Saturday 30 July, 2011
Oslo Terror, Media Hype and Western Hypocrisy
Hameed Abdul Karim
Muslims the world over became apprehensive when the bombing in Oslo took to the TV screens in all its horror. And they had every reason to be so because all the international media, including Al-Jazeera, thought it proper to point the finger at what they said could be ‘Muslim extremists groups’ who were responsible for the atrocity with Al-Qaeda being the chief suspect. To add to the variety Russia Today (RT) broke the news that a hitherto unknown ‘Islamic terror group’ calling itself the ‘Al-Ansar Something’ had called in to say they were the ones responsible for the attack. Within a flash all TV networks latched on to the lead with all the familiar sound-bites associated with Islam and Muslims and in no time a new ‘Islamic terrorist group’ had taken centre stage on the world scene. Muslims squirmed in shame and embarrassment as they reconciled themselves to yet another act of terror the extremists had carried out in their name and the name of their faith.
Later when it transpired the terror attack was indeed carried out by a ‘native’ the TV stations sheepishly announced that ‘Al-Ansar Something’ had called in to withdraw their earlier claim! The fiasco conveyed the feeling that this new terror group had an office somewhere in Oslo from where they communicated with the international media. Why didn’t the authorities make any attempt to trace the calls that went on between the media and ‘Al-Ansar Something’ leaves room to suggest the media was in on the hype a la the now disgraced Rupert Murdoch owned News of the World? Not stopping at Al-Qaeda, the media threw in another possibility. Was it the Kurdish cleric under house arrest in Norway who was behind the attack?
‘No’ said the TV anchors ‘we don’t want to speculate but could it be possible that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack’. The line of questioning was similar to the Orwellian terms used by the West in their hell bent desire to get Gaddafi. Leader after leader went on record saying ‘we are not for regime change in Libya, but Gaddafi must go’.
Credit, however, must go to the Norwegians for not falling prey to the antics of the media. When asked if they believed Al-Qaeda or the Kurdish imam was behind the atrocity, they consistently maintained they didn’t want to speculate. Perhaps, like Bill Clinton during the Oklahoma bombing, the Norwegians too had inkling as to the real culprit behind for the attack. This was much different to the 9-11 attack where, right from the word go, the confirmed culprit was America’s erstwhile friend Osama Bin Laden. The TV networks showed a guy, moments after the twin towers collapsed claiming that it was Al-Qaeda who committed this crime besides giving his view on how the jet fuel caused the steel in the building to melt in a jiffy. Up until today the story stands unchanged and unshaken – at least in the mainstream media. Who was this ‘expert’ on the scene and what was he doing there?
All this, however, does not in any way suggest that Norway is an innocent nation even though Norwegians are lulled into believing they are the goody-goody guys in the world with its Nobel awards and all. Norway is in fact in a state of war against Libya and Afghanistan. Quite a few of the sorties carried out against what the media calls ‘Gaddafi’s forces’ instead of the ‘Libyan security forces’, have indeed been carried out by the Norwegian air force, killing many civilians. The names of the dead civilians in Libya will not appear in the media, but you can be sure all the names of the dead in Norway’s terror attack will eventually be published. Looks like Libyans and the civilians who are routinely killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by NATO are sub-humans who deserve to die for the good of the world.
Two or Three?
When you ask anyone how many buildings collapsed on that fateful day in New York the answer would be two. But is this true? Not many know that a third building had also collapsed in a heap of rubble on this very day within the same compound. This was the 47 storey Saloman Brothers Building. But it was not struck by a plane. In fact not even a gunshot was fired at it. How then did it collapse and why is not the mainstream media talking about this curious happening at least for curiosity sake if not anything else? Could 9-11 have been a false flag operation like the US Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin and more recently Saddam Hussein’s WMD? Many Americans believe that to be the case.
Good Boy Gone Bad
The news is that Anders Behring Brevik is to submit a plea of insanity. Information coming out is that Brevik was a ‘good boy gone bad’ because of Islam and the Muslims. He wanted, it is reported, to bring attention to his cause of driving out Muslims from Europe and that he was disturbed (poor fellow) by the prospects of Europe being deluged by Muslims and all that he wanted to do was to protect Christianity in Europe. So once again we see that despite the guy being a ‘Christian terrorist’ it is Islam and the Muslims who must be held responsible for the actions of this poor little blonde haired boy.
It is possible the man must have gone crazy with the propaganda against Islam and the Muslims so rife in Europe and the US that it has acquired a word of its own. It’s called ‘Islamophobia’. The hate literature that has flooded Europe and the U.S. is so extreme that it reminds you of the propaganda against European Jews prior to World War II. We know what followed. Is the same thing going to happen to Muslims? Is history going to repeat itself?
Certainly figures like Daniel Pipes, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Geert Wilders and British premier David Cameron among many others, must take part of the blame for Breviks terrorism. It was their inflammatory statements against Islam and or the Muslims that had led to this heinous act of terror. David Cameron shouldn’t have made the remarks he made about multiculturalism failing in Britain, especially when a far right extremist party in his country was on that very day demonstrating against Islam and the Muslims. What is multiculturalism anyway? Are Muslims required to abandon their faith and names to be accepted in British society? Even if they were to do that would they be alright afterwards? History shows us the answer to that is in the negative. Just take a look at what happened to the African slaves who adopted Christianity and even took the names of their masters and you will get what I mean. The book ‘Roots’ by Alex Hailey explains a lot on that subject as do the lives of Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. It’s true the Americans elected the first ever black president but look at the way the far right parties headed by the likes of Sarah Palin and more specifically Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News are treating him and you’ll get my drift. Not that Obama is a saint. Like the U.S’s leading intellectual Noam Chomsky had predicted, Obama has become a slave of the US ‘corporateocracy’
David Cameron should be the last person to speak on multiculturalism. As far as I recall the British when they occupied Sri Lanka, then Ceylon they took all the steps they thought fit to avoid contact with the ‘natives’. Up until recently a famous swimming club in the heart of Colombo was exclusively white. Besides, when Muslims and those of other faiths go to Europe or the States they are only following their money trail. All Western nations have plundered and pillaged ‘third world’ countries to the last penny. Europe as Frantz Fannon said is the product of ‘third world’ countries. Imagine if all former colonies of Europe and the US were to sue their former masters for centuries of colonialism what the figure would be in the waning US dollar terms.
It is time for Western nations to examine their consciences and behave themselves in a manner fitting decent society. For starters let’s tell them to put an end to their hypocrisy, their double standards and their verbal as well as military attacks on Muslims and their faith. If they do that we might be able to stop the next Anders Behring Brevik.