Today, Drudge carried a story on Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian anti-Muslim political activist who mowed down women and children in attacks, that according to Breivik, were “necessary for his campaign to defend Europe against a Muslim invasion.”
Had a Muslim done something similar and justified it by saying that the attacks “were atrocious but necessary for his campaign to defend Afhanistan/Iraq/Iran/Palestine against a Western invasion,” you can be sure that the word “terrorist” would be used extensively, and that such an attack would be used to justify any number of aggressive acts against other Muslims.
Breivik, however, since he’s a pro-Israel, anti-Muslim killer, is not a terrorist, but is a “mass murderer.” The BBC article that Drudge links to, doesn’t use the word “terrorist” at all.
I’m actually of the position that “mass murderer” is the more accurate term for anyone who blows up civilian airliners or mows down children with machine guns, or blows up office buildings. The word “terrorist” however, being more political and more likely to be helpful in justifying wars, is apparently employed selectively for political reasons.
12:51 pm on November 29, 2011
