Tragic Day for Norway; Shameful Day for Journalism

The man arrested in Norway has thus far been described as Christian, Christian fundamentalist, right-wing, conservative, nationalist, and loner. Are any of these descriptors accurate? We simply don't know. But not once has he been described as a neo-Nazi.

So while I agree with your criticism of the press, I would also advise you to not jump to conclusions either. The facts about this man will be known in due time.

As for me, while I am disturbed that any self-described Christian would murder almost 100 innocent people, I will keep my own counsel until more is revealed about his motives. Christian terrorism, terrorism in the name of Christianity, is extremely rare. Truly shocking if this is the case in Norway.

Thank you for this piece. Nothing should be added or taken away from it. Tanx again

Being a Norwegian I've had the... fortune to be able to stay updated about this tragedy. Before the identity of the arrested man was released, people over the whole line begged people not to jump to conclusions.

And now that we know the identity of the man arrested, a confirmed right-wing, conservative christian, possibly with neo-nazi connections or at least sympathies, people still have this message: A given creed, religion, philosophy or anything else is of no matter. There is no excuse for actions such as theese,

Seeing people speculate and automatically blame Islam for the atrocities makes me sad and angry.

While German media last night depicted the tragedy as well as supposedly 'islamist extremism' I found myself waking up today and thinking, 'thank god, it's not', being ashamed at the same time having these thoughts while nearly 100 mostly young people died. How ever you signify this form of violence - and by the way to sgi, self-described Christian, just have a look at the etymological backgrounds of fundamenalism, the five fundamentals (Martin Riesebrodt has written extensively about it) etc. and see how rare it is - the cited historical backgrounds of Nazism and it's own religious shapings should be well known but are most often hidden behind an ongoing Eurocentric supremacy.

Gordon Bennet. What kind of febrile children get jobs as journailsts these days?

Anyone who's had the most cursory eye on Norwegian politics over the last 20 yrs could tell you that the far right was a more promising place to look for the kind of swivel-eyed lackwit who'd do something like this.

Speculation is always schonky journalism, but if they must do it, could they really find no-one capable of informed speculation?

Where have you found the information that he is Neo-Nazi? I have not read that in any Scandinavian paper so far. Only that he is Right Wing and a Freemason (Frimurare).

Do you have the source/link to where you read it?

Thanks for the article. I had no idea that the American papers said "muslim", I think everyone in Scandinavia was thinking it, but the media did not report anything until they had his name and photo.

No they will not take a look at their own homegrown fascism, they will blame this on a bad apple, a lone-deranged individual or two maybe three... they will find out how this disturbed individual's home was broken and that he played violent video games, perhaps he watched too much violence on T.V.. If it had been Muslims, it would never have been the work of a few deranged individuals, it would have been the largest international conspiracy a few more Jihadi organizations and there would be US/UN/NATO alliances on invading another country like Afghanistan, (whichever country currently on the top of the invasion agenda, go ahead take a pick.. randomly) Perhaps Pakistan or Iran or any Arab countries waging democratic struggles.. This is the other side of the so-called war on Terror. And all i can say is PHEW!!!!!!!!

Valuable piece. I was shocked to hear several correspondents, not just one, on the BBC World Service yesterday talking blithely about "Islamic terrorists."

the majority of terrorism today is at the hands of islamists, so why are we shocked and offended when the obvious inference is to suppose that this terror act was also the product of muslim extremists? Sure, they got it wrong, and the guy obviously isn't, but you make it sound like its ridiculous to suspect muslim terrorism. Admit it, when you all heard what happened, what did you first suspect?

Perhaps this piece too has come too early. As it now appears that his goals are alligned with Al Qaeda i.e. the destruction of democratic liberalism and the regression to medieval parochialism.

I received the news of the terrorist attack in Norway from the 1st NYT news alert on this subject, Friday evening. The only mention of Islam was a report of the Grand Imam of Oslo stating that it had no connection with any of his followers. There were 2 reports during the night, the second one stating that a Norwegian man of 32 was held by the police. He was a conservative right wing fundamentalist Christian. The NYT never suggesed that this was a Muslim terrorist attack. There is ample evidence of the terrorist's coherence and rationality...my Norwegian sister-in-law tells me that he planned this for 9 years, and they have comprehensive notebooks relating his preparation.

This is guy is Neo-Nazi and its proved, today these right or left wing people are on rise in EU and USA. These are basically haters, who take Christianity as a cover , so its easy target for Islamic. These Neo-Nazis are well known hate groups in Europe and their actions are known by all police personnel and much can also be found on internet, how they describe their intentions in future. If intelligence departments are tracking facebook then they shall get lots of information about them., some of the well known of them are Peter Schulz and Princess Erika.

I completely agree that those journalists who jumped this story calling it "jihadism" or "Muslim terrorism" are disgusting and the fact that this occurs in modern journalism in supposedly enlightened, democratic countries is appalling. Yet, I would like to point out that this article too comes dangerously close to falling into that same behavior. Breivik is not a "neo-nazi." He is a reactionary Christian who wants to start a new crusade. His youtube videos are quite explanatory in this regard. He actually hates Nazis and considers himself a champion against all hate groups, oblivious to the fact that he is one.

"Christian" terrorism is a rarity? Never heard of The Crusades, The Thirty Year War, Hilter, Mussolini, Franco, or every war criminal who's lived in the White House?

Always fascinating when the "crusades" are offered as evidence of "Christian terrorism" in the world today. If one must go back that far back to find an example, it would seem to support the opposite argument.