFNS's "in-depth research?" When asked whether or not the names on said database were based on action or association, the speaker paused, and then confirmed that all individuals (and organizations, for that matter) marked as linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (and identified as alleged threats) were listed solely based on (unproved) "affiliation" rather than "terrorist activity." The prospect of Congress having access to a database of 6,000 names of allegedly dangerous individuals is alarming and should serve as a red-flag for the possibility of violence against the American-Muslim community. If this isnt McCarthyite, Im not sure what is.

CFNS's rhetoric should not be taken lightly. Although many of the attendees at the conference only came to witness its absurdity and get a free lunch, some took heed to the ludicrous message CFNS was trying to convey. The presence of Islamophobia in America and on a global scale is certainly alarming. The identification and data-basing of Muslim students should be a warning sign. This is not benign hatred. When an American politician sponsors an event clearly grounded in racism, anti-Muslim rhetoric and fear-mongering, conscientious individuals and organizations aimed at fostering understanding at peace should take action."

author by Olliepublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 09:51Report this post to the editors

That CFNS organization in the USA, which 'watches' muslims, compiles lists of names and holds conferences about them, is an echo of the paranoia generated after World War II by Senator Joe MacCarthy and others about some grand communist conspiracy.

As for shutting down vile racist websites - who would do the shutting down, and couldn't a political regime of a different dispensation also shut down offending left-orientated websites too? I think the steady way to combat vile websites is to defy their perverse logic and to put forward alternative  ideas of international human interdependence.

author by Rosenbudpublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:09Report this post to the editors

After Oslo: Time to Crack Down On Mossad Terrorism? Wayne MADSEN (USA) | 25.07.2011 | 09:05

"CNN paraded out a number “experts,” in actuality, propagandists for the Israeli agenda linked to neo-conservative outlets and the Pentagon’s “terrorism industrial complex,” before the cameras to advance the radical Islamist meme even as Norwegian authorities pinned blame on the attack on at least one perpetrator, a Norwegian named Anders Behring Breivik. CNN constantly showed footage of frightened people in downtown Oslo running for their lives from the site of the blast, as well as still photograph of a pall of light-brown smoke over downtown Oslo. Of course, CNN’s intention was to evoke memories of the 9/11 attack in Manhattan.

Breivik, who sometimes anglicized his name as Andrew Berwick in his numerous web postings, was said to be a right-wing Islamophobe who sympathized with Zionism and who was a Freemason… Breivik was also reported to be a fundamentalist Christian but he adopted a stance against the Lutheran Church, the state church of Norway, and argued for a “collective” counter-reformation to return the Protestant churches to the control of the Vatican and the Pope. Breivik lambasted the Lutheran Church and other mainstream Protestant churches, condemning “Priests in jeans who march for Palestine.”

More incredibly, the London tabloid of Rupert Murdoch’s scandal-plagued News International, The Sun, went to press with the following false headline: “Norway’s 911: ‘Al Qaeda’ Massacre.” On March 29, 2011, Harvard Law School’s extremist Zionist Professor Alan Dershowitz penned a piece in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that actively discriminates against the hiring of non-Jews as reporters and editors in violation of U.S. civil rights and equal opportunity employment laws, in which he called Norway anti-Semitic. Dershowitz cited as an example former Norwegian Prime Minister Kare Willock’s criticism of President Barack Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because he is Jewish. In fact, Emanuel’s pro- Israeli sympathies as a former member of the Israel Defense Force are what prompted many political observers in Washington and elsewhere to question his primary loyalty to the United States.

A network of Israeli bloggers pushed a claim of responsibility on a previously-unknown group called Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad). The group’s claims were picked up and run by several corporate media outlets and then pulled when it was discovered the claim was a hoax. Mossad has a program to distribute bogus claims of responsibility for Islamist terrorist attacks via “Jihadist” websites that are actually operated by the Mossad and a network of “hasbaratchiks,” Israeli and foreign Jews who act as propagandists on the web. These hasbara (propaganda) agents and volunteers operate through such programs as Megaphone and GIYUS (“Give Israel Your United Support.”) After the attempt to blame the Norway attacks on Islamists failed, the “hasbaratchiks” shifted to “sock puppet” troll mode, posting comments on blogs that criticized allegations that Mossad and Zionists were behind the Norway attacks, emphasizing that such beliefs were “anti-Semitic” and wild “conspiracy theories.” Some Israeli “sock puppets” even offered lunatic suggestions that Breivik was planted by Islamists to make Israel and Zionists look bad............

While Breivik certainly was associated with the far-right xenophobic elements in Norway, Europe, and North America, there was no mention by the corporate media of his admiration for such American Zionist Islamophobes as Richard Pipes and Pam Geller. Geller led the bigoted anti-Muslim campaign against an Islamic Center near the site of “Ground Zero,” the former World Trade Center site, in lower Manhattan. Breivik posted a number of his anti-Muslim and pro-Zionist screeds on the Norwegian website, which is operated by Hans-Kristian Rustad, a fanatically Zionist bigoted, racist, Norwegian pro-Israeli journalist.

No corporate media outlets reported that the brand of far-right extremism of Breivik is closely associated with Zionist-supported far-right anti-immigrant political parties and movements in Western Europe, ............"

author by Rosenbudpublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 13:18Report this post to the editors

Israeli MP's team-up with Russian Neo-Nazis in Anti-Muslim hate-fest -

It begins with a visit from a Russian neo-Nazi delegation to Israel.

Under the auspices of Tuvia Lerner, editor of the Russian edition of Arutz 7, the media voice of the settler movement, they inveigled themselves an invitation to meet with far-right MKs Aryeh Eldad and Ayoob Kara.

They also toured Yad VaShem without telling anyone there that they were Holocaust deniers.  Like I told you, this story has to be read to be believed.  The two Russians have been photographed giving Nazi salutes, celebrating Der Fuhrers birthday, and they published songs of praise to Adoph Hitler on their website.

Naturally, when they met with the MKs the ideas they espoused were quite different. One of the neo-Nazis told Israeli TV that the concept of Israel excites me, because it involves an ancient people who took upon itself a pioneer project to revive a modern state and nation.

The TV reporter tartly asked how the neo-Nazi of yesterday suddenly became a Zionist.

How they did it, is by finding a common enemy: Islam (sound familiar?).

The second neo-Nazi tells the interviewer:

Were talking about radical Islam which is the enemy of humanity, enemy of democracy, enemy of progress and of any sane society.

Nothing unusual really - Hitler was after all a supporter of the Zionist cause

author by Rosenbudpublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 14:41Report this post to the editors

Geller, Anti-Muslim Blogs Have Very Real Blood of Children on Their Hands

Im offended by Breiviks lawyers attempt to label him mentally ill. In fact, the eminent psychiatrist Dr. Marc Sagemann, whose written about Islamist jihadis, says hes seen no hint of mental illness in Breiviks 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 toleranceall 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 hes 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 thats the way to face down the hateful Gellers of the world as well.

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 16:35Report this post to the editors

" The right would like nothing more than diagnose Breivik as insane. It would get them off the hook."

For what?

Was Sirhan Sirhan insane? How about Lee Oswald? Sarah Jane Moore?

Are you claiming responsibility for leftist terrorists?


If not, stop slandering those you disagree with. Nobody has called for leftist websites to be closed down.

author by Rosenbudpublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 16:59Report this post to the editors

Was Sirhan Sirhan insane? How about Lee Oswald? Sarah Jane Moore?

None of these people have anything to do with Anders Behring Breivik, Timmy. You claiming that they do is just your usual Zionist attempt at misdirection.

Are you claiming responsibility for leftist terrorists?

Why would I? I'm not 'leftist' nor 'rightist' - 'left' & right' are mostly just an illusion

If not, stop slandering those you disagree with. Nobody has called for leftist websites to be closed down.

I never called for any websites to be closed down, Timmy - your claim that I did is a blatant lie.

All I have done is point out the historic collaboration between Zionists and Nazis. I have also poijnted out the more recent collaboration between Zionists and Anti-Muslim hate groups.

Do you deny that there has been such collaboration, Timmy?

Do you deny that Zionists have been financing Anti-Muslim hate-sites, Timmy?

If what I have said offends you, then perhaps it would be more effective if you demanded that Zionists stop financing and promoting hate-sites, Timmy.Ranting at me is just an attempt to silence the messenger, Timmy.

Or even better perhaps you might stop supporting these Zionists that finance the spreading of hate between Europeans and Muslims, Timmy. Though that last suggestion would probably never occur to you TImmy. You seem to be a fairly hard-core Zionist timmy, absolutely refusing to criticize Zionists for anything - even collaborating with Nazis, Neo-Nazis and Anti-Muslim hate-sites. Is there anything that a Zionist might do that you would not support, Timmy. Because it sure looks like you support Zionists no matter what they do.

You say I'm slandering those I disagree with?

Where is the slander, Timmy? What untruths have I posted here? Do try and be specific, Timmy.

Vague rants about even vaguer 'slander' are very uninformative. Specifics are required Timmy, if you don't want to be dismissed as a mere Rabidly-Zionist crank, you need to be specific.

author by Tim Johnstonpublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 18:23Report this post to the editors

"But seriously, the antidote to Breivik is more freedom, more tolerance, more dialogue with the other."

This is an excellent statement - why not quit while you're ahead?


Labelling people you disagree with as "insane" is hardly conducive to dialogue is it? Nor is accusing them of lying. Nor is referring to them as "Zionists" (when they're not) and cranks. How do you skip so quickly from one position to the other?

When you say that "the right" wants Breivik slapped down as insane to "let them off the hook", you're saying that they're responsible for his actions otherwise because then there's no "firewall" between them.

Well, there is a firewall- he killed dozens of innocent people and those whom he quotes approvingly have not.

Declaring any criticisms or questions directed to you is a "rant" is it? Justify that statement!

For the record I am an Irish Libertarian-Conservative with moderate views on most things.

Your slander exists in attempting to connect completely innocent parties to this act of extreme violence. What is that if not slander. Or libel, sorry!

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Fri Jul 29, 2011 19:08Report this post to the editors

Irish Libertarian Conservative. That would the PD stable, Tim?

While I'm here, I dont believe an being Political precludes insanity. I dont consider violent extremism as en examples of mental health, except you define it by some pre-human or sub-human bestiality of organisms devoid of actual human identity. But then I classify exclusive tribalisms as mentally unhealthy symptoms of retarded development. Most primitive tribes had more sense. Its only a few l;ike the self-invented Aryans and Zionists take it off the plank altogether.

author by Oswald Bastablepublication date Sat Jul 30, 2011 13:21Report this post to the editors

Killings put spotlight on English Islamophobes

BORROWED FROM the Knights Templar, who ruled Jerusalem during the days of the Crusades, the insignia of the English Defence League reads “In Hoc Signo Vinces”, or “In This Sign You Will Conquer”.

Its members think a lot of the Knights Templar. Yesterday, Tommy Robinson, the organisation’s leader, sat in a busy pub bearing the knights’ name off London’s Fleet Street at lunchtime.

Robinson, who lives in Luton, does not come to London often, but he came across the pub during a recent visit to his lawyers to discuss some of the prosecutions and convictions he faces. “Isn’t it great?” he says, looking at a painting of a long-dead knight.

For more than a week, Robinson, whose mother, Rita Carroll, left Dublin for Birmingham at the age of six, has been a feature on British television. The reason: the Norwegian massacre carried out by Anders Behring Breivik.

Breivik had claimed links with the league. He also, in his rambling manifesto, criticised it for being “anti-racist, anti-fascist and anti-Nazi”, and for accepting non-white members.

The Norwegian’s description of the league is not one that would be shared by those who saw it in action on British streets over the last year, where it has begun to replace the British National Party as the face of white extremism.

Related Link:
author by Rick Deckard.publication date Sat Jul 30, 2011 13:54Report this post to the editors

Yet another smear attack on David Norris.

Who was behind the 1st one? Certainly not a housebound doddery old woman like Burke. She didnt set up the anti Norris website.


Here we go again. 20 yrs ago Norris' then partner was caught in a Shin Beth honeytrap. Now its being used against Norris.


Mossad do not want an Anti Zionist President.

author by InfidelLosingpublication date Sun Jul 31, 2011 17:26Report this post to the editors

The islamic threat to justice and therefore to peace has gone on for several years - even after ottoman and mogul illegal occupation somewhat collapsed by christian replacement of these islamic colonial fiefdoms. Most evident is the islamic violent aggression on India, Thailand, Phillipines, Nigeria, Egyptian Copts, etc. - perhaps i that order.

In India, the great majority has no policitcal rights nor power, nor social justice, nor economic equality nor street safety nor public security as seen by serial mass murders thru bomb blasts in trains, markets, places of worship, etc. etc.  India seems as if the white racist settlers as was in S Africa are still ruling but only with more barbaric violence that is more frequent than ever and more pervasive than ever. No solution is in sight. No one seems to care. 

If a Norwegian lunatic takes tragic revenge, it is universally condemned. Is it from lack of state control of islamic insurgent immigration?! What is Gandhian solution to nazi type islamic aggression, manipulation and deception?!!

(Since only 300 mil are in middle class, the rest 700-800 mil are poor or very poor in India. Yet, no solution is in sight. No one seems to care).

Thanks n Best Regards,





author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Sun Jul 31, 2011 17:45Report this post to the editors

..if you read a little history that the bigger warmonger has always been the Christian, colonising, prosletising soul-hunting, and expansionary west. I've lived among muslims in Germany and netherlands, they're more tolerant generally than Europeans. Stop panicking about nothing, you'll frighten the kids.

As for India, I think if you luck into it, you'l find the hindu extremists initiate more agression. But they do share the same obscene gaps between the super-wealthy and the dispossesed as the west. Islam tends to be more egalitarian, both in doctrine and practise. Get out more.

author by nora bpublication date Tue Aug 02, 2011 13:42Report this post to the editors

I find the association made in the above comment by opus diablos between the mentally ill and sub-human, pre-human or 'retarted' really shocking and offensive. Are you not aware of the Amnesty International campaign running for the last two years to tackle just that kind of prejudice which is far worse than racism, islamobia or any other kind of prejudice

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Tue Aug 02, 2011 17:12Report this post to the editors

Are you saying you think this man was sane?Personally I think sanity is the exception rather than the rule. I have the odd sane moment myself, but my madness has never tipped into destruction. Do you think Bush, Blair and the like megalomaniac warmongers are sane?And its neo-nazis I consider pre or sub human, not some poor head witha depression to deal with. But then I think depression is a symptom of mental health, given the state of our human behaviour.

author by Terrypublication date Wed Aug 03, 2011 03:58Report this post to the editors

I think words like sane and rational need to be pondered. It is quite possible for a maniac to plan his rampage against human victims in a cool rational manner. Consider Anthony Hopkins as the mad psychiatrist in that skincreeping horror movie The Silence of the Lambs. He knows what he has done and he plans to do it again. He trades info on one of his sadistic former patients for concessions on his high security isolation. And at the end of the movie he shows a rational sense of humour by phoning the woman who unwittingly aided his sadistic escape from custody, to thank her and praise her work, and to apologise for hanging up the phone because he is "dining with an old friend."

The people who decided to a-bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cooly rational. The Gulag archipelago was a rationally organized system of incarceration and industrial production. Auschwitz and other extermination camps were rationally established centres of industrial genocide. Apartheid was a planned experiment in racial management in South Africa. The 'settlements' and the construction of walls and barbed wire security 'corridors' in and around Israel and fragmented Palestine is methodical and ruthlessly implemented.

Shakespeare has a character in King Lear coin the expression 'reason in madness', which I think can be used in relation to many individualised atrocities involving the coldblooded murder of random victims. To call the murderous actions of individuals and governments insane is not to exonerate the culprits. They knew what they wanted to do and they went ahead and did them. And will do again.

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Thu Aug 04, 2011 09:58Report this post to the editors

The process of portraying a group of people as less than human, and therefore unworthy of sympathy is a highly rational one. Rationality without the emotions of emapthy, sympathy, compassion and above all devoid of proper self-awareness is extremely dangerous. It is the rationale of the abuser, the rapist, the bomb maker, the fur farm owner. It is the spirit of our culture in many ways, of which Brevik is an extereme manifestation. It is also worthwhile looking at his own life and psychology, which may go some way to explain why he is such willing soil. In the case of Hannibal Lecter, it was a childhood experience of cannibalism that set that ball rolling, however, that is in the realms of pop psychology.

Was Brevik mad? It's probably comforting to think so, however the question has to be: Is Brevik an extreme manifestation of a psychopathic, terminal culture? The answer to that is way too diificult and challenging and the media would never even consider it.


author by Rosenbudpublication date Fri Aug 05, 2011 13:23Report this post to the editors
Pointing the finger

[Abe] Foxman describes, in his Washington Post article, "a relatively new, specifically anti-Islamic ideology" which Breivik used to justify his attack. "Growing numbers of people in Europe and the United States subscribe to this belief system", Foxman writes, "In some instances it borders on hysteria. Adherents of this ideological Islamophobia view Islam as an existential threat to the world, especially to the 'West.'"

"Moreover", Foxman explains, "they believe that leaders and governments in the Western world are consciously or unconsciously collaborating to allow Islam to 'infiltrate' and eventually conquer democratic societies."

Just such irrational beliefs underpin the hysteria about "Creeping Sharia" - the utterly baseless claim that Muslims are engaged in a secret conspiracy to impose Islamic law on the United States. So prevalent has this delusional belief become, that legislative efforts have been mounted in about two dozen American states, and have been passed by three, to outlaw Sharia law.

Foxman points the finger - as others have rightly done - at extreme Islamophobic agitators such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, co-founders of "Stop Islamisation of America" - whose hate-filled writings Breivik cited in his manifesto.

So far, Foxman has it right. But then he drops a clue about what really frightens him:

"One bizarre twist to Breivik's warped worldview was his pro-Zionism - his strongly expressed support for the state of Israel. It is a reminder that we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs."

Who does Foxman think he is kidding? There is nothing "bizarre" about this at all. Indeed Foxman himself has done much to bestow credibility on extremists who have helped popularise the Islamophobic views he now condemns. And he did it all to shore up support for Israel.

After Norway, Foxman may fear that the Islamophobic genie he helped unleash is out of control, and is a dangerous liability for him and for Israel.

Zionists embrace Islamophobia after 9/11

Many American Zionists embraced Islamophobic demagoguery after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Their logic was encapsulated in then-Israeli opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu's notorious assessment that the attacks - which killed almost 3,000 people - would be beneficial for Israel.

Asked what the 9/11 atrocities would mean for US-Israeli relations, Netanyahu told The New York Times, "It's very good", before quickly adding, "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy" and would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror".

In order for Israel and the United States to have the same enemy, the enemy could not just be the Palestinians, who never threatened the United States in any way. It had to be something bigger and even more menacing - and Islam fit the bill. The hyped-up narrative of an all-encompassing Islamic threat allowed Israel to be presented as the bastion of "western" and "Judeo-Christian" civilisation facing down encroaching Muslim barbarity. No audience was more receptive than politically influential, white, right-wing Christian evangelical pastors and their flocks.

author by Rosenbudpublication date Fri Aug 05, 2011 13:49Report this post to the editors

Brievik couldnt have said it better: Jerusalem Post wants us to use Oslo attack to reevaluate immigration policy. By 'immigration' the JPost of course means 'Muslim immigration'.

Norways challenge -
07/24/2011 22:02

Europes fringe right-wing extremists present a real danger to society. But Oslos devastating tragedy should not be allowed to be manipulated by those who would cover up the abject failure of multiculturalism.

Is it only me that finds this quote particularity sick? This is from the Jerusalem Posts editorial:

Perhaps Brieviks inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere.

The editorial caused a lot of head-scratching and quite a bit of disgust around the world. Essentially it appears that the Zionist JPost is saying that maybe Muslims ARE to blame for the Zionist Breivik's massacre because Norway let them and others emigrate to Norway

Was the JPost really so deluded to think that no one might find it disgusting that the rabidly-Zionist Newspaper would attempt to use Breivik's massacre as a stick to beat Norway with, for daring to embrace multiculturalism?

Apparently someone at the JPost eventually had second-thoughts about how such an utterly reprehensible attempt at misdirection by the rabidly-Zionist JPost might be perceived by more sane (ie: Non-Zio-racist) people elsewhere.

Someone at the the Jerusalem Post added the following paragraph to the online version of the text

The editor-in-chief adds: As a newspaper, The Jerusalem Post strongly denounces all acts of violence against innocent civilians. This editorial is not aimed at deflecting attention from the horrific massacre perpetuated in Norway, nor the need to take greater precautions against extremists from all sides.

Oh, thats what you meant. For a minute there one might be forgiven for thinking that the Zionists at the JPost were trying to use the massacre to further spread their message of Anti-Muslim hatred

author by Rosenbudpublication date Tue Aug 09, 2011 23:24Report this post to the editors

Cultivating violence: the Zionists and the US Islamophobes behind Norwegian killer Breivik

"Lawrence Davidson views the Israelis and Americans responsible for cultivating the environment in which Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik thrived and found encouragement.

Israel and its "right-wing Zionists"

By now the world is aware that, despite the ardent wishful thinking of the Western media, the terrorism that struck Oslo on 22 July 2011 was not perpetrated by a Muslim individual or organization. It was done by a local Norwegian named Anders Behring Breivik. The object of his terror was the Norwegian government and its cultural and foreign policies. The governments sins seem to have been being too much in favour of multiculturalism, too little opposed to Muslims and, not being an ally of Israel.
Breivik is at the violent end of a continuum of fear and loathing of those who are culturally and/or religiously different. In this case, Muslim immigrants in Europe. Like millions of others along this anti-Other continuum, he is angry that people different from himself are showing up in his neighbourhood. It probably never occurred to him that given one or two generations most of these outsiders would be brought to share the culture and outlook of their adopted lands. Breivik did not have the patience for such a process of assimilation. What he did have was a) the will to carry out violence against innocent people, b) the belief that such violence would spark an anti-Muslim turn in Norwegian politics and c) a sense that he had allies around the world who would applaud his action. Only b was fantasy.

Anders Behring Breivik had written down a manifesto which runs to some 1,500 pages. In this message he identified those who he saw as his allies. He had not, of course, consulted them on this status but he really did not have to. They had been fighting in his chosen cause for a long time and he admired them for their effort. He strongly identified with their worldview and he took encouragement from the general atmosphere of a "clash of civilizations" that they had created. Some had fought for the cause with violence, some had not. But he knew that they were all on the same side.

Breivik the terrorist concludes: let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marixts/multiculturists. The man had found an ideological home.

Israels Jerusalem Post has looked into this side of Breiviks manifesto. The paper notes that it "mentions Israel 359 times and Jews 324 times". Not all of these are positive. Breivik does not like Jews of left-wing, multiculturist leanings. Overall, the Jerusalem Post describes the manifesto as "an extreme, bizarre and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multiculturalism". Considering the fact that "far-right Zionism" has governed Israel for decades and also characterizes the behaviour of most American Zionist organizations, Breivik identification with them is, as we will see, more logical than bizarre. Breivik the terrorist concludes: "let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marixts/multiculturists." The man had found an ideological home. . . . . "

author by readerpublication date Wed Aug 10, 2011 02:36Report this post to the editors

ok maybe enough has been said here about zionism. How about some contributions that don't just single out the zionist angle?

author by Terrypublication date Wed Aug 10, 2011 05:23Report this post to the editors

Timely question reader. Why did that man knowingly murder 76 children, women and men, and maim many others, at a party political camp near summertime Oslo? Could a similarly emotionally charged, cunning and murderous individual try to repeat the rampage elsewhere, in Denmark, Ireland or Hungary? Is evil like this a universal possibility or is it more likely to happen in societies of a certain type? Can questions like these be answered satisfactorily anyway?

My sympathies to all grieving relatives and shocked citizens in Norway. I hope they'll get over it and resume their attempts to live life decently.

I don't like terrible events like this to be used as baseball bats by ideological propagandists.

author by nora bpublication date Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:18Report this post to the editors

its necessary here to object to the use of exceptionally politically incorrect terms like sub-human and pre-human-what the hell is pre-human? evil scientists would have to make a test tube baby from neandthrahal or homoerectus DNA, there is no such thing as a pre-human person, you may as well call the norway killer a unicorn!

The term sub-human however should be taken more seriously-in its proper use it should apply to primates(which i dont agree with either)however it has traditionally been used my medical professionals and eugenics enthusiasts to describe people with intellectectual disabilities or even just poor people with low IQ due to malnutrition. By contrast although you can call the killer evil or a bad person he actually looks quite healthy and I would expect when tested would should normal intelligence level. it looks like right wing conspiracy and he was hand-picked on purpose because he is photogenic to encourage europeans to shift to the right and as a warning to idealistic young people drawn to the left to fear the enemy. it also coincidentally drew attention away from David Cameron's involment in phone hacking


Related Link:
author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Wed Aug 10, 2011 11:58Report this post to the editors

some of that anti-zionism is as reactionary as the zionists.


Besides, the nut was a professed Christian.

More useful to focus on the retarding effects of religious thinking on critical analysis and propensity for promoting delusional ideation.

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:41Report this post to the editors

To reduce this or anything else to one reason is to indulge in a reductionist, linear explanation, that does not explain the facts. Life is complex and even this action has a complex and multi-faceted origin. You can blame, zionism, religion, politics, family of origin, chemical imbalance, access to weapons....the list is endless. We may comfort ourselves with simple solutions that don't threaten our political outlook or worldview. The truth is much more complicated.


author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Wed Aug 10, 2011 13:16Report this post to the editors

Maybe i should define my terms. 'All humans are human' is tautology.

My definition of a fully evolved human(as opposed to pre or sub human hominid)rests on the proposition that when you recognise your identity as primarily human, rather than as secondary to national, tribal or other lesser associations, you have established human values above religious or any other affilliation, which tend toward sectarian defensiveness.

I'm not as sure as you that we have all realised that identification. Many never get beyond ego uber alles(usually represented today by a prioritising of one's individual career prospects); and most put tribal/national identity above the human solidarity that would see a lot more conscientious objectors when the call to kill for kings and countries echoes, yet again.

To put it in a nutshell I've been using as a rule of thumb, you're human when when you realise all kids are your kids. i.e. when you can be objective enough to not put your own offspring's interests above those of the kid he's fighting with. To do otherwise is simply to succumb to genetic principles of preservation of one's own genetic heritage and its prospects. In other words defence of your own kids is just animal instinct(quite healthy, I dont see animal as a pejorative term). I hope that clarifies rather than obscures my position. If not, get back, I'll try again. As above, it aint simple. If you think it is, you're probably off track.

author by MEMRIpublication date Fri Aug 12, 2011 02:02Report this post to the editors

The Dots -

US State Dept - Anti-muslim hate-propaganda benefits US wars in Muslim countries

Elliot Abrams - Despicable Zionist racist Hate monger

MEMRI - Israeli Propaganda unit, baseed in the US, run by (supposedly EX)-Mossad operative - Mentioned many times by Mass Murderer Breivik that the propaganda put out by MEMRI was a major influence on his mindset. MEMRI frequently MIS-translates articles and video from Arab media.


US State Department awards $200,000 to Elliott-Abrams-led thinktank repeatedly cited by mass murderer Breivik -

How many times did mass murderer Anders Breivik refer to the Middle East Media Research Institute in his Islamophobic manifesto?

Well I just went to Breivik's manifesto and I counted, 23 references to MEMRI or MEMRITV.

MEMRI is an Israel lobby shop.

Its directors include Elliott Abrams.

Its advisers include a lot of Bush-era neocons, Bernard Lewis, Norman Podhoretz, John Bolton, not to mention Mort Zuckerman, Ehud Barak (the former Israeli P.M.) and Edgar Bronfman.

Why are we asking about MEMRI? Look at this at the State Department--they're giving em money! You connect the dots. I'm too tired!


From State's "International Religious Freedom" office:

Office of International Religious Freedom Funds Middle East Media Research Institute Project

Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC August 11, 2011

The Department of States Office of International Religious Freedom in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor awarded a $200,000 grant to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) to conduct a project that documents anti-Semitism,Holocaust denial and Holocaust glorification in the Middle East.

This grant will enable MEMRI to expand its efforts to monitor the media, translate materials into ten languages, analyze trends in anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial and glorification, and increase distribution of materials through its website and other outlets.

Through translations and research, MEMRI aims to inform and educate journalists, government leaders, academia, and the general public about trends in anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in the Middle East and South Asia, thus generating awareness and response to these issues.

MEMRI is a non-governmental organization based in Washington, DC, whose research is translated into ten languages: English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Hebrew.

The Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS) advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the U.S. and internationally, developing and implementing policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

The Special Envoy was created by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

The people associated with the Israeli propaganda outfit MEMRI looks like a who's-who of Zionist-racist Bigotted Neo-Con Anti-Muslim Hate-merchants


Selective Memri-

Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems

Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation.

Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address.

The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20). This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers. The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel.

I am not alone in this unease. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

Memri might, of course, argue that it is seeking to encourage moderation by highlighting the blatant examples of intolerance and extremism. But if so, one would expect it - for the sake of non-partisanship - to publicise extremist articles in the Hebrew media too.

Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any.

Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel". That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives.

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it.

The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon. Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff.

Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence. Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian.

Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".

The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees. Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for self-defence. . . . .

In the Hamas video clip issued by Memri, a Mickey Mouse lookalike asks a young girl what she will do “for the sake of al-Aqsa”.

Apparently trying to prompt an answer, the mouse makes a rifle-firing gesture and says “I’ll shoot”.

The child says: “I’m going to draw a picture.”

Memri’s translation ignores this remark and instead quotes the child (wrongly) as saying: “I’ll shoot.”

Pressed further by the mouse – “What are we going to do?” – the girl replies in Arabic: “Bidna nqawim.”

The normal translation of this would be “We’re going to [or want to] resist” but Memri’s translation puts a more aggressive spin on it: “We want to fight.”

The mouse continues: “What then?”

According to Memri, the child replies: “We will annihilate the Jews.”

The sound quality on the clip is not very good, but I have listened to it several times (as have a number of native Arabic speakers) and we can hear no word that might correspond to “annihilate”.

What the girl seems to say is: “Bitokhoona al-yahood” – “The Jews will shoot us” or “The Jews are shooting us.”

This is followed by further prompting – “We are going to defend al-Aqsa with our souls and blood, or are we not?”

Again, the girl’s reply is not very clear, but it’s either: “I’ll become a martyr” or “We’ll become martyrs.”

In the context of the conversation, and in line with normal Arab-Islamic usage, martyrdom could simply mean being killed by the Israelis’ shooting.

However, Memri’s translation of the sentence – “I will commit martyrdom” turns it into a deliberate act on the girl’s part, and Colonel Carmon has since claimed that it refers to suicide bombers.

Thankfully Angry Arab sheds light on MEMRI's mistranslation of "Hamas Mickey"

. I came across the video couple of days ago and I couldn't see what the fuss was about, there was nothing wrong in the Arabic version but the translation was of course different. I wasn't surprised that MEMRI was the culprit, one of those nasty Israeli hardline websites you come across on the internet. Of course as they wanted Fath wanted the video to be taken out and the story was later picked up Aljazeera among others. But what really upsets me that MEMRI posts these nasty videos in Foreign Policy blog as a guest blogger, an otherwise informative blog that's now clearly branding itself as anti-Arab.

author by BAD-MEMRIpublication date Fri Aug 12, 2011 02:20Report this post to the editors

Accusations of bias

Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases. Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper said "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation, . . . . . [ to ] further the political agenda of Israel."

Whitaker complained that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's "extreme brand of Zionism." Whitaker believes MEMRI is not a trustworthy vehicle given the founders political background.


Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity. They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets.

Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, argues MEMRI has a tendency to "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials"

Former CIA counterintelligence official Vincent Cannistraro also charged that "MEMRI is selective and acts as propagandists for a political point of view which follows the extreme right of Likud."

Laila Lalami, writing in The Nation, states that MEMRI "consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in e-mail newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington".

As a result, critics such as Ken Livingstone state, MEMRI's analyses are "distortion".

author by Rosenbudpublication date Tue Aug 16, 2011 14:24Report this post to the editors

Fred wants to paint the massacre in Norway in two ways, both of them of course, dishonest. But then Fred is a Zio-racist, and dishonesty is the only official currency they deal in.

1) he wants to paint it as a purely internal Norwegian affair, a simple 'Letf vs. Right' issue

2) he wants to say that the victims in some way deserved their fate, but he hasn't got the balls to actually come out and say so explicitly.

The one thing Fred doesn't want to do is for Breivik's undeniable Zionism to be allowed enter the frame.

Unfortunately for Fred, he hasn't really thought it through, which comes as no surprise really, because while trying to achieve point number 2 above he totally ruined his attempt to achieve point number 1.

In Fred's crass and cheap attempt to slyly imply that the victims in some way deserved their fate, he used the victims support for the tactics of BDS and breaking the illegal Zionist siege of Gaza, as a stick to beat them with. Fred wants to portray the victims as brainwashed, as mere unthinking attendees at a "Leftist indoctrination camp", and therefore in some was deserving of their fate because they were engaged in what Fred likes to call "the demonization of Israel."

The implication of Fred's sly, crass and cheap attempt to blame the vicitms, is that had they not being engaged in what Fred likes to call 'Leftist indoctrination' and " demonization of Israel." they would not have become targets of Brievik. As if by their actions they unnecessarily goaded this utterly reasonable person into taking a much-needed stand against such 'depravity'.

As I often say: it's fun to watch Zionist-racists trying desperately to use 'Logic' - they usually tie-themselves in knots, all thier own making, and sure enough Fred does exactly that.

while ineptly trying to deflect attention from Brievik's undeniably rabid Zionism, Fred actually managed to indict Zionism itself, by linking it firmly as a cause of the massacre.

author by Rational Ecologist.publication date Tue Aug 16, 2011 14:41Report this post to the editors

While Fred can speculate all he wants, the truth is there is no "explanation' for the murder of these unfortunate young people. Maybe Fred is portraying his US origins and bias. That's speculation on my part.

Life is a messy business and there are no simple answers. 


author by Rosenbudpublication date Tue Aug 16, 2011 15:59Report this post to the editors

@ Rational Ecologist - "the truth is there is no "explanation' for the murder of these unfortunate young people"

This is nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense.
We know exactly what motivated Anders Breivik to do what he did.

He told us so himself in his 'Manifesto'.

Brievik's manifesto has been linked-to and discussed several times already in this comment-thread. In it he clearly lays out his reasons, and it is clear to any sane honest person that rabid-support for Zionism figures prominently in his professed reasons for committing this massacre

So, you're either not very observant, or just plain old dishonest.

Your continued faux-bewildered insistence that "we cannot know why he did it", is either ridiculously silly, at best, or completely dishonest at worst, given that the evidence has been provided in the form of a long document written by the man himself.

Your pretence that such a document does not even exist is a joke at this stage

author by Joe Mcpublication date Tue Aug 16, 2011 17:45Report this post to the editors

 Dr MANFRED GERSTENFELD wrote an op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post  last week in which he suggested that  Israel and its supporters should exploit the Norway massacre for propaganda  purposes  ,so as to combat what he calls “de facto Norwegian support for Israel’s enemies “

 MANFRED GERSTENFELD  is a pro-Zionist  racist  and Islamophobe who for many years before the atrocity had been railing in the media  against  “anti-Israel hate mongering, anti-Semitism in Norway”  . His own utterances in the JP article in themselves provide the link between propaganda promoting the Zionist cause and the massacre  . Dr GERSTENFELD is careful to draw the atention of the Post's bigoted readerships to the fact that , the day before the murders, Norway’s’ Foreign Affairs Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, had criticized Israel at Utoya and used his speech at the island camp to call for the removal of Jerusalem’s apartheid wall.

Twice in the article GERSTENFELD accuses the Labour Party youth camp at Utoya of “promoting terrorism”. The camp’s support for the rights of Palestinians and its opposition to the Israeli apartheid wall he presents as “hate-mongering” and evidence of “the hate-character of the camp”.

 The JP article seeks to contextualize and excuse the murders of the young people on the island by blaming the camp organizers -who GERSTENFELD brands as “the extremist leaders of the AUF” - for preaching   “incitement against Israel “. He argues that this so-called incitement and hate-mongering is “tantamount to the indirect promotion of terror” against Israel.

 Those who deny links between the mass murderer Breivik and Zionism should explain why the Zionist Gerstenfeld  writing in the Zionist Jerusalem Post opines that there could yet be a positive outcome for Zionism from the murders . Slating the staid Norwegian State Broadcasting System ,which he describes as an “ anti-Israel propagandist body “ , Gerstenfeld sees some hope that ,with the  aid of  well-placed media propagandists like himself , the Zionist project  may yet be  able to  keep  intact some of  its “fighting back”  victim status after the atrocity . He writes:

 “Due to the recent massacre, a number of foreign journalists have also familiarized themselves with the perversities that permeate Norway’s elite culture. Israeli reactions fighting back are likely now to get more media attention than in the past”. 

author by antifapublication date Sun Sep 04, 2011 09:08Report this post to the editors

Brevniks ultra right hate filled mates in England, the EDL dont get a look in at their "massive demo" in Tower Hamlets yesterday...

Anti-fascist protesters gather as EDL holds London demonstration

EDL protest in east London sees 60 arrested

EDL Full Of Shit


author by antifapublication date Sun Sep 04, 2011 22:47Report this post to the editors

Paul Lewis on TWITTER!/PaulLewis/status/109922703854678016

These are terrifying photographs claiming to show #EDL members with guns: < unverified, horrific if true

Linking to: The guns of The EDL

When right wing extremist Anders Breivik went on his murder spree in Oslo last month, attention predictably turned to England and the far-right extremist English Defence League (EDL), the organisation that inspired the killer.

We are now publishing these photographs of senior EDL members and activists to prove once and for all for any doubters, that the EDL are not just a pressure group with legitimate concerns about radical Islam. They are the flip side of the same coin.

Liam Snaith: Middlesbrough EDL
Liam Snaith: Middlesbrough EDL


Caption: related vid- The EDL

author by Guardian viewerpublication date Thu Sep 08, 2011 07:24Report this post to the editors

Anders Breivik's manifesto mapped

This map shows those relationships between sites. To appear on it does not make anyone responsible for Breivik's actions. Rather it shows how a conspiracist mind can twist perfectly normal stories into a threatening and dangerous pattern.

For each site on the map, you click the dot to go there directly - and it then illuminates all links to other sites. The sites have been divided by category - click on the icon with three circles in the right-hand corner to see the sites grouped. Yellow links show who the site has linked to; red links show who has linked to it

Related article:

Anders Breivik's spider web of hate
An analysis of the Norwegian killer's manifesto reveals the online network that features in his paranoid universe
Anders Breivik's manifesto reveals a subculture of nationalistic and Islamophobic websites that link the European and American far right in a paranoid alliance against Islam and is also rooted in some democratically elected parties.

Guardian interactive map of Anders Breivik's manifesto
Guardian interactive map of Anders Breivik's manifesto

author by JoeMcIvorpublication date Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:41Report this post to the editors

Radical Islam has become the preferred scare term employed by the right-wing since 2008 as substitute for the largely discredited term Islamo-fascism .According to Mondays Daily Telegraph for example, Major-General Eyal Eisenberg, head of Israels Home Defence Guard, said at a recent press conference in Tel Aviv: "After the Arab Spring, we predict that a winter of radical Islam will arrive." Antifas post above lumps together the concept of radical Islam with the racist English Defence League organization describing the two phenomena as different sides to the same coin. To the extent that it exists as a genuine political current, Islamic radicalism is a misguided response by some Muslims to the war policies of western imperialism and to the racism that imperialism by its nature engenders. The EDL is a racist ex-servicemen's organization acting as a front for the British states military internal security division, MI5.

The English Defence League (EDL) was manufactured, and Islamophobia deliberately crafted by the UK state as part of a strategy of tension intended to counter anticipated resistance to austerity measures planned for Britain. Despite their media portrayal as wanton acts of mindlessness, the riots last month indicated that broad layers of youth do in fact follow the news and know what is in store for them. It is generally agreed across the political spectrum that in order to pay the cost of bank bail-outs , massive cutbacks on wages , welfare and education entitlements are required that will take working class communities back to the type of conditions not seen since the nineteen-thirties . As with the ex-servicemens organizations that sprang up in nineteen-twenties Germany, the EDL appears at a time of profound economic and political crises for capitalism in the UK; the groups racist provocations create conditions for police -and ultimately military- interventions in rebellious working class communities.

Experience in Ireland shows how the violence caused by sectarian /racist parades of organizations like the Orange Order are used by the state to justify clampdowns on republicans and stifle anti-sectarian protest from the communities affected by such parades. The EDL would not be able to mobilize in areas like Whitechapel in London without state backing anymore than the Orange Order would be able to march down the Garvaghy Rd without the support of the police and British army. Police forces everywhere seek to portray themselves as a neutral force caught in the middle walking the thin-blue-line between mirror-image extremists from the left and right. According to this false narrative, the extremists are really just two sides to the same coin, mindlessly intent on tit-for-tat against each other.

The timing of the UK Home Secretarys ban on the EDL march so shortly after the recent UK riots suggests that the police there may well be working in partnership with anti-Islam provocateurs to create the conditions that would allow further crackdowns on civil liberties in the UK . Significantly, as the Guardian report notes, this is the first time since the Brixton riots 30 years ago that police have requested powers to stop marches in London . The power to ban marches can be used against the left as well as the right , and it is against the left that these powers are principally aimed. Using the EDL ban as a precedent , future marches opposing police repression of youth- in the wake of the UK riots for instance - could be banned as likely to cause serious breaches of the peace .

The EDL began to emerge as agents provocateursfor the British state in March 2009 after a false-flag Muslim MI5 linked group, Al-Muhajiroun , picketed the funerals of British servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. By October 2009, an outraged band of, social misfits, police-informers and disgruntled soldiers had amalgamated with organized racist football hooligans and coalesced into the EDL. Within three months this motley crew was claiming that it had thousands of members organized in scores of branches across the UK. Membership of the Islamophobic grouping is expected to rise after last months announcement of army redundancies as a result of cutbacks by the British Ministry of Defence.

The EDL is a counter-insurgency tool, consciously raised by military and extreme right- wing forces that enjoy close connections to state intelligence agencies in Britain, but also with the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. EDL and Zionist flags are regularly flown together at demonstrations across Britain .Alan Lake the head of finance for the EDL is a long-standing Zionist. I apologize to the reader who is bored of reading about Zionism on this thread, but the nexus of Zionism and Islamophobia needs to be emphasized. That connection - which is the subject of the thread - has shocked rather than bored many in the UK, particularly since the founding of a Zionist division of the recognizably fascist EDL last year. Anti-Zionist Jews are particularly concerned about the so-called EDL Jewish division .Supporters of Israel and the Islamophobic thugs of the EDL are not, as some on the left maintain ,strange bedfellows :. Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing, but racism and Zionism are by no means opposing ideologies. They are in fact two sides of the same racist coin

Islamophobia itself is a filthy Zionist conspiracy , It is the racist brain-child of Zionism that has been utilized in Israel since 1948 to justify the theft of Palestinian land a land without people for a people without land - and as an excuse for repression imposed on Palestinian communities when the latter resist the IDF. As a useful form of bigotry, Islamophobic racism was readily seized upon by right-wing forces in the West. It functioned as an excuse for the invasion of countries with large Muslim populations and as a means to set western workers against Muslim immigrants .At the same time it allowed its advocates to pose as being non-racist. The affluent Breivik was able to insist in his manifesto that he was an anti-racist because in his lexicon the word Muslim has replaced the word Paki as a term of abuse. Left-wingers who deny the existence of racist Islamophobia are infected by it.

Islamophobia has been tailored to suit the identity/, life-style sensitivities of the affluent ex-left .Its propagandists are facilitated in sections of the media to single out members of the Muslim faith as more likely to be abusers of human rights than their western counterparts. The consequence in the UK has been terrible damage to the long-standing unity between left-wing activists and the Muslim community there. The highest expression of that unity had been the mass anti-war march in 2003. Within two years of that historic march the Danish Islamophobic cartoon provocation was launched, which immediately won the support and even complicity of sections of the ex-left in Europe and America. Nave left-wing layers were shocked at hearing the very same anti -Muslim rationales, formulated in their own media when supporting the 2005 Jyllands-Posten provocation, parroted back to them by the EDL : freedom of speech , Islam is a religion and not a race .. Muhammad was a pedophile etc. As an illustration of this, the following quote comes from an account of a meeting of the anti-fascist group United against Fascism held in Bristol last year. It was written by a confused left-wing activist after a group of EDL supporters converged on the meeting.

The meeting was then opened to debate, there was a couple of contributions from the floor. then the ringleader indicated and was allowed to speak. He announced that he was from the EDL, That he was a serving Soldier. He said he was here because he had serious problem with UAF campaigning against them and that they were not racists or fascists the[y] were anti-Islamic extremists .

author by Vetpublication date Thu Sep 08, 2011 21:11Report this post to the editors

That picture of McCoy - thats definately not a real rifle - at worst its probably an expensive air rifle or toy. The other pictue Snaith is a bit blurred but again its doesn't resemble any known rifle (to me) and its not a shotgun. Both of them fellas look like they'd run a mile if if real shot went off!

author by antifapublication date Thu Sep 08, 2011 22:34Report this post to the editors

Vet, have a look at the rest of their mates and their guns at - a few of them look real enough, and a few of the lads holding them look like they would stay and fight it out...

Anthony Phipps (Centre), Birmingham EDL
Anthony Phipps (Centre), Birmingham EDL

author by Vetpublication date Fri Sep 09, 2011 08:44Report this post to the editors

The guys above have WW2 German MP40s - In your link I'd worry about Clarke he's go a SA80 variant modern assault rifle (RAF info on the poster behind him, hmmm). The shotguns are probably real. There's some target rifles there too.

Not what I'd want my young lads to grow up like!

author by Serfpublication date Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:17Report this post to the editors

"Islamophobia has been tailored to suit the identity/, life-style sensitivities of the affluent ex-left .Its propagandists are facilitated in sections of the media to single out members of the Muslim faith as more likely to be abusers of human rights than their western counterparts. The consequence in the UK has been terrible damage to the long-standing unity between left-wing activists and the Muslim community there. The highest expression of that unity had been the mass anti-war march in 2003. Within two years of that historic march the Danish Islamophobic cartoon provocation was launched, which immediately won the support and even complicity of sections of the ex-left in Europe and America. Nave left-wing layers were shocked at hearing the very same anti -Muslim rationales, formulated in their own media when supporting the 2005 Jyllands-Posten provocation, parroted back to them by the EDL : freedom of speech , Islam is a religion and not a race .. Muhammad was a pedophile etc. As an illustration of this, the following quote comes from an account of a meeting of the anti-fascist group United against Fascism held in Bristol last year. It was written by a confused left-wing activist after a group of EDL supporters converged on the meeting.

The meeting was then opened to debate, there was a couple of contributions from the floor. then the ringleader indicated and was allowed to speak. He announced that he was from the EDL, That he was a serving Soldier. He said he was here because he had serious problem with UAF campaigning against them and that they were not racists or fascists the[y] were anti-Islamic extremists .

Actually Islam is NOT a race, it is a belief. You confuse nasty racists who want to hurt real PEOPLE who happen to hold a belief (the belief is just the convenient excuse they use TODAY to kick brown people) with those of us on the left who have genuine questions about whether religion (any religion) should occupy the public spaces such as the laws and the schools in our states, and those who have genuine misgivings about the tenets of a particular religion.

For example, In this supposedly enlightened and modern state in 2011 we currently have an absurd blasphemy law which will potentially fine me 125000 euro for making a true statement in public about the absurdity of the premises of a major religion. This is just utter Nonsense!!

BTW Your quote just shows that the guy at the bristol meeting keeps accurate minutes, not that he agrees with the sentiments expressed by the EDL. that is a pure straw man

Many on the left have had enough of religion and are not in favour of religion having control over our daily lives and dictating personal morality to us while raping our kids and living the high life from a corrupt position of power, be it nutty christianity as espoused by Brevik or Bachmann or nutty Islam as espoused by various Islamic clerics or jihadists, or any other nutty religion you care to name. That does not mean we are anti muslim or anti christian. Just that we are ADULTS. And just that we want religion to stay where it belongs. i.e. In the home or in the church or in the mosque but not in the law and not in the schools or public space. By all means believe what you want but don't try to impose it on everyone else by law or by brainwashing our kids.

I walk down my street and I come across a born again preacher shouting religious crap at me. then I come across a stand trying to "explain" Islam to me and encouraging me to read the booklet. Then I come across the hare krishnas giving me fudge and chanting. Frankly
I'd go with the hare krishnas if I had to choose but what gives religious organisations the right to try to colonise the public spaces like this? Here in Ireland they still control 90%+ of our primary schools. Haven't we learned anything since the spanish inquisition and after 80 years of catholic influence on our lives while they tortured people in workhouses and buggered our children and after various acts of violence in the name of Islam?

I don't want religion, ANY religion, in my public spaces. But that doesn't automatically mean I am a racist and want to join the EDL and in any way give my support to cynical NATO resource wars in libya or Iraq. Or for that matter to an Israeli land grab in palestine. Just that I know from reading history and personal experience, where we end up when we make not questioning something a virtue and give power over our daily lives to religious organisations. By all means believe in any wacky god you like in the comfort of your own home or church or mosque. But keep it out of the streets, the schools and the legislation and my personal life.

People can hold more than one idea in their heads at the same time Joe. You seem to think those on the left are somehow all complete imbeciles who can't question an idea such as Islam or christianity without wanting to kill those who hold the idea or give tacit support to those who would kill them to steal their resources. That is just simplistic and insulting.

Religion is largely what motivated Brevik. Not Islam, but Christianity. Islam is what motivated followers of Bin Laden to commit acts of violence. They were "useful idiots".

I am not Islamophobic I am Religiophobic. But I don't want to kill or injure anyone over it. Because I am NOT a racist or peopleophopic or for that matter a "useful idiot". I have real empathy with my fellow man and his predicament. Be he/she a brown person or a white person its much the same to me. I empathise with the human condition itself. We are all just confused human beings and the real division is the class struggle between rich and poor. And there are as many poor white christian / non religious people as poor muslim people. However I really don't like religion at all. It only serves to enslave and control the minds of my fellow man and is used as a tool of those who need an excuse to oppress or commit acts of violence or gain power.

We should just keep our wacky creation / afterlife stories to ourselves and get together to fight our common class enemies in this life. The divide between rich and poor is something we know is true. We should not be killing each other over daft things we don't know are true at all.

I agree with you in the sense that the rich are using our gullibility regarding religious beliefs to turn us all against each other or try get us to elect pro corporate psychopaths like michele bachmann (or tony blair) who talk directly to god. Classic divide and conquer. But that only shows me even more what a dangerous thing religion is.

So I don't like religion. However neither do I support NATO resource wars on largely Islamic populations. One does not imply the other.
But I don't want sharia law or catholic beliefs enshrined in my laws and I don't want daft irrational religious dogma rammed down my impressionable childrens throats in school either

I think many on the left would go along with much of what I say, but I don't think they would be racist for doing so. Religion is not race.

People like you are the "useful idiots" that stalin spoke of that help further the divide and conquer idea that helps our class enemies to keep the poor fighting among themselves over their respective creation myths. Meanwhile the rich who believe in nothing only money and power, look on and laugh. You yourself, by foaming about islamophobia and mixing it up with racism etc and tarring the left with broad strokes are acting as a tool of imperialism yourself.

Who do you think they used to help topple gadaffi to get their oil but a bunch of religious zealots who were willing to die to bring in a more Islamic order to Libya.

What did imperialists use to cause civil war (divide and conquer) in Iraq but religious divides between shia and sunni religious groups

How did they get the excuse to enact the patriot act and to go into several poor muslim countries but by culturing and deliberately turning a blind eye to religious zealots which led to the attack on 9/11 (some would argue)

How did they get people to fight against the russians and die in afghanistan but by exploiting religious zeal.

These facts kinda turn your whole thesis on its head. Religion, be it Islam, Christianity, or judaeism is used by our cynical class enemies to make fools of us all.

Useful idiots. Thats how our class enemies, the rich, view the religious. Stop being a "useful idiot" Joe. Get with the real program. And in your spare time in the sanctity of your own home or church / mosque worship any god or gods you like I don't care. But leave it at the door and get with the program and join the fight with your class brothers on the left. Stop pushing this divise brand of "everyone is islamophobic" religious guff on everyone. Assuming you are both brown and poor then we are all on exactly the same side here.

author by Joe Mcpublication date Tue Sep 13, 2011 22:01Report this post to the editors

As somebody claiming to be non-religious, I cant see why Serf is so concerned with genuine misgivings about the tenets of a particular religion. Atheists dont usually tend to care so much about the nuances and details of peoples religious beliefs and superstitions unless they think that some religions are more rational and conducive to notions of liberty and democracy than others .Theological issues shouldnt really be of such great concern to readers of a news site . My comments have addressed Islamophobia as a deliberately organized state conspiracy that utilizes manufactured fear of a particular religion in a racist way. The right to criticize religion in the West, a relatively recent-won freedom, is one that I fully support.

Why is the thrust of anti-religious sentiment by atheists directed against Islam at this point of history whereas in the nineteenthirties it was directed against Jews ? Its like atheists in the nineteen-thirties paying closer attention to and highlighting more the anti-women, anti-gay attitudes of Jews as against enlightened Christian attitudes of the time.

Most would agree nowadays that race as such doesnt really exist and that the word is a hung-over term from less scientifically enlightened times. Racism does exist though, even if the root of the word doesnt match the lumpen phenomenon it describes . Racism changes its form according to circumstances :in the north of Ireland its sectarianism, , in east Germany anti-Semitism is making a comeback as is anti-black prejudice in Libya. The ruling classes in Muslim countries use anti-atheism, and anti-animist bigotry to similar ends. Islamophobia is divide-and-rule racism as marketed to twenty-first century Westerners. It isnt about theology, its about politics. If you dont believe this, go visit Berlin where you can currently see the crude give them gas election posters put up by the neo-Nazi NPD on lampposts there . They are clearly political and racist even if they are ostensibly directed against people of a particular religion i.e Islam . They very much resemble the anti-Jewish depictions of the thirties and the cartoons produced in Denmark in 2005 . You can see an example of some of these Islamophobic / racist posters here:

Left-wing apologists for Islamophobia - those who deny its existence or trivialize its importance by saying as Serf does, that people who oppose it are foaming at the mouth - are part of the respectable face of this brand of ersatz racism . They are the other side of the Islamophobic coin to the gun club and boot boy types . Respectable Islamophobia maintains that, since Judaism is a race, criticism of Jewish people is racist and that, because Islam is a religion and not a race, Muslims are legitimately open to criticism mockery etc . Theres something first-world chauvinistic about this sort of classification that always reminds me of the cranium calipers that were used in the nineteenth century to determine somebodys skull size for criminal classification purposes.

Were the pogroms, Kristallnacht , the book-burnings of the nineteen-thirties really directed against the religious ideas of Jews? Were the organized gangs who were smashing the windows of Jewish shops and plundering the stock -while the police stood by watching and laughing - somehow spontaneously critiquing the Talmud? Or was there something of a more sinister nature involved -such as the deliberate stoking up of anti-Semitism by the German state in collusion with the Nazi Party at a time of national crisis? German state archives tell us that there was indeed a state-organized campaign of anti-Semitism in Germany and other European countries in the thirties. To argue against that obvious truth today would mark you down as a racist. My argument is that a campaign of vilification against Islam has been organized, and a campaign of racist bigotry is currently being waged against people of the Muslim faith right now, with Islamophobia styled and manufactured as justification for it .

Muslims are being driven from their homes , murdered and subjected to torture and discriminated against because they are living in geo-politically important parts of the world which have large reserves of oil, gas, etc. or else lie on trade routes , which western imperialists wish to dominate. Muslim countries have - again for historical and political reasons - been underdeveloped, resulting in emigration of poor Muslims from such countries as Pakistan and Algeria to the richer West looking for work .Once in the prosperous West they tend to be the worst paid and most exploited part of the work force .Demagogues throughout the years have sought reasons and justifications to malign the latest wave of poor immigrants so as to divert attention from issues of class.

Prejudice against Islam goes back to the middle ages, or rather to the dark ages which the Islamic revolution did so much to dispel. But the older type of anti-Muslim prejudice has actually in certain respects changed form to its very opposite over recent years in the West , so as to suit changes in the agendas of those promoting it. Muslim men for instance were up until quite recently portrayed as more prone to the vice of homosexuality than white Christians were (as were soviet bloc women). That was when homophobia was more prevalent of course. Oscar Wilde was frequently portrayed as a dusky, not-quite- white Mohammedan. Lawrence of Arabias diaries perpetuated the homophobic prejudice. Nowadays Muslims are supposed to be more widely prejudiced towards gays than those of other religious faiths are .And whats worse they are out colonizing in Ireland if Serf is right!

Serf asks regarding a weekly information stall set up by Muslims at the GPO, what gives religious organizations the right to try to colonize the public spaces like this? The right of freedom of religious expression does, Serf ! The Wars of Religion were supposed to have ended three hundred years ago . Des Dalton from RSF has written a timely plea for religious tolerance and internationalism that I would urge people to read . Left groups would do well to emulate it. You can read the piece at this link : A courteously staffed stall outside the GPO does not constitute an attempt to colonize the public space in Ireland. Serfs fear of colonization by Islam is an inversion of the real state of affairs in the world today. The invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, do constitute real attempts at resurrecting colonialism.

Islamophobia provides the rationale to excuse the theft of resources in countries with large Muslim populations and the mistreatment of Muslims working in the West . In a similar way, anti-Semitism in Germany and other European countries in the nineteen-twenties and thirties provided the ideological underpinning to justify the theft of European Jews property and provide the rationale for their enslavement in concentration/work camps and their eventual murder in gas chambers . Historians agree that the source of the surge in anti-Semitic racism was the economic and political crises Germany faced after its defeat in the First World War .The crises-racked capitalist system of today is throwing up the same type of racist scum that stalked Europe seventy years ago and for the same rotten purposes . Serf tries to deny the very obvious connection between todays neo-Nazi Islamophobes and the anti-Semitic fascists of the thirties with talk about the meaning of words. Serf wrote : Actually Islam is NOT a race, it is a belief .

This thread wasnt started to discuss etymology, but to expose the ideology of Islamophobia and its connection to militarism and Zionism. Serf has raised the subject of Islam not being a race , as have others recently who seem not to notice the fact that Judaism is also a religion and not a race .The Irish are not a different race to the English. So there has been no such thing as anti-Irish racism in England down the centuries either, according to this sort of logic. Actually there is only one race on the planet - the human race. Does that mean that there is no such thing as racism at all? Does homophobia exist ? Ask the thug who attacks gay people whether he is homophobic or not and he will probably tell you that, since he is not afraid of gays, he cannot be homophobic.

Im not tarring the whole of the left as Islamophobic as Serf suggests I am - for an unexplained reason - trying to do. But sections of the left have definitely been infected by Islamophobia and moreover they have helped transmit it. There is a clear record of this left Islamophobia , much of which is just cruel baiting of Muslims , reproduction of Islamophobic cartoons etc , that I dont want to re-publish here . As an example of how Islamophobia has been used to generate division amongst the left though, consider the almost constant use of the word Islamofascist in reference to Muslims that appeared on many nominally left-wing websites in the West up until 2008 . The speed and ubiquity with which this nonsense term gained currency amongst sections of the left ,despite its right-wing provenance , attests to the success the Zionist and neo-cons who originally coined it, had in bringing the left on board with their agenda . When the term fell out of favour in 2008 - after the CIA suggested in a memorandum that it had out-lived its usefulness- the term was promptly dropped by both left and right apart from the former left Christopheer Hitchens who it seems just cant bring himself to dump a term that he did so much to promote .

As an example of the left use of the term Islamofacism I give this piece of crudity , which is taken from a 2006 left website thread that was opposing the SWP for being supposedly soft on the Islamofascist mullahs. You dont have to be a supporter of the SWP (I am not one) to identify the Islamophobic trope involved:
The Iranian Islamofascist Regime must be overthrown.
the SWPs love affar with the Iranian Islamofascists:
"Far left collusion with Islamo-fascism
Your question about how many women and gays were killed by US Imperialism is both meaningless and irrelevant . Its worse actually because it puts you on the same side as the Mullahs.
the swp have taken sides. they have sided with the misogynist and homophobic islamists against socialist women in iraq and iran

Its true that NATO has used Islamists in Libya as Serf writes above , but what of the opponents of the Nato attack on the country who were Muslims? What about the people in the Libyan National Council who were not religiously observant and supported the NATO invasion? Serf only seems to want to leave religion out of the public space when it suits a certain argument. How did they get the excuse to enact the Patriot Act , Serf asks. With the help of Islamophobia, Serf! Even ten years since its implementation, you blame the US Patriot Act on Islam and Muslims rather than on the people who passed the legislation, which disproportionately affected people of the Muslim faith. See how it works?

According to Serf Nutty Islam as espoused by various Islamic clerics or jihadist, is the other side of the coin to the type of nutty Christianity that motivated Breivik. In the same sentence in which Serf mentions the litany of abuse perpetrated on children by the Catholic Church in this country, s/he tags on an unsupported claim about various acts of violence done in the name of Islam. The fact that Muslims commit crimes of violence doesnt mean that they commit them in the name of Islam anymore than George Bush and Obama commit their crimes in the name of Christianity . According to press reports , the eight British Muslim men put on trial in 2008 and subsequently convicted of terrorism charges gave the following statements about their motives for planning to put bombs on aircraft bound for the USA:

This is revenge for the actions of the U.S.A. in the Muslim lands and their accomplices, such as the British and the Jews.
This is a warning to the nonbelievers that if they do not leave our lands, there are many more like us.
Sheik Osama has warned you many times to leave our lands or you will be destroyed, and now the time has come for you to be destroyed.
Stop meddling in our affairs.
I say to you disbelievers that as you bomb, you will be bombed, and as you kill, you will be killed. And if you want to kill our women and children, then the same thing will happen to you

One can see in the above quotes that there are religious influences in the statements of the men - the use of phrases such as Muslim lands and non-believers, for example. But the motivation is primarily political, directed at western interference in Muslim countries The revenge carnage these men were intent on was motivated by the actions of imperialism that had resulted in the deaths of millions of Muslims.
The young men who blew themselves up alongside over fifty innocent people on their way to work on tube trains and buses in London in 2007 expressed similar views, saying in videos made before they died that their terrorist bombings would be revenge operations for the crimes of western countries in places like Iraq. Serfs over-stressing of what he appears to regard as an almost mystic power that whacky religion is able to assert over peoples minds perhaps leads him/her to also wrongly conclude that Religion is largely what motivated Breivik. That is not at all supported by what the Islamophobe Breivik wrote in his manifesto .

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).
So no, you dont 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 (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)

An explanation which posits religious ideas nutty or otherwise - as the base for any action taken in the material world is in fact religious. Serf would like people to believe that suicide bombers are nutty Muslims while Breivik is a nutty Christian - two sides of the same nutty coin . Religion is to blame for everything in other words : nutty delusional types running around shooting people and blowing one another up . No different in essence to those crude phrenology theories of the nineteenth century that located the source of human behaviour in lobe configurations of the brain . Phrenology sounded very non-religious, scientific and materialistic to many people at the time.
The Islamophobia that drove Breivik to commit his crime didnt just spring out of the defective brains of a disturbed individual.

Liz Fekete of the UK Institute of Race Relations delivered the Claudia Jones Memorial Lecture in London last year where she warned on the dangers of Islamophobia and called for a campaign against racism and Islamophobia in the media. Referring to the US red-scare of the nineteen-fifties she posed these questions:
"Could it be that we, too, are living in a world that is being shaped by a new form of McCarthyism? Only today the 'Islam scare' is replacing the 'red scare'? Could it be that whereas once Communists were treated as a dangerous 'fifth column' subject to 'foreign allegiance', such fears are now being transferred onto those European citizens and residents who happen to be Muslim? Could it be that just as the media in the US carried out its own 'hunt for subversives', the media in Europe are contributing to the 'Islam scare'

Two points for Serf
The useful idiot term has always been attributed to Lenin, not Stalin - although nobody has ever come across a quote where Lenin used it as far as I am aware. It is actually more popular with right-wing Islamophobes nowadays when criticizing the nave left. As for instance this from Anthony Browne in the London Times.
Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the Wests apologists for the Soviet Union useful idiots.

I wasnt saying that the man at the meeting was a supporter of the racist gang , only that he seemed surprised at the seemingly ant-racist arguments put forward by the serving soldier. Other comments to indy uk threads about the EDL are interesting as well in that regard..This is one comment defending the EDL from somebody called Lotty .
thye have Black and Asian members. They have defended women's rights, including the rights of Muslim women not to be beaten, forced into marriage, or to wear niqab. One of their members is a Pakistani who fears for his community who he says is under threat from militant Islam. Militant Islam is something that worries ordinary Muslims who support the EDL.
Yes, the EDL support our soldiers, have the support of soldiers and ex soldiers and want troops out of the Middle do Stop The War Coalition.
The left need to realise that they are wrong about the EDL. For all the shouting by the middle class lefties of the SWP / UAF and even antifa about "class war"...the EDL are mostly working class [and underclass] people from council estates who are sick of violence in their communities caused by extremism and the attacks on our soldiers.
As for the UAF "preventing another Stoke"...the EDL stewards and the EDL themselves behaved impeccably and sorted this out for themselves.

Why does no one in the UAF etc want to address how Militant Islamic groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir cause trouble in Mulsim communities? They are racist, homophobic, misogynistic and extreme fascists.

author by Serfpublication date Wed Sep 14, 2011 17:18Report this post to the editors

"Left-wing apologists for Islamophobia - those who deny its existence or trivialize its importance by saying as Serf does, that people who oppose it are foaming at the mouth - are part of the respectable face of this brand of ersatz racism . They are the other side of the Islamophobic coin to the gun club and boot boy types . Respectable Islamophobia maintains that, since Judaism is a race, criticism of Jewish people is racist and that, because Islam is a religion and not a race, Muslims are legitimately open to criticism mockery etc . Theres something first-world chauvinistic about this sort of classification that always reminds me of the cranium calipers that were used in the nineteenth century to determine somebodys skull size for criminal classification purposes."

Whew! a long response raising a few interesting points Joe. Also a lot of sneakiness in trying to put words into my mouth and lump me into the same category as nasty boot boy types. I believe the relevant fallacy is referred to as "proof by association".

don't consider myself a "racist" (whatever it means) and I take great exception at your feeble and rather underhand attempts to equate me with "racist" of "primitively tribal" violent boot boys.

But if your point is that the word "race" is pretty meaningless and we need better use of language all around if we are discussing both "race" (physical characteristics / physical tribe membership) and religion (ideas / memes) in the same conversation then yes I'll be the first to agree here.

I never said Judaeism was a race. How dare you put words in my mouth sir!
Jews are a grouping of people holding the same religious beliefs in exactly the same way muslims are a grouping of people holding the same religious beliefs. But their religion is exactly that. A religion. A set of daft ideas they could change tomorrow if they wished.

Race is another matter entirely. Celts are considered a race. Arabs are considered a race. Semites are considered a race. But confusingly people who hail from the same country and have many similar racial markers are also considered a race. The Irish, the pakistanis, the french etc. are often considered races. In fact when you examine it, the notion of race as you alluded to yourself, falls apart in your hands. But how can there be racists when there is no such thing as race? Its a good question. I think in our modern world perhaps a new definition of "racism" is needed. Certainly more clarity is needed if we are not going to go the whole hog and fix the language itself (maybe the best approach?)

Maybe the truth is, its all just simply a modern form of xenophobic "primitive tribalism"?

How to go about clarifying this notion of race? Well one approach might be to examine the common physical characteristics of people and use this as a basis for racial definitions. Ideally on the scientific basis of very specific genetic markers and historically known patterns of early hominid migration.

However this definition, whilst probably the best we can hope for, is of no practical use to the impatient boot boy "racist" anxious to choose a legitimate target.

Perhaps something more common sensical based on visible physical characteristics?

e.g. Irish are often freckly, often have pale skin, maybe speak some irish, were born in ireland. Already a slippery slope with many awkward boundary cases. But how else can you define race except maybe by sticking rigidly to "where you were born?" The other alternative as previously suggested is perhaps to remove the term "race" from our dictionaries altogether as "meaningless"

However I will make an important distinction between being attacked for your ideas and being attacked because you don't "look like" members your attackers tribe

I'm not inclined to include religion in this definition of race as religion does not fit very well at all.
It is just a meme nothing more. A meme can be taken up anywhere on the planet. An attack on a person because they believe in Islam is an anti religious or sectarian attack not a racist attack. It's an attack on somebody because they hold an idea that I don't like or disagree with
You can change your ideas in a heartbeat. But your skin colour, your place of birth etc and other such physical characteristics are fixed

I don't claim to have dealt properly with this issue at all here, just scratched the surface. This particular discussion could continue on for a long time without proper resolution. And would no doubt attract a coterie of fascist nutjobs

on a different point,
I'd imagine Israelis are quite happy to avoid making a proper racial distinction in the form of a word to describe their race as opposed to their majority religious belief. There may be a reason for that. Because they would be largely semites. As are the palestinians. Quite an embarrassing state of affairs you'll agree for the "racists" in Israel to admit that they are actually exactly the same race as those they would try to eradicate!
(Ditto for the english wishing to eradicate the irish as you mentioned not at all illogically in my book! ;-)

In fact, perhaps if Hitler had been better informed of the subtleties of language and definition involved here, he would have found it harder to physically abuse a grouping of people holding the same religion on the basis of "race" and his arguments would have crumpled before he was able to gain much momentum. But we all know that in reality he just wanted to use "primitive tribalism" to catapult him to power. He didn't really care about their religion so much as their value as scapegoats.

I think your attempts here ultimately amount to arguing for less clarity rather than more in order to have "islamophobia" (fear of Islam) classed as "racism" for your own purposes. However ironically I think such arguments also serve the interests of people like the Israelis whom I agree care little about religion and more about property, water, gas and other resources currently under palestinian lands but are most happy to play the anti semitism racist card at the drop of a hat to deflect criticism.

I sympathise in your desire to protect middle eastern lands for their occupants against the predatory attacks of NATO and the US etc but I disagree that having the word "Islamophobia" categorised as simply racism is an intellectually honest way to go about it. It makes you seem little better than the zionists who cry "anti jew" whenever someone opposes Israeli foreign policy.
Call the zionists racists. Thats what they are. They appear to consider arabs less than human. Thats racist if anything is. But Personally although I would seriously criticise and object to their overt "racism", I wouldn't have much of a problem discussing their theoretical objections to the tenets of christianity or zoroastrianism or 7th day adventism or scientology or for that matter Islam with them. They are just ideas.

*apologies..time did not permit a proper response

author by Nopepublication date Wed Sep 14, 2011 17:35Report this post to the editors

I'd imagine Israelis are quite happy to avoid making a proper racial distinction in the form of a word to describe their race as opposed to their majority religious belief. There may be a reason for that. Because they would be largely semites.

Most Jewish people are NOT 'Semites' at all - only the Mizrahi and Yemeni Jews can claim to be Semitic - and they only comprise a little more than 20% of all the Jewish people alive today - the vast bulk of the rest are Ashkenazi Jews who are descended from the Khazar tribe, a Turkic people that converted to Judaism, originally from around the Caucuses in Southern Russia/Georgia region.

Israeli historian Shlomo Sand has noted that prior to the rise of German Volkish movement no Jews considered all the separate Jewish Groups to form a specific 'Race'.

However, things changed in the 19th century. Due to the rapid emancipation of European Jewry together with the rise of nationalism and the spirit of Enlightenment, assimilated European Jews felt bound to redefine their beginnings in secular, national terms. This is when Jews invented themselves as people , a 'race', separate from all others by virtue of Blood-characteristics.
Like many other European nations, Jews felt the urge to invent a coherent narrative about themselves and their history.

Sand has pointed out that much evidence exists to show that the vast majority of Jewish people are descended from converts.

When the above is pointed out to people, only 2 groups continue to claim that Jewish people everywhere constitute a 'race': Anti-Semites and Zionists - and both are essentially 2 sides of the same coin.

author by Serfpublication date Wed Sep 14, 2011 18:42Report this post to the editors

Very interesting. but if you bothered to read it more carefully, you would see that I actually never said "most jewish people are semites" (straw man?). of course not. I said Israelis are largely semites.
does your history lesson and 20% assertion still apply?
what do you consider the meaning of the term "largely"

otherwise thanks for the "informative" post ;-)

author by Serfpublication date Wed Sep 14, 2011 19:21Report this post to the editors

I'm being somewhat lazy here I know.

but check out the section about "Ancient semetic peoples" for evidence to support my assertion regarding Israelis being largely semites

"Hebrews/Israelites founded the nation of Israel which later split into the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The remnants of these people became the Jews and the Samaritans."

author by Nopepublication date Wed Sep 14, 2011 23:22Report this post to the editors

I said Israelis are largely semites.

wrong again - barely 50% of Israeli jews are Mizrahi - 50% can in no way be described as 'largely', no matter how sarcastically you state it.

And regarding your so-called 'evidence' - Wikipedia is riddled with Zio-trolls that heavily police any and all subjects related to Judaism or Zionism - Wiki is not by any means a reliable or objective source for any of these subjects. The fact that you seem to think it is, is kinda cute though.

In fact the only time Wiki might be considered reliable is when the subject matter is completely uncontroversial - Figures for the Ukrainian Potato Harvest of 1843 or the like, might be reliable, but for anything even remotely political or controversial only a fool would trust what they read at Wikipedia. And only a very naive person would quote Wikipedia without first checking to see if the claim is referenced, and THEN checking the source itself, if any, to make sure it is properly quoted and comes from a reliable and or unbiased source.

For example the quote you lifted from Wiki is completely unsourced. Anyone can edit a Wiki - even the most biased and ignorant fool imaginable. Just because somebody writes something at a WIki it doesn't make it true.

Prof Sand's book IS however heavily referenced with reliable sources, most of them to be found in the Libraries of his University in Jerusalem. These sources clearly show that Judaism was once a proselytizing religion which was once successful in converting many people to Judaism. Then along came the Christians and they were even more successful at converting people (and not by force either). Consequently Judaism became more insular.

It's all detailed in many books by respected historians, many of them Jewish and Israeli. You should try reading actual books, rather then just lazily relying on the very unreliable Wikipedia.

An example of how unreliable Wiki actually is on these subjects is again contained in your quoted 'evidence' : "The remnants of these people became the Jews and the Samaritans." - it is generally accepted, , by most reputable historians, though curiously NOT by Wikipedians (no surprise there, though) who have actually studied the issue, that the now mostly Muslim Palestinians are actually partly descended from the original Jewish population of the area during so-called 'biblical times'.

Wikipedia of course makes no mention of that in your little bit of quoted 'evidence' - and THAT tells any intelligent person all they need to know about the reliability of Wikipedia regarding such subject matter

author by Serfpublication date Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:18Report this post to the editors

I think 51% constitutes "largely" myself. A far cry from 20% you quoted in your straw man argument. (you're good with the fallacious rhetoric!) And I'm sure you are fibbing by stating a suspiciously round figure of 50%
But whatever.

Anyway lets get back to talking about Brevik and his christian right wing motivations for killing a bunch of white people in norway. What were his US right wing christian influences do you think nope / joe ?
Where did he get all his weapons training?
you seem knowledgeable on the subject. Do educate me further. Take the dark muslin veils from my eyes. ;-)

author by Nopepublication date Thu Sep 15, 2011 13:06Report this post to the editors

YOU are the one that brought all this up when you made the false claim that 'Israelis were semite' so why you are now claiming I am the one that changed the subject matter is a bit of a mystery. You seem to have the mistaken notion that I an 'JoeMc'. Well,here some news for you: I'm not.

author by Serfpublication date Thu Sep 15, 2011 16:14Report this post to the editors

Ok Nope. Thanks.

I'll bear your posts in mind next time some Israeli zionist squeals "anti-semite" when someone criticises Israeli actions against palestinians.

I'll just say "check out nope's post here. He says Israeli's are not semites. He seems very certain and authoritative on the matter! ".

Cheers for that ;-)

author by modpublication date Sun Sep 18, 2011 13:29Report this post to the editors

funny joe! ;-)

Folks, Please get back on the topic of brevik and the norway massacre. All this jewish heritage stuff is off topic and risks being hidden Ideally don't mention another thing more about zionists or jews or Israel. Please address the topic of brevik the massacre and his *other* possible motivations.

This was a very topical big news story and to address it properly needs much wider discussion than merely from the narrow viewpoint of zionism. Limiting its scope to this narrow angle is ridiculous.

If this nonsense keeps up then this thread is "history" ;-)


author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Sun Sep 18, 2011 14:08Report this post to the editors

I was wondering how far they'd drift.

Perhaps the issue of the resurgence of the Right in Europe, and the current economic ratcheting of angst, paranoia and aggressive 'competitiveness', to say nothing of the normalising of war propaganda across the media might get aired. Lotsa monocular Zion/ antiZion polarisis. The problem is bigger, and scapegoating the blatant criminality of Israel is insufficient. Some of the antiZionists tip into antisemitism betimes, no solution.

I reckon we're now inside the EU/US Vl-th reich, with NATO playing wehrmacht, and Asia as target liebensraum. Homeland security translates directly as Gestapo(check for yerself). The economic conditions do a fair imitation of the thirties, and spiralling. Africans or Native Americans might say thats a five-hundred year-old story. Israel is only a symptom, the disease is European racist assumptions of moral and other superiorities. Brevik personified that delusionary state.

author by A Freemanpublication date Tue Sep 20, 2011 01:41Report this post to the editors

"Homeland security translates directly as Gestapo(check for yerself)." - Opus

Stop telling lies Opus, Gestapo is an abbreviation of Geheime StaatsPolizei or Secret state police in english, no mention of homeland or security in the name. I believe the Syrian Mukhabarat is a closer fit to the Gestapo and they use many of the same tecniques!

author by GuestApropospublication date Tue Sep 20, 2011 14:52Report this post to the editors

to the Orwellian named "A Freeman":
what do you call the people doing the murdering with our media tacit support in Bahrain?
probably "who cares just let them do what they like. they supply our oil"
what do you call the people who slip into gaza and murder / kidnap palestinians or shoot innocent turkish protesters in the head?
"nice decent Israeli lads"

fascism's lapdogs come in many guises and with many names. And often very Orwellian ones. Lets not get caught up on a word

Regarding Syria and the rising drumbeat to do something about it, A bunch of radical islamists probably planted / funded by the west and misreported by the MSM as a genuine freedom movement does not a fascist state make. ( No doubt some genuine people are caught up in it though ).Technique Worked well in Libya though. Maybe we should try it again eh?.

Brevik was also a fascist lapdog. Note the interesting connection between christianity and fascism. Hitler although not professing strong beliefs supported the christian "way of life" in a surprisingly similar way to Brevik. The christian far right in the US express similar views to him.

Looks to me like cynical people in power often use religious ideas and religious fanatacism as a vehicle to push fascist agendas which have more to do with controlling resources than anything else.

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Tue Sep 20, 2011 16:49Report this post to the editors

A wee quote, if you are prepared to accept the Oxford English (Reference) Dictionary(thats up to you).

'...the Gestapo ruthlessly suppressed opposition to the Nazis WITHIN(my capitals) Germany and in occupied Europe and was responsible for rounding up Jews and other groups to be sent to concentration camps..'.

I dont mind the ignorant insult(sans benefit of the civilised doubt that I might be mistaken or misinformed). I've seen your self-certainty before.

If anything, I'd say I understated, considering the reach of the secret security services of FBI/CIA/MI6/Mossad&Co. Need I supply a list of the concentration camps for the incarceration of Muslims and Arabs(oops, semites)?
That translates pretty directly to my understanding of Gestapo.
And given the depleted Uranium, poisoning of water supply, destruction of civil infrastructure including hospitals and instigation of civil wars(still accelerating)it looks like they are determined to install a final solution to their Arab problem(what are they doing living over our oil?). But perhaps you believe racist exterminations only happen under swastikas. Add up the blood spilled by US secret 'security' forces in Latin America alone(again mostly ther indigenous population, without dwelling on the destruction of the North American aboriginals), and the Gestapo look increasingly like girl guides.

Funny thing though, the more intelligence agencies they assemble, the more failures of intelligence they clock.

author by Frank - private citizenpublication date Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:23Report this post to the editors

A lot of the contributions to this discussion skid badly on the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc: after this so because of this; which is not necessarily so. World War II in Europe was Germany and East European anti-Russians against a trio of: Britain, USSR and USA none of whom were fond of each other - to put it mildly. The fact that under pressure of battlefield practicality the economic and tactical methods of all concerned tended to coincidence does not prove anything about their ideological provenances and policy differences though they all fished in the same pool of post Enlightenment rationality and romanticism because ideology, like trade and disease is international.

As Breivik is/was bothered by the intrusion of Moslems into his parish regardless of why for the moment, it is not surprising he looked at others in similar contentions, even as the Palestine Arabs annoyed by Zionists settling in parts of their parish in the 20's and 30's looked to the then anti-Jewish "best practice" - and Germany, till Hitler ruined it by institutionalising a priori Antisemitism into all public activity, was the World leader in material and cultural developments.

As regards mental illness let us distinguish between disturbances of the brain and hormonal system and disturbances of the psyche. The brain is very much a bio-chemical organ and operated by a delicate chemical (usually hormones, but I am not medical) balance. In the same way some of us are born with the Almighty's "Friday afternon jobs" upsetting our bodies eg our digestion with Crone's disease - so it is possible to be born with dodgy hormone balances for depression and other disturbances. A fact to be welcomed is that a lot of asylum patients could be released on appropriate medicines. Disturbances of the psyche or attitudes are sometimes real and sometimes an excuse to confine awkward opinions, but when they involve fatal violence they are genuinely anti-social and beyond tolerance. It is of course the mix of reasons and excuses that make these cases difficult as in the Mc Naughton test case which set the rule book for over a century if not till now.

Overall because a lot of people are afraid - phobic - of Moslems since 9/11 in USA, 7/7 in UK, and decades of border raiding around Israel or India/Pakistan, does not necessarily mean that the Moslem, and Arab parties in particular are plaster saints. Just look up medieval Spain & Renaissance Turkey, and how was the Arab World created if not imperially? note that the founding generation of Zionists were all tittered at as disillusioned assimilationists who finding that it was not acceptable to their European neighbours turned on the corollary of the nationalist logic then still coloured by religion and the new Social Darwinism - to create a State of Jews as a haven and get out of the hair of their persecutors, even as all the nationalisms since US independnece have sought to create a home of our own where rather than imperial governments we are at least masters of the interior of the house. Try the what if? had Redmond had been successful pre 1914? or if Churchill had not succeeded in filibustering the 1935 Government of India Bill?

The current usage of Islamophobia for an equivalent of Antisemitism is an error from bad Classics education or bad translation - even as Antisemitism was coined by Wilhelm Marr in 1879 as academic gloss for Judenhass; so cut the nonsense about who are Semites by descent which is very 19th century "eugenics" by colour and social results of human faults of wealth distribution rather than analysis of causes, and distinguish separately the conventions and reality of languistics. Admittedly fallacies of confusing effects and causes are easy to fall into as effects are often immediately visible.

We are talking about how to pipe down and eliminate bigotries and ill feeling if we wish to build a decent society, and at least in UK that has been more than less successful these fifty years for before the Race Relations Act there were still NINA cards about bedsit land and job adverts in Britain. It does not help to blame and pick on the fashionable black sheep and stuff every sentence with political and social swearwords about them after the manner of old Communists and Goebbels' pupils of the 30's. Foul language obfuscates the logic, if any, of the argument.

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:49Report this post to the editors

...and Renaissance Turkey...'.

Al Andalus and the Ottoman systems?

No, not 'plaster saints', but from my reading more tolerant, lateral, decentralised and egalitarian than European Christendom. Also, my experience travelling in Muslim countries confirms, for me at any rate, these readings. Far more historically literate and connected to the world than westerners with their presumptions of automatic superiority. And I'm talking ground level travels.

Islamophobia predates 9/11, and anti-semitism is virulent in Roman theology back to its inception. Racism, whatever its manifestation, is a throwback to clan/tribal/pre-human simian troop(from baboon to platoon?) identity, and the events of 9/11 just provided an opportunity to elevate it to mobilise external enmity, always useful to dictatorial regimes for internal-cohesion consent-manufacture.

Also, I dont really buy into your restriction of Antisemitism as a uniquely Nazi/Jew issue. Arabs are considered by those who use such designations as a semitic people, so I find it difficult to fathom your 'bad classics or bad translation' stance. Ultimately its racism, which is posited on the false belief that the human race is divided into constituent 'races'. That your selected academic designates it so dont necessarily make it so. I prefer to work of the roots of the terms when I'm seeking definition. But that may be just a terminalogical difference.

Your analysis of WW II is simplistic, to say the least, as are scatter gun generalisations about Palestinian identification with Nazism. I think you might find the WASP factor ensured London/Washington financial symbiosis goes back to the colony's origins, whatever the hiccups. That axis remains as central as any in the ancien regime. The challenge came from the ideology of the USSR, but the Allies let the Soviets soak up the Nazi hubris on the eastern front, to exhaust them both, more or less for their own imperial agendas. They all turned blind eyes to intelligence of the final solution, anti-Jewish sentiment being well ingrained and ubiquitous. But it was probably no more virulent than anti-negro bigotry. A Negro in the southern US and beyond was still chattel rather than fellow human.

Mental disturbance can manifest not just as individual pathology, but also as collective delusional behaviour, and the brain is an electro-chemical organ subject to more than just hormonal meterology, not least conditioning and social environment.

But I agree the purpose has to be the elimination of bigotry and the creation of a more overtly interdependent and co-operative society. Otherwise we're just pumping ego, not a mentally salubrious enterprise.

author by Frank - private citizenpublication date Wed Sep 21, 2011 15:19Report this post to the editors

There is a lot of shelved small print in my attempt to get at the meat of my dissatisfaction with the Breivik etc discussion and get some of the gratuitous polemic out of the way, but here is some of that small print given the tendency of some to forget on discovering that the other side has points, to forget that our side also has valid cases and the opposition also speaks with half truths, assumptions and omissions when convenient.

Under medieval circumstances Christian Europe was decentralised enough. It was gunpowder and then railways and telegraphs that unified the big states of Europe and grasped enough resources to sail the oceans. Tax financed compulsory primary education followed by the sanding down of accents by cinema, radio and TV was the rest of the homogenising effect but it was relatively modern and the radio cinema and TV enabled the modern Arab World to folow on several of these points very quickly.

One just has to glimpse the salutation paragraphs of Turkish letters to Elizabeth I, the Habsburgs, and no doubt others to see that they had a second to none opinion of themselves. What did for the Turks and Iranians, Venice and Italy tilll unified, was the Cape Route to the East and the discovery of America. Very broadly, trade and the absorbtion of new knowledge in the area did not prosper again till the Suez Canal and air travel arrived.

The dividing of the wider World into Aryan, Semitic and other languages is a creation of the 19th century and continues in the linguistics world relatively apolitically; but the coining and usage of "Antisemite " and "Antisemitism" was the deliberate and purposed creation of anti-Jewish lobbies in a particular time and place and social setting in response to a particular snob and political requirement to be nasty in smoothely polished manners - or lack of them to Jews. At the time the Germans and their admirers did not need to insult Arabs as Semites and if anything throughout the 20th century suported the Arab and Turkish World. Those disposed to be anti - Arab/Moslem, had enough other vocabulary - and rude songs were still possible to encounter in the oral tradition of the British and French forces in the 60's. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by inflating the usage of Antisemitic/sm except confusion. The Arabs and Jews in ex-British Palestine have equal rights to a successor state and self-determination and denials of the one or the other - not just by the one side - have, "not been helpful."

Finally the grisly and ghostly persistent survival of "race & racism" - tragically mostly among those pretending to the Left's heritage, only gives a zombie style credit to a stack of ideas discredited by the opening of the Nazis concentration camps in 1945. I remember very clearly how in the fifties the word was racial(ist/ism) when talking about the late Third Reich or the then still new and scandalous coloured criterion legislation of Nationalist South Africa of Dr Malan. By the end of the 60's under the abbreviating traditions of English which sands down long words: (tele)phone, (omni)bus, tele(vision)... there was a switch to racist / racism which after the demise of Franco was also something to do with it no more being possible without a smirk, to use Fascist/ism as nobody under forty understood it anymore and it had become a Communist and fellow travellers' word.

Similarly now with racist and racism. All sorts of silly prejudices get labelled with it for fashion. If we wish to improve the World call a spade a spade and bigotry is bigotry, while DNA and genetics makes more and more nonsense out of anything to do with skin colour, accents or sectarian prejudices.

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:03Report this post to the editors

and good points. But you undermine your case with sweeping statements like 'decentralised enough' for the Rome-centred Europe of monarchies, emperors and feudal heirarchy. Also, i think the Phoenicians and Vikings might quibble with your '..grasped enough resources to sail the oceans..', not to mention Arabs, and Asians. Rome was pre-gunpowder. Nor would communications from royalty to royalty tell us much about the general self-perceptions and behaviour. Rulers will not share their delusions of grandeur with us peasants.
Nor do other forms of bigotry eliminate racist persistence, strained through ultra-nationalisms or otherwise. And if antisemitism is to be limited to anti-Jewish(yes, the convention)it lets the Zionists off the hook of the reality that their sheltering behind such accusations for every critic of their behaviour is so motivated by Nazi-like bigotry, whereas their own antisemitic treatment of Arabs merits pointing out for its mirroring of Nazi viciousness.
Anti semitic accusations from Zionists are a weapon used to beat every opponent of their project, and I feel it is quite valid to reverse the charge, when it is linguistically legitimate, even if it breaks recieved conventional practise, which it suits them to maintain. I hope that makes a grain of sense.

author by frank - private citizenpublication date Fri Sep 23, 2011 16:18Report this post to the editors

Limiting Antisemitism to the convention does not let Zionists off any hook of crass bigotry in some quarters significantly the worst are clergy off the rails. As I said there is more than enough vocabulary about for describing hatred and fear of Arabs who did seek to sweep Israel off the map in 1948, and since, and have harassed her frontiers and population in violent and numerous incidents since and before 1948 in a way the Jews never did to anybody in Europe nor elsewhere. Israel has in no way descended into Nazi viciousness towards the Arabs: find the photos of deliberate starvation ghettoization and overwork; or deliberate massacre of entire towns outside the context of regular units in battle.

Nobody in the Jewish World has set out ideologically or in practice to kill off every Palestine Arab or any other (Arab) nations. This sort of inflation of the vocabulary is what gives Jews and Israelis the justification in holding their enemies to be seriously nasty beyond the bounds of levelling legitimate criticism. Just note that one of the reasons the Turks have not overcome the reluctance of mostly SW uro members to let them in to the EEC/U is because of the imperialist viciousness of the Turkish incursion into Europe still hanging about the folk memory which Anglophones do not have.

If the Arab states had signed off a peace with Israel in the 50's there would not have been any 1967 and consequences; and if they had had th enous to grasp the Israeli offer in the week after the 67 war to return to the Green line for a treaty turning it into a frontier there would be no occupation of the Districts of Gaza, Hebron and Nablus. politically the Arab parties raised ther habds against the UN recommendation and deserve to suffer for their aggressions; and they made a pig's ear of a silk purse of their affairs in and since 67 and deserve to pay for that too in some degree. Ditto the Afghans el Qaeda for attackinng New York. You know perfectly well from Arab speeches, writing and actions - the demos in front of the Israeli embassies in Cairoo and Amman, that given half a chance Arab armies, guerillas and camp followers would still dearly love to drive Israel into the sea - and would Ireland be taking in any refugees?

The hatred of Jews and the State of Israel Zionist project is primarily ideological and was there before 1967 and for that matter before 1948. Do consider whether your Irish quarrel with the British does not distort your view of British doings and their allies of the moment and looks too sweetly on the underdog of the day. Such attitudes does lead into some strange paths. Quite a slice of anti- Zionism is disproportionately bitter and picky where the same valid criticisms of other countries is conveniently forgotten, skated over and not mentioned because of current oil and arms trading. Also because of the psychology of kicking the monkey because it is dangerous to kick the organ grinder, and very self satisfying. Most of the World is little states but they are frequently every bit as nasty as any other. Ironically it is the big states that can afford to be honourable in the same way that it was the whigs who could afford to be liberal, and the Husseini and Nehru family are Whigs and not peons.

Admittedly the Romans were pre-gunpowder and so were the Chinese; but that part of the discussion starts with your own comparison of medieval times. Yes the Vikings did cross the herring pond but did not secure themselves in the New World. The Arabs cracked the monsoon for the annual round trip to India as did the Romans or the proto Arabs did it for the Romans, but it was European pelagic shipping with cannon that was the only one to carry entire populations and civilisations for permanent effect. Interestingly there was a Chinese pair of expeditions with sail and treadmill paddle wheels that explored the Indian Ocean in the 1400s I think, or the century before to which you possibly made an allusion, but for purely political reasons at court, China kept turned in on itself, as did Japan. Indeed Japan at my minimal state of knowledge and distance from the subject, by fluke because national organisations are usually small c conservative, decided in the 19th century when broken into, to seize the occasion actively, rather than passively as did China, and gave the West a good ride for its money by grasping its technology.

You are too disparaging of the attitudes of and between monarchy and peasants. Agreed they might not have been too close as regards daily detail of their various shenanigans but medieval monarchs were very representative of cultural attitudes, if nothing else they had a relatively copious education and represented the culture to their people as much as the reverse ..such divinity as doth hedge a king. Just look at the art and poetry and the doctrine of not having to keep faith with heretics and heathen (taquiya in Arabic) was well established on both sides of the Moslem/Turk and Christian divide.

author by Yawnpublication date Fri Sep 23, 2011 20:51Report this post to the editors

"...have harassed her frontiers and population in violent and numerous incidents since and before 1948 in a way the Jews never did to anybody in Europe nor elsewhere"

This is nonsense when you consider the Israeli military incursions into lebanon and gaza.

Frank you are clearly an Israeli apologist and your posts are a long winded attempt to squeal "anti-semitism". Its just as unreasonable whether you state it directly or drag it out in a long winded fashion as you have done.

author by Astronaut.publication date Fri Sep 23, 2011 21:24Report this post to the editors

A spacecraft is going to fall all over your heads.

author by @ Yawnpublication date Sat Sep 24, 2011 03:00Report this post to the editors

'Frank' used to post here as 'Frank Adam' - his posting style hardly changed one little bit over the years - every one of his posts used to consist of some allusion to Anti-Semitism on the part of anyone arguing against his hate-filled Zionist ramblings.

Then he went quiet for a while..

Now he has returned and seems to have modified his posting style a little: it now appears to consist of finding new ways to scream 'Anti-Semite without actually using the word 'Anti-Semite'.

But ultimately it's still the same old irrelevant boring clueless mix of Sly innuendo and pseudo-historical revisionist strawman nonsense - it's really are all he has.

If we took that away from him he'd have nothing at all to say

author by Sheilapublication date Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:03Report this post to the editors

Most Irish women would have regarded Hitler as small dark and ugly.

author by Frank - private citizenpublication date Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:37Report this post to the editors

Given most people with an Irish family connection would be highly offended if anybody ran the sort of rude campaign against Irish statehood so many of your correspondents run against Israel; do consider looking through the other end of the telescope as even Presidents Obama, Clinton, Kennedy and Reagan did - no oil, only for US electoral purposes of course ! Do not forget several millions of Irish took and take advantage of having shot Indians and aborigines in US and British uniform, let alone Mandate Arabs.

author by @ Yawnpublication date Sat Sep 24, 2011 17:25Report this post to the editors

'Frank' said: "Do not forget several millions of Irish took and take advantage of having shot Indians and aborigines in US and British uniform, let alone Mandate Arabs. "

See? he same old irrelevant boring clueless mix of Sly innuendo and pseudo-historical revisionist strawman nonsense - it's really are all he has.

author by @ Yawnpublication date Sat Sep 24, 2011 20:22Report this post to the editors

See? yet another rant chock full of the same old irrelevant boring clueless mix of Sly innuendo and pseudo-historical revisionist strawman nonsense - it's really IS all he has, he can't help himself, the poor deluded meshugge Zionist

author by Yawnpublication date Sat Sep 24, 2011 21:01Report this post to the editors

I think its true to say lots of individual irishmen got jobs in other people's armies and were then ordered, alongside all the other troops, to kill innocent indigenous people. They presumably went ahead and did that as otherwise they might have been shot by their own officers. The mistake as always was joining somebody's army because they were poor or they were too stupid to see through the propaganda (or both). No real arguments there.

But how is that relevant to the actual nation of Israel making a conscious decision to go to war (on a false premise) with another poorly equipped nation beside it, bombing them into the stone age using illegal weaponry and imprisoning the entire population in a huge gulag racist outdoor prison for years on end while they systematically nibble away at their land and meanwhile pretend to be in ( false go nowhere ) "talks" for 20 years?

Ireland as a nation never went into another persons nation and killed off their indigenous people for their land gas, water and other resources. Israel cannot say the same any more.

Also, Ireland as a nation does not possess a huge US financed arsenal of hi tech weaponry worth billions including 200+ (undeclared) nuclear weapons.

Also Ireland does not incarcerate thousands of people from another nation.

Ireland does not restrict thousands of poor brown people from having access to the basic necessities of life for years on end

Ireland respects the right to protest. Ok wait...maybe not! But at least it doesn't shoot protesters in the head (yet!)

Shall I go on?

author by Serfpublication date Sat Sep 24, 2011 21:33Report this post to the editors

"...rude campaign against Irish statehood so many of your correspondents run against Israel"

er...Frank, nobody is against Israel having a state. They are just against Israel (and their US buddies) denying the palestinians one!! And meanwhile bombing the shit out of them with phosphorous and building settlements all over their land.
Talk about orwellian reversals! Unbelievable!!

The Libyans are in the door before the ink is dry. Yet the palestinians have been trying for 20+ years for statehood and still the US vetoes. Pure bull.

I presume the slipping in of armenia into the discussion is in order to get a (not so) subtle dig in against turkey in every post if possible as ordered by your hasbara masters. Predictable.

author by Frank - private citizenpublication date Mon Sep 26, 2011 00:36Report this post to the editors

In these days of internet you can google the covenants or charters of the PLO Hamas and Hizbollah but have a sick bowl handy for the fascist language denying Israel 's right to exist or self-determine itself and denying Jewish self determination or Christianity with it. It was that bloody buffoon Arafat who told Clinton that there had never been a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem so denying the Christian foundation story. Clinton might not always have been personally virtuous, but he was very self consciously Christian - as are the Irish and the Irish State - and Arafat hardly made friends and influenced people by his crass ignorance on the Temple point but then Moslems do teach their children that there are 40 000 errors in the Bible. Almost as bad as Bush and Crusade!

You might not object to Israel's existence but the Arabs do. The UN allowed for both Jews and Arabs to erect their own states to succeed the Mandate in 1947 so why did the Palestine Arabs fail utterly and lie back under Jordan? This is utterly weird as the Arabs spent 1947 from the UNSCOP visit in early summer till November threatening all and sundry that they would fight any partition plan. Now a lot of Irish do not like the split of 1920 and quite a few of all manner of folks who regret the partition of Raj India which was a Moslem demand for the same reasons Israel insisted on independence from the Arab World but really do consider that a united Ireland would tread on self determination as much as a united India or Palestine or Cyprus. Inicidentally why no agitation from Ireland about the Turkish split of Cyprus? Why no campaign to recognise Turkish Cyprus ? When are Cypriot refugees returning never mind the German refugees of 1945?

As for dear Yawn, more than enough Irish as good citizens of the US and Australia etc have taken part in everything you libel Israel and worse without the provocation and casus belli of being invaded harrassed and refused a peace for decades. look at the press files and do note the Arabs of all sorts declare they are at war with Israel from 1947 till now excepting Jordan and Egypt with ill grace since 1982 and 1984(?). In today's Observer there is a piece on McGuiness and [how as a state Ireland and the US continued to support] the Provo crowd for 24 years in their boneheaded attempt to coerce the Northern Protestant majority into Ireland till they twigged to take up the power sharing option and offers on the table since 1974. Ministerial suits and salaries purely incidental of course.

Try and explain, rather than cattty sneers why the so democratic PLO and the darling Palestinianly self conscious people of the Gaza, Hebron and Nablus Districts did not take up their opportunity to create a Paletine state in 1949 - 67 when Israel was behind the Armistice line and the Arabs organised boycotts and diplomatic sand in the works for Israel whenever they could - and raided her frontiers but the UN by block voting for the Cold War did damn all about it. for that matter why was it that as soon as Arafat's PLO sold the pass short term on talking with Israel, Jordan could patch up its borders and relations in months and the PLO/PA still haggled and lost time and acres with it ? Come the end of the oil era by mid century, do not be surprised if big power disinterest then pulls the subs on UNWRA and the rest of the Arab World and drops them back to the sand.

As for Libya it had negotiated frontiers since 1918 at least and has been an independent state since 1950 or 51. The only question there is which government do we recognise. Somehow you are not going to be overhappy with them any more than that coup d' etat type who was never elected.

author by Nopepublication date Mon Sep 26, 2011 01:12Report this post to the editors

Arafat who told Clinton that there had never been a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem so denying the Christian foundation story

even Wikipedia, a hotbed of Zionist censorship and propaganda, does not support your ridiculous claim:
There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple nor mention of it in contemporary extra-biblical literature.[6] There were some failed archaeological attempts to prove the existence of the temple, such as revealing the Ivory pomegranate, which turned to be a hoax.[7]

If there were some actual evidence then the Zio-racists that haunt Wikipedia would have smuggled it in there somehow, 'by hook or by crook' as the old saying goes.

There simply is NO archaeological evidence to support ANY of the claims Jewish people make regarding most of the major events in their supposed 'history'. These lies have been used to support their false claim to 'ownership' and their 'right' to rob land from it's legal owners.

IF such stories were true there WOULD have been actual archaeological evidence to support them - but there is not, ergo they such claims are bullshit.

Stories is some stupid book held up as 'evidence;', in a book which Jews themselves actually wrote, are just lies, pure and simple - there is NO corroborating evidence from 3rd parties to support any of these lies. None at all. Contemporary source do not back up ANY of their obviously false claims. It's all just a bunch of bullshit made up by Jewish people themselves.

Anyone could write a book that says they owned this or that - but it wouldn't make it true unless some actual evidence could be found to back it up - in the case of the lies in the Jewish books, ones they wrote themselves, there simple is no other evidence to back it up

author by @Frankpublication date Mon Sep 26, 2011 01:19Report this post to the editors

In these days of internet you can google the covenants or charters of the Likud but have a sick bowl handy for the fascist language denying Palestinians right to exist or self-determine itself and denying Palestinian self determination

See? yet another rant chock full of the same old irrelevant boring clueless mix of Sly innuendo and pseudo-historical revisionist strawman nonsense - it's really IS all he has, he can't help himself, the poor deluded meshugge Zionist

author by Nopepublication date Mon Sep 26, 2011 01:56Report this post to the editors

Even Many Israelis agree that Israel doesn't want peace

"Netanyahu shows to the world that Israel wants neither an agreement nor a Palestinian state, and for that matter not peace, either."

the only peace Israel wants is a piece of Lebanon, a piece of Jordan, a piece of Egypt, . . . . . and all of the West Bank

author by Frank - private citizenpublication date Tue Sep 27, 2011 15:19Report this post to the editors

If you went and looked at the Temple Mount platform it is plainly Roman style Herodian and whatever else it is, it is not Arab because it dates from six centuries before the Arab arrival in the area. On your next trip to the Holy Land if you are not cowards, try walking through the Spring of Gihon tunnel too, and see the waterworks at Meggido and Hazor. Work out why the PLO lot call themselves Philistines and not Cana'anites.

Similarly take a peek at the speeches of Netanyahu and Abbas on the HaAretz site and ponder before repeating the nightmares of your own psyche. The Israeli right might have taken thirty years for the penny to drop to a two state solution. The Abbas comment about 63 years of occupation shows he still has not woken up from the Arabian Nights, and his no Jews in a Palestine state demand is spot on the Nazis view of the World.

For a bunch of correspondents from a nominally Christian country with till recently a strong Christian tradition and your own Irish nationalism embedded in the Roman Catholic variant you are in ultimate denials of your own background.

One thing however is undeniably clear to observation and that is that you have not read the witnesses of the actual conflicts neither 1948 nor 1967 let alone 1956 or 1936 - 39 in contrast to your desire for a whipping boy for the problems of the present. If you did read the press files of the years in dispute you would realise that there are no simple total answers to real human problems only compromises after the consequences of mistakes, many of which were elementary vanities.

author by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite partypublication date Tue Sep 27, 2011 15:32Report this post to the editors

Excellent, Frank.

Now would you please get on to Bibi and tell HIM that. And explain that seeking any viable peace will first require the stopping of the expansionary settlement program.

Or do you think the settlements just?

A one word answer will suffice. I hope thats not too simple or total a thing to ask.

author by Frank - private citizenpublication date Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:58Report this post to the editors

The settlements like the areas between the UN 181 border and the actual armistice line of 1949 are fair, "advantage refereeing;" or as they explain at Lansdown Rd, the ref is not to stop the game unduly if somebody fouls but in consequence their opponent benefits.

Everybody who witnessed 1948 saw the Arabs start the war - had promised for six months to violently oppose the partition proposals regardless of detail and that is why nobody forced Israel back to the 181 borders nor to take back the Arab refugees who contrary to 194 of Dec 1948 -rejected by the Arab states - had and have no intention of being peaceful Israelis. Further the US did twist Israel's arm to leave Sinai in 1949 and in 1957 on the promise of peace - talks at least - but the Arab parties refused to come off their high horse that Israel should not exist; so eventually in 1967 the penny dropped and the Egyptians had to sign before Israel moved out third time lucky. At the time the Arabs knowing how they themselves would behave if they could, were a bit surprised that Israel did complete its withdrawal from Sinai in stages in 1982 as agreed.

The same goes after 1967 when Nasser closed the Strait of Tiran well before 5 June and with the other then Arab rulers gave all sorts of verbal hostages about driving Israel into the sea and not only in cartoons, then in Aug 67 the Khartoum Noes of no peace No recognition and No negotiations. Israel planted no settlements till after the Khartoum conference, and then in security locations at its extremities or about Latrun the British/Arab chokepoint on the road to Jerusalem. Admittedly the Begin government settlement programme was done big headedly in scatter instead of compact frontier blocks one at a time, but that has been remedied and all expansion since Sharon has been within existing towns, the latest project being in Gilo.

Do note as ever that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza - as from Lebanon - has not in any way created even limited de facto peace in or around the area. Remember that all the Arab parties kept Israel waiting refusing peace for two decades till 67 - not even using the word Israel; the PLO kept Israel waiting two decades till Oslo; and two decades later is still keeping Israel waiting about her right to be a self determined Jewish majority by playing games with the "return of [1948] refugees" question.

Ask yourself the same questions for real peace about refugee return and Israel's rights to be, and you will get a workable reply about the relative side issue of settlements. Meanwhile if you think any progress can be made by reverting to a one state solution consider that another attempt to re-run 1948 could put all Palestine Arab nationalists back in Jordan as before 1967 - and the Arab governments are not so velvet gloved as Israel about rebel prisoners' human rights. just note that the Arab war on Israel was there before the Israeli setlements in the [Jordanian] West Bank which eventually forced the PLO to come to table - if insincerely.

Besides with Iran in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and closing the Red Sea in Yemen when the Iranians set out to smash Saudi everybody will be interested in the Saudi oil and spats along the Israeli borders will be a sideshow. Too many think they can needle the US for ever, but if it comes to throttling the oil supply at over $200 a barrel think twice. If Britain did pull out of Ulster it would cost every Southern Irish taxpayer another 200 pa per cap to replace the HMG's (Hypocrisy Makes good) subs. How you will cope with $200 a barrel oil invites a smirk - whatever happens elsewhere.

author by NOPEpublication date Sat Oct 01, 2011 19:11Report this post to the editors

Since Frank, and certain others here, are way to dishonest (or just simplytoo bone-headed) to admit there is no evidence to support any of the myths/lies which Jewish people claim to be historical 'fact' supporting their false claims to some 'right of ownership'

Since Frank, and certain others here, are way to dishonest (or just simply too bone-headed), to admit there is no archaeological evidence of ANY Jewish/Israelite state dating to 3,000 years ago

interested parties can read it for themselves
Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho
By Professor Zeev Herzog, Tel Aviv University

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells..

Notice how when confronted with the evidence that his rant against Abbas is nothing but the rantings of an ignorant uneducated Zionist troglodyte with absolutely no knowledge of actual history, other than that pumped into him in by other ignorant uneducated Zionists, Frank just changes the subject, and starts ranting about Romans

author by A Freemanpublication date Sat Oct 01, 2011 20:17Report this post to the editors

... but I suppose muslim claims that Mohamed ascended into heaven from the Temple Mount are historical fact? All monotheistic religions are based more on fiction than fact. Even the archaeologists have to admit that Jews lived in the region for close to a thousand years before the arab/muslim invasion in the 7th century CE.

author by Nopepublication date Sat Oct 01, 2011 20:51Report this post to the editors

but I suppose muslim claims that Mohamed ascended into heaven from the Temple Mount are historical fact?

Why would you suppose any such thing in relation to this conversation is a real mystery. but I guess if you have nothing useful to say then making up nonsensical strawman arguments helps pass the time as well as much as any real argument might do

Certainly no one here has made any such claim.

Frank, the Zio-racist claimed that
It was that bloody buffoon Arafat who told Clinton that there had never been a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem so denying the Christian foundation story.

It has been pointed out to Frank that Arafat was in fact correct, something which Frank, the Zio-racist, refuses to acknowledge, and it is Frank, the Zio-racist, that now looks like an ignorant buffoon

Even the archaeologists have to admit that Jews lived in the region for close to a thousand years before the arab/muslim invasion in the 7th century CE.

the presence of Muslims in the area is as much to do with conversion as it is to do with invasion. Many inhabitants of the area, including many that were formerly Hebrew, willingly converted to Islam.

The Palestinians themselves are actually generally acknowledged (by Non-Zio-Loon historians) to be party-descended from Hebrews that converted to Islam.

Even if Jews 'lived in the region', as you put it, they certainly controlled no more than a small part of it - there is no evidence to support their claims of a great kingdom. All evidence indicates that there were nothing but small chiefdoms, small tribes of Hebrews, controlling only a very small part of the area as a whole. There were many other tribes, NON-Hebrew tribes, living in the region, and many of these other tribes were much more powerful and controlled much larger areas. In many cases there is no evidence at all that areas said in the bible to have been controlled by Hebrews, were actually controlled by them.

The Jewish books that make up the Bible are full of lies and exaggerations, and anyone that takes it for some sort of historical document is an ignorant buffoon

author by Frank - private ctizenpublication date Sun Oct 02, 2011 23:40Report this post to the editors

The Bible epoch closed six centuries before the Second Temple - Herodian or Jesus Era - which is well chronicled by the Romans and the Temple Mount is indisputeably Herodian Jewish and part of the Christian foundation myth as featured in the Gospels. It was an insult, a politically stupid one by Arafat to brazenly infer to Clinton that Christianity had no foundation not even the "one foundation" in the hymn lyric. Given his skills at making friends and influencing people, no wonder Arafat never got his state - presuming he really wanted one. Then he would have had to do some real work reconciling the economy and much else instead of jet-setting posing as Garibaldi to the historically ignorant - only Garibaldi and most other nationalists were more successful in Sinn Fein terms than Sinn Fein.

Before picking on one particular archaeological thesis to throw out all the Bible narrative just remember there is a lot of archaeology around the area and even if the Davidic Kingdom was not as grand as some would think the life, economy, weather records and parallel records of Egyptians and Assyrians besides much else does correspond to something. In some ways the latest ideas make it all the more astonishing that such a small group did survive so tenuously on an inspiring idea. One does not have to be big to have an effect, nor justify one's existence - Irish history is proof as much! It is the ideas as much as anything that count and without Jewish monotheism there is no modern science and no modern World quite apart from no Christianity nor Islam. The cadences of NOPE's pieces are very close to my Moslem former pupils who on occasion are wont to say "The Bible has 40 000 errors in it" Oh yes tell me one: "The Bible has 40 000 errors in it." Evidently as good a piece of Sunday school Skinners' pigeons drilling as any!

Being so particular about the bulk of Moslems being converts is also old hat - archaeological old hat backed by DNA as much of the Dead Sea MSS and local sheep as anything else but one still has to explain why did this follow a definite military conquest - or do you also intend to dismiss the Koran - could be dangerous ? Remember that Jewish history is not congruent with general Christian and Moslem history. At the time of the Moslem conquest - the fatah of the Levant - the religious majority in the area was Greek Christian - though one of the explanations for the success of Moslem imperialism was that its Arabic appealed to the underlying semitic usages overlaid by the Hellenisation since Alexander's passage across the region. Funnily: NOPE is indulging "inverse video" racism by trying too hard to disconnect the bloodline descent of today's Jews from ancient Hebrews/Israelites: "We do not need candles with Israelites present" as Bevin said on an accordingly notorious occasion in Jan 47. It is a subsidiary matter because Jews have always accepted converts. Besides the Gospel - which of course is not Bible - there are the people named Jewison in the telephone directories, at least before the directories disappeared.

Borders and regimes come and go and those who think that because one side of a dispute is not exact means that the other party is a hard done by plaster saint might be in for a shattering experience. Are you quite sure Brian Boru was a Catholic? that Wolfe Tone was of Celtic descent? that the Irish print face inspired from the Book of Kells era was actually first cut and used by the Elizabethan Government for a prayer book edition to butter up without success. None of this in any way detracts from the present pretensions to Irish distinctiveness and national self determination led by the good Anglo Saxon patronymics Gerry Adams and Michael Collins with Norman and Biblical first names. If we are in an era of self determination then respect it which includes Israel as much as the states of the Americas or the successors to the Raj, the Habsburgs and the Ottomans. When the Palestine lobby drops its thirties dictators' radio quirk of putting insulting adjectives into every phrase their logic - if any apart from jealousy and outrage -could be clearer.

author by @Frankpublication date Mon Oct 03, 2011 00:07Report this post to the editors

Thanks for the usual barely coherent rant, chock full of the same old irrelevant boring clueless mix of Sly innuendo and pseudo-historical revisionist strawman nonsense, Frank

Rather than be swayed by the spittle-filled rantings of some frothing-at-the-mouth Zionist loon on the interwebs, Frank, personally I'll go with the Professors on this one - thanks anyway

As Nope said earlier and as you yourself frequently prove: anyone that takes the Bible for some sort of historical document is an ignorant buffoon.

Number of comments per page
locked We are currently not accepting any more comments on this article.
© 2001-2018 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy