Saturday, July 24, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

Glenn Greenwald: Why Do We Harass Muslims But Not White, Nordic Males?

27 July 2011 General 4 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

By Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald

The response to the Norway attacks shows that the world “terrorism” has no meaning — aside from when it’s used to bash Muslims.

Numerous news outlets and commentators initially blamed the attack on Islamic militants. Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper, The Sun, ran a front-page headline titled “‘Al-Qaeda’ Massacre: Norway’s 9/11.” Here in the U.S., Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal also initially blamed jihadists, reporting that, quote, “Norway is targeted for being true to Western norms.”

But it was not just the Murdoch empire. On the Washington Post website, Jennifer Rubin wrote, quote, “This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists,” unquote. Once it was revealed that the alleged perpetrator was not a Muslim militant, but a right-wing, anti-Muslim Norwegian nationalist, the New York Times still cited experts as saying, quote, “Even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda’s brutality and multiple attacks,” unquote.

To discuss the media coverage of the attacks, we’re joined from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, by Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer and political and legal blogger, who has written extensively about the media coverage of the attacks in Norway for

Glenn, welcome. Your thoughts as you saw this story unfold through the media?

GLENN GREENWALD: My first reaction was to be pretty surprised about how—or not really surprised, but just struck by how intense the media coverage was and the media interest was in this attack. Obviously, it was a heinous attack. When a government building blows up, when someone goes on an indiscriminate shooting rampage aimed at teenagers, it’s horrific. And yet, at the same time, the United States and its allies have brought killing like this, violence like this, to numerous countries around the world that receives a tiny fraction of the attention that this attack received, a tiny—it prompts a tiny fraction of the interest in denouncing it and in declaring it to be evil. And it just struck me that when we think that Muslims are responsible for violence aimed at Western nations, it receives a huge amount of attention in the American media, and yet when the United States brings violence on that level to Muslim countries, kills an equal number of civilians, dozens of people killed by drone attacks and the like, and tons of people killed that way over Afghanistan over the past decade, it barely registers. I mean, an attack like this, this level of death in Iraq, for example, or Afghanistan, would barely register on the media scale.

The other aspect of it, though, is what you referenced in your question, which is, when it was widely assumed, based on basically nothing, that Muslims had been responsible for this attack and that a radical Muslim group likely perpetrated it, it was widely declared to be a “terrorist” attack. That was the word that was continuously used. And yet, when it became apparent that Muslims were not involved and that, in reality, it was a right-wing nationalist with extremely anti-Muslim, strident anti-Muslim bigotry as part of his worldview, the word “terrorism” almost completely disappeared from establishment media discourse. Instead, he began to be referred to as a “madman” or an “extremist.” And it really underscores, for me, the fact that this word “terrorism,” that plays such a central role in our political discourse and our law, really has no objective meaning. It’s come to mean nothing more than Muslims who engage in violence, especially when they’re Muslims whom the West dislikes.

GOODMAN: Or the term “lone wolf.” Glenn, I wanted to play for you a former Bush administration State Department official, Christian Whiton, who acknowledged the case in Norway wasn’t Islamic terrorism, but he quickly downplayed violent acts committed by those such as Breivik, saying it’s the first of its kind since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Whiton then attacked Norway for its approach to terrorism, claimed European countries are susceptible to terrorism because they’re, quote, “neutral in the war on terror.” He was interviewed on Fox.

CHRISTIAN WHITON: This wasn’t Islamic terrorism. It was—it’s one of the first instances since Oklahoma City when terrorism on this scale was not Islamic. But steps you could take to defend your people and your government and your society against Islamic terrorism would also come in handy against lone wolves, as this is turning out to be. It just looks like the Norwegians didn’t happen to take them, nor do they approach terrorism in what, frankly, is a serious manner, I’d say.

GREGG JARRETT: Yet, Islamic terrorism is a problem in the Scandinavian countries. Were they just sort of turning a blind eye to it?

CHRISTIAN WHITON: Yeah. You know, at the end of the Bush administration, George W. Bush went up to the U.N. His final speech there was on the critical threat from Islamic terrorism. And the current prime minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, actually took the occasion to criticize Bush for going up and said, “Gee, you mentioned Islamic terrorism all these times, but you didn’t talk about climate change,” as if there was some sort of equivalence. You know, a problem in a lot of European countries is they think by being neutral in the war on terror, as if any civilized society can be, that they won’t face the threats that we face. But, you know, that’s just not true. We do know al-Qaeda and the Islamic—


CHRISTIAN WHITON: —terrorist movements are targeting Scandinavian countries just like the rest of us.

GOODMAN: That was Christian Whiton, questioned by Fox’s Gregg Jarrett. Glenn Greenwald, your response?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, unsurprisingly, if you combine a Bush terrorism official with Fox News, you’re going to get what you got there, which is too many factually false statements to even count. But I’ll just highlight a couple of them.

One is the idea that Norway is neutral in the war on terror. This was part of the reaction, as well, when people thought that Muslims had been responsible for the attack, which is, why would Norway, such a peaceful, neutral country, possibly be targeted? And the reality is that Norway is part of the war in Afghanistan, and has been for many years. They have a contingent of 500 troops, have been involved in a variety of instances where civilians have been killed. They’re also heavily involved in the war in Libya, having dropped more sorties and—or participated in more sorties, dropped more bombs than even, according to the Norway Post, what they dropped during all of World War II. And so, the idea that they’re neutral is simply a myth. They’re actually engaged in active warfare in at least two different Muslim countries where civilians are being killed and bombs are being dropped.

But more to the point, I think, is this idea that Islamic terrorism is some kind of a unique problem in Europe. There are reports issued each year by the E.U. that count the number of terrorist attacks, both successfully executed and attempted but failed. And each year, for the past five years, the number of attacks perpetrated, in general, exceeds several hundred, 200 or 300, sometimes 400. The number that are perpetrated or attempted by, quote-unquote, “Islamists,” as the report calls it, people driven by Islamic ideology, religion or political grievances, is minute, something like one out of 294 in 2009, zero out of several hundred in 2007. This is the statistic that the E.U. documents every year. There are terrorist attacks in Europe. Sometimes left-wing groups perpetrate them. Sometimes right-wing groups perpetrate them. Sometimes people with domestic grievances, that don’t really fit into the left-right spectrum, attempt them or perpetrate them. But the idea that Islamic terrorism is some sort of unique threat is completely belied by the E.U.’s own statistic. This idea of equating Muslims with terrorism is an incredibly propagandistic and deceitful term. The idea is to suggest that, as several of your guests were saying, that Islam is some sort of existential threat to Western civilization, to Europe and the like, and it’s propagated with this myth that terrorism is an Islamic problem. And that’s why the idea that the establishment media in the United States and in political circles equates terrorism, as a matter of definition, with violence by Muslims is so problematic, because it promotes this lie that terrorism is a function of Islamic ideology.

>>Continue reading: Glenn Greenwald: Why Do We Harass Muslims But Not White, Nordic Males?


  1. I find it really ironic that whenever a Christian in America or Europe does something he or she get the privilege of being called crazy. However, when someone that even has a Muslim sounding name does the tiniest thing he or she automatically treated like a terrorist

  2. Is it a privilege being called crazy? This man blew things up to wake us up to the Islamic threat. How did that help? All it did was show that Non Muslims can be just as dangerous. His thinking is skewed and his actions did not and will not bring about the change he desires. I think he is crazy.

    Look at a terrorist: They commit actions with a goal of affecting policy or punishing nations that do not agree with their tenets. So they blow some buildings up, sink some ships, and shoot some people. As a result they get countries to change laws, freedoms get restricted, the nations spend hundred of millions of dollars on security, they bleed out their prosperity fighting small numbers of “terrorists” who fight them using toyota pickup trucks with mounted guns and roadside bombs that a kid in high school could make if they wanted to study the issue. It is true that not everyone who sets off a bomb is a true terrorist but Islamic terrorists are so effective at their job they are the first thought when an action takes place. They gain the benefit of their actions plus they reap the fear awards that the actions of others generate. Remember Russia fell because they could not compete with the U.S. in the arms race and their economy simply went south. These wars are a serious drag on our own economy. They are not the only problems our economy has but any wound is serious if it bleeds long enough. Terrorists are not crazy.





    TERRORISM is an act of cowardice aimed at innocent unarmed civilians, IT HAS: NO RACE, NO RELIGION, NO CREED, NO NATION, NO INTELLECT..ECT….

  4. Terrorism is a tactic not a religion nor country. When Oklahoma City was bombed, they detained an Arabic man and tried every possible way to make him guilty even though Mc Veigh was already being held. McVeigh’s “bible” was “the turner diaries”. The only real way to find potential terrorists of any stripe is investigation and if possible infilteration. I believe that warfare only creates a new generation of people with a motive to be a terrorist. Mc Veigh killed 168 people, 9/11 was horrible of course, that tactic was used by the Japanese, Germans and was written about in “the turner diaries” There are even “Christian” terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors. Lone nuts like McVeigh and the one in Norway are hard to detect thus hard to deter.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>