-
Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day
May 26, 2012 | 7 comments
-
WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm
May 25, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Warren Pulls Even with Brown in New Poll
May 24, 2012 | 22 comments
-
Quigley's Quixotic Defense of Liz Warren
May 23, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Robin Gibb, R.I.P.
May 20, 2012 | 15 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Over at The Daily Beast, Andrew Sullivan nominates yours truly for a Malkin Award for making the case that it was not unreasonable to suspect an act of Muslim terrorism in the attacks in Norway last Friday. Sullivan objects to the fact that I wrote the post following the arrest of Anders Behring Breivik.
According to Sullivan's Wikipedia page, the Malkin Award (named, of course, after Michelle Malkin) is awarded "for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric." Well, one would be hard pressed to name anyone in possession of a greater first-hand knowledge of shrillness, hyperbole, divisiveness and intemperance than Sullivan. I suppose I should be flattered. Perhaps I will send him some flowers should he bestow me with the award. I wonder if he likes tulips.
Yet it is a shame that Sullivan didn't make an effort to read what I actually wrote. Because if he did then he would clearly understand my reasoning for thinking the attacks in Norway were likely an act of Muslim terrorism. For Sullivan's edification, allow me to sum up my argument. Given that Norway had thwarted an al Qaeda plot exactly a year ago, given that the attacks happened almost simultaneously (an al Qaeda calling card), given that a Muslim cleric living in Norway was indicted scarcely a week ago for threatening to assassinate Norwegian politicians and given that a Muslim organization had claimed responsibility for the attack, a reasonable person might suspect that the attacks were an act of Muslim terrorism. Then again given Sullivan's loopiness concerning the maternity of Trig Palin, it pretty much disqualifies him as a reasonable person. Indeed, Sullivan insists that Breivik is a "Christianist", whatever that means.
Sullivan then links to a piece by Matt Yglesias which cites data which state that terror attacks by non-Muslim groups are more frequent than those committed by Muslim entities. My reply to Sullivan is the same that I gave a couple of days ago to Sheila Musaji, editor of The American Muslim. If there's another terrorist attack in Norway would he prefer that I set my sights on ETA or the Tamil Tigers?
Now, of course, I don't deny there are non-Muslim terrorist entities but ETA confines their violent acts in Spain and France while the Tamil Tigers seldom carried out attacks outside Sri Lanka (with the notable exception of the 1991 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi who sent Indian troops into that war torn country in 1987.) The point here is that Muslim terrorism is uniquely global in its scope. Muslim terrorists would just as soon attack Norway as they would Nigeria. If Sullivan wants to ignore the 17,500 plus terrorist attacks committed by Muslim terrorist entities against Muslims and non-Muslims alike since September 11, 2001 then that is his problem, not mine.
I don't deny the horror of what Breivik has wrought. Seventy-six people died at his hands. And yes, it must be determined whether Breivik acted alone or in concert with others. But at this point it is extraordinarly irresponsible, premature and quite frankly stupid for Sullivan or anyone else to conclude that Breivik is part of a global terrorist organization with ambitions to violently impose Christianity on an unwilling populace.
View all comments (22) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/07/26/sullivan-nominates-me-for-a-ma
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Why I Voted "No" on Ryan
- A Case of Intracoastal Blues
- Medicaid Freedom of Choice
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 7.26.11 @ 6:14PM
Do Not Give Any ,Ground To Sullivan. Ron Paul Wouldn't Care What Sullivan Thinks ,And Neither Should You. Ron Paul. Stand Strong. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Tea Party. Ron Paul.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.26.11 @ 6:15PM
Congratulations!
Clint| 7.26.11 @ 6:36PM
That Wasn't My Post.
The Poseur Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Can't Face Me Man Up.
Trinacria| 7.26.11 @ 7:00PM
Don't you just love it when bystanders inject themselves into the stories?
Ran| 7.26.11 @ 7:13PM
Who is Sullivan, and why does he/she/it deserve any attention from us?
I Survived Arlen Specter| 7.26.11 @ 7:14PM
Aaron, I don't always agree with you, but you made a huge mistake in writing this column & giving Sullivan the time of day. The opinions of Andrew Sullivan are about as interesting & useful as a fart from the arse of Satan. Ignore his beyond ignorant ideas & opinions.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.26.11 @ 7:20PM
Well I guess I better do something other than offer congrats. Aaron, I virtually always agree with you but much of what you write of I know naught. The sports and the entertainment venues are not my forte, but I will say this; what your write you have researched and researched well; what you write is communicative, you are a “wordsmith.” You “side” with those your write of; you do not fall into the insular narrative of “observation.” You never seem to “find fault” you always find points on which to disagree and support your arguments outside of passion or emotion.
Keep up the good work I always seek your articles.
Wayne | 7.26.11 @ 7:34PM
More important than the believes of a killer is the obligation of a government. The Norwegian government was greatly exposed in this as a bunch of blunderheads. Those kids in particular were sitting ducks. The only security guard had no weapon and the SWAT team came only have an hour, a couple dozen more deaths, since they first needed to keep permission to carry guns.
It is a nation that models itself after Barney Fife it seems.
Paul McGrath| 7.26.11 @ 8:57PM
Any club that has Goldstein and Malkin in it is okay with me.
Liberal Reader| 7.26.11 @ 10:53PM
Your argument seems reasonable enough to me, and your reminder that Sullivan has himself been shrill and intemperate is surely accurate. On a side note, I believe "Christianist" is not such a bad label for this man in Norway -- not because it makes any sense, as you suggest, but because it reminds us that for the most part "Islamist" is equally senseless. The 9.11 hijackers, we know, were not terribly devout, and I've read other reports of suicide bombers who act out of a sense of resentment, rage, and humiliation connected to secular, not religious, issues.
Nick| 7.27.11 @ 12:43AM
Marxist Reader,
Where have you been, jail?
"The 9.11 hijackers, we know, were not terribly devout [...]."
Excuse me?
The 19 Moslem murderers were Wahhabis, the most extreme form of Islam that exists.
I see that your penchant for ignoring the facts has not changed, huh?
Dacron Mather| 7.27.11 @ 2:30AM
I suspect Aaron's jealous that Michelle looks better in Michael Fumento's body srmor
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/.....to_re.html
Aaron Goldstein| 7.27.11 @ 8:04AM
Perhaps so. But I can take the flak just the same.
Dai Alanye| 7.27.11 @ 2:37AM
Anyone with a lick of sense should recognize the Norwegian assault for what it was--the exception that proves the rule.
For years apologists for Islam have run around looking for Mennonites and Seventh Day Adventists to perform acts of terrorism, and should now be ecstatic that a Nordic nutcase has come through for them. Finally they can fill in the blank in this sentence: "Not only McVeigh but Mr ____ prove that anyone can be a terrorist."
And yet, when looking for a perpetrator it's still safest to bet on the guy named Mohammed rather than the one named Eric or Tevye.
JimH| 7.27.11 @ 9:46AM
I guess sometimes even if it quacks it is not a duck.
irmaladuce| 7.27.11 @ 10:02AM
You wouldn't have attracted anyone's attention were it not for this:
"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslim."
Make a statement of staggering bigotry and ignorance and people are going to note that you are an ignorant bigot. Being an ignorant bigot only improves your standing among the AmSpec crowd. I guess that's why you keep revisiting this issue.
tonypal| 7.27.11 @ 10:58AM
So if most terrorists aren't Muslims, who exactly is it causing chaos and mayhem around the world? Also, just for the hell of it, please identify a Muslim nation that is dedicated to peaceful relations with its neighbors and is not an avowed enemy of Israel.
Skippy| 7.27.11 @ 1:18PM
...crickets...
irmaladuce| 7.27.11 @ 4:39PM
Excuse me, but I am actually gainfully employed and contribute more to society than internet snark and racial paranoia.
Goldstein actually links to plenty of sources that do a good job of refuting his vile assertion. Starting with the Sully link in this very post. Perhaps independent analysis will do for you what common sense and human decency could not.
irmaladuce| 7.27.11 @ 4:49PM
So not only is the AmSpec commentariat redifining terrorism, they are also redefining war and peace altogether. Ok.
Nick| 7.27.11 @ 11:34PM
Irma,
Perhaps you should change your name to Il Duce!
Crush Liberalism| 9.13.11 @ 6:23PM
Aaron, as of yesterday, I too am a proud nominee for the Malkin Award. Please don't hate me when I give my acceptance speech! :-D