The news coverage of the Norway mass-killings was fact-free conjecture

Let's be absolutely clear, it wasn't experts speculating, it was guessers guessing – and they were terrible.

I went to bed in a terrible world and awoke inside a worse one. At the time of writing, details of the Norwegian atrocity are still emerging, although the identity of the perpetrator has now been confirmed and his motivation seems increasingly clear: a far-right anti-Muslim extremist who despised the ruling party.

Presumably he wanted to make a name for himself, which is why I won't identify him. His name deserves to be forgotten. Discarded. Deleted. Labels like "madman", "monster", or "maniac" won't do, either. There's a perverse glorification in terms like that. If the media's going to call him anything, it should call him pathetic; a nothing.

On Friday night's news, they were calling him something else. He was a suspected terror cell with probable links to al-Qaida. Countless security experts queued up to tell me so. This has all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida attack, they said. Watching at home, my gut feeling was that that didn't add up. Why Norway? And why was it aimed so specifically at one political party? But hey, they're the experts. They're sitting there behind a caption with the word "EXPERT" on it. Every few minutes the anchor would ask, "What kind of picture is emerging?" or "What sense are you getting of who might be responsible?" and every few minutes they explained this was "almost certainly" the work of a highly-organised Islamist cell.

In the aftermath of the initial bombing, they proceeded to wrestle with the one key question: why do Muslims hate Norway? Luckily, the experts were on hand to expertly share their expert solutions to plug this apparent plot hole in the ongoing news narrative.

Why do Muslims hate Norway? There had to be a reason.

Norway was targeted because of its role in Afghanistan. Norway was targeted because Norwegian authorities had recently charged an extremist Muslim cleric. Norway was targeted because one of its newspapers had reprinted the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Norway was targeted because, compared to the US and UK, it is a "soft target" – in other words, they targeted it because no one expected them to.

When it became apparent that a shooting was under way on Utoya island, the security experts upgraded their appraisal. This was no longer a Bali-style al-Qaida bombing, but a Mumbai-style al-Qaida massacre. On and on went the conjecture, on television, and in online newspapers, including this one. Meanwhile, on Twitter, word was quickly spreading that, according to eyewitnesses, the shooter on the island was a blond man who spoke Norwegian. At this point I decided my initial gut reservations about al-Qaida had probably been well founded. But who was I to contradict the security experts? A blond Norwegian gunman doesn't fit the traditional profile, they said, so maybe we'll need to reassess . . . but let's not forget that al-Qaida have been making efforts to actively recruit "native" extremists: white folk who don't arouse suspicion. So it's probably still the Muslims.

Soon, the front page of Saturday's Sun was rolling off the presses. "Al-Qaeda" Massacre: NORWAY'S 9/11 – the weasel quotes around the phrase "Al Qaeda" deemed sufficient to protect the paper from charges of jumping to conclusions.

By the time I went to bed, it had become clear to anyone within glancing distance of the internet that this had more in common with the 1995 Oklahoma bombing or the 1999 London nail-bombing campaign than the more recent horrors of al-Qaida.

While I slept, the bodycount continued to rise, reaching catastrophic proportions by the morning. The next morning I switched on the news and the al-Qaida talk had been largely dispensed with, and the pundits were now experts on far-right extremism, as though they'd been on a course and qualified for a diploma overnight.

Some remained scarily defiant in the face of the new unfolding reality. On Saturday morning I saw a Fox News anchor tell former US diplomat John Bolton that Norwegian police were saying this appeared to be an Oklahoma-style attack, then ask him how that squared with his earlier assessment that al-Qaida were involved. He was sceptical. It was still too early to leap to conclusions, he said. We should wait for all the facts before rushing to judgment. In other words: assume it's the Muslims until it starts to look like it isn't – at which point, continue to assume it's them anyway.

If anyone reading this runs a news channel, please, don't clog the airwaves with fact-free conjecture unless you're going to replace the word "expert" with "guesser" and the word "speculate" with "guess", so it'll be absolutely clear that when the anchor asks the expert to speculate, they're actually just asking a guesser to guess. Also, choose better guessers. Your guessers were terrible, like toddlers hypothesising how a helicopter works. I don't know anything about international terrorism, but even I outguessed them.

As more information regarding the identity of the terrorist responsible for the massacre comes to light, articles attempting to explain his motives are starting to appear online. And beneath them are comments from readers, largely expressing outrage and horror. But there are a disturbing number that start, "What this lunatic did was awful, but . . ."

These "but" commenters then go on to discuss immigration, often with reference to a shaky Muslim-baiting story they've half-remembered from the press. So despite this being a story about an anti-Muslim extremist killing Norwegians who weren't Muslim, they've managed to find a way to keep the finger of blame pointing at the Muslims, thereby following a narrative lead they've been fed for years, from the overall depiction of terrorism as an almost exclusively Islamic pursuit, outlined by "security experts" quick to see al-Qaida tentacles everywhere, to the fabricated tabloid fairytales about "Muslim-only loos" or local councils "banning Christmas".

We're in a frightening place. Guesswork won't lead us to safety.

[Source: Charlie Brooker: gaurdian.co,uk]

What about NOTW's inciting of Muslim Hatred

Despite the demise of NOTW Muslims and Islam are

unlikely to get a fair hearing in the British press.

Muslims have a special interest in the shocking though perhaps unsurprising revelations surrounding the News of the World (NOTW). Since 9/11 NOTW perhaps more than any other media outlet exploited every opportunity (real or fabricated) to attack Islam and the Shariah; frequently claiming that Muslims in Britain behaved as if they were above the law. The weekly torrent of anti-Muslim stories, defended on the grounds of freedom of speech and openness, manufactured an atmosphere of hate against Muslims and Islam given the wide circulations and consequent influencing power of the tabloids – no doubt fanning the flames of Islamophobia leading to attacks on Muslims, mosques and madrasas across the country. Muslims quickly became public enemy – perhaps in the same way that NOTW journalists are being seen today – how ironic!

Disclosures of NOTW’s illegal, corrupt and immoral practices of hacking a murdered school girl’s phone; compromising criminal investigations; bribing police officers; and blackmailing politicians exposes the hypocritical and truly corrupt position of its editorial staff. One wonders how many of those anti-Muslim stories had any semblance of reality and more importantly what role the police and politicians – given their ties with NOTW – played in feeding the anti-Muslim agenda to the media. It’s unlikely this will form one of the points of investigation for the Public Inquiry though.

After the furore of the MPs expense abuses it could not get worse for the so called mother of democracy – the British Parliament. Yet with successive British prime ministers surreptitiously currying favour with Murdoch and his editorial staff, and senior police officers taking cash for inside information – we’ve had a glimpse of the deep seated corruption usually associated with the political elites in the third world, especially in the Muslim countries. Perhaps it should not be surprising since the political class in the third world gets its patronage from these very same morally bankrupt characters in the west.

With politicians now smelling the scent of a wounded animal, Murdoch is being portrayed as the all-embracing dark cloud that put a spell that corrupted politics wielding undue influence over the British political establishment. However, these same politicians courted Murdoch’s influence as much as Murdoch utilised their power to expand his empire. British politicians of all colours cultivated ties with military precision over decades with the Murdoch media empire knowing full well the power of the tabloid press in influencing public opinion – for or against their policies.

After the name calling we are at the stage in the storm – like in previous crises (Iraq War; MPs Expenses) – when a public inquiry is proposed to “get to the bottom of the issues”. A few heads will be sacrificed; leading actors will issue solemn public apologies; new codes of practice will be issued to provide greater disclosure of political and media links in order to placate the public while also opening new loop holes for more wrongdoings given the insidious, deep and entrenched links between politics, media and big business.

With the Muslim world increasingly adopting media rules (or the lack of) from the west, the political systems in Muslim countries – already corruption ridden – will become even more unrepresentative and open to corporate and foreign manipulation hidden behind the façade of an open and free media.

New Australian law to make Muslims lift veils

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) -- Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence under proposed new laws in Australia's most populous state that have drawn criticism as culturally insensitive.

A vigorous debate that the proposal has triggered reflects the cultural clashes being ignited by the growing influx of Muslim immigrants and the unease that visible symbols of Islam are causing in predominantly white Christian Australia since 1973 when the government relaxed its immigration policy.

Under the law proposed by the government of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, a woman who defies police by refusing to remove her face veil could be sentenced to a year in prison and fined 5,500 Australian dollars ($5,900).

The bill - to be voted on by the state parliament in August - has been condemned by civil libertarians and many Muslims as an overreaction to a traffic offense case involving a Muslim woman driver in a "niqab," or a veil that reveals only the eyes.

The government says the law would require motorists and criminal suspects to remove any head coverings so that police can identify them.

Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas. In a population of 23 million, only about 400,000 Australians are Muslim. Community advocates estimate that fewer than 2,000 women wear face veils, and it is likely that even a smaller percentage drives.

"It does seem to be very heavy handed, and there doesn't seem to be a need," said Australian Council for Civil Liberties spokesman David Bernie. "It shows some cultural insensitivity."

The controversy over the veils is similar to the debate in other Western countries over whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear garments that hide their faces in public. France and Belgium have banned face-covering veils in public. Typical arguments are that there is a need to prevent women from being forced into wearing veils by their families or that public security requires people to be identifiable.

Bernie noted that while a bandit disguised with a veil and sunglasses robbed a Sydney convenience store last year, there were no Australian crime trends involving Muslim women's clothing.

"It is a religious issue here," said Mouna Unnjinal, a mother of five who has been driving in Sydney in a niqab for 18 years and has never been booked for a traffic offense.

"We're going to feel very intimidated and our privacy is being invaded," she added.

Unnjinal said she would not hesitate to show her face to a policewoman. But she fears male police officers might misuse the law to deliberately intimidate Muslim women.

"If I'm pulled over by a policeman, I might say I want to see a female police lady and he says, 'No, I want to see your face,'" Unnjinal said. "Where does that leave me? Do I get penalized 5,000 dollars and sent to jail for 12 months because I wouldn't?"

Sydney's best-selling The Daily Telegraph newspaper declared the proposal "the world's toughest burqa laws." In France, wearing a burqa - the all-covering garment that hides the entire body except eyes and hands - in public is punishable by a 150 euro ($217) fine only.

The New South Wales state Cabinet decided to create the law on July 4 in response to Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione's call for greater police powers. Other states including Victoria and Western Australia are considering similar legislation.

"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else - the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," State Premier Barry O'Farrell said in a statement.

The laws were motivated by the bungled prosecution of Carnita Matthews, a 47-year-old Muslim mother of seven who was booked by a highway patrolman for a minor traffic violation in Sydney in June last year.

An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.

Unknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.

Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.

But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.

Bernie, the civil libertarian, said the proposed law panders to public anger against Muslims that the case generated on talk radio and in tabloid newspapers, which itself is a symptom of the suspicion with which immigrants are viewed.

Muslims are among the fastest-growing minorities in Australia and mostly live in the two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. There are many examples to suggest they are not entirely welcome.

Muslim and non-Muslim youths rioted for days at Sydney's Cronulla beach in 2005, drawing international attention to surging ethnic tensions. Proposals to build Islamic schools are resisted by local protest groups. The convictions of a Sydney gang of Lebanese Muslims who raped several non-Muslim women were likened by a judge to war atrocities and condemned in the media.

In 2006, then-Prime Minister John Howard published a book in which he said Muslims were Australia's first wave of immigrants to fail to assimilate with the mainstream.

Government leaders have also condemned some Muslim clerics who said husbands are entitled to smack disobedient wives, force them to have sex and for suggesting that women who don't hide their faces behind veils invite rape.

"I wouldn't like to go and say this is Muslim bashing," said Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, of the proposed New South Wales laws.

"But I think that the timing of this was really bad for Muslims," he said.

Source: [AP Rod McGuirk]

Perpetual war on Islam

"Islam is the only civilisation which has put the survival of the west in doubt"....

[Samuel P. Huntington, Clash of Civilisation and the Remaking of the World Order]

Current conventional wisdom in Washington asserts that the US must first pre-arrange the world, if not chaos will surely reign, and it alone possesses the power to prescribe and impose such a global order. It maintains that no other nation has the vision, will and perception that are required to lead. This vision includes the right to articulate the principles that define the international order. These doctrines are American values yet they must be accepted universally. In the view of the majority – if not all – of America's political elites, the entire world needs the United State's leadership, these are the core beliefs held by them. Furthermore, singular responsibilities need singular prerogatives; rather than wait for events to occur United States elites favour an activist posture.

However, when it comes to projecting power, the United State exempts itself from norms which it expects others to conform to. For instance, its double standards with regards to Islam, an unshakable support towards Israel against the Palestinians, the bias used for nuclear North Korea as opposed to non nuclear Iran, and it's refusal to sign the NPT treaty since its inauguration on 5th March, 1970.

U.S. pre-eminence will not endure with time. The clear fact is that the flag-bearer of the ideology i.e. the capitalist economic system, is on life support. When the financial markets crashed, sparking a worldwide recession not a single western economic guru could isolate the real problem or its causes, let alone articulate a working solution. When an idea produces a problem that it cannot solve then it is said to be dead. The current war on Islam serves as successor to World Wars I, II and III (the latter better known as the Cold War). A headline in the New York Times of 21 Jan 1996 reading 'The Red menace is gone, but here's Islam' aptly framed it. However, unlike its historical precursors, the United State is in a far weaker position to conduct this new World War IV – famously termed by George Bush Jr as the 'War on Terror'.

Despite the clear signs that this ideological war is being lost to Islam, the US is cajoling everyone to join their endless war. This approach is a telling sign of the decline of Western influence – and American leadership by extension – simply because leadership entails a sense of direction that mobilizes others, while power for the sake of domination only serves to bend unwilling allies to one's will by force. Today the US has deployed every precision military tool in its arsenal, required to take on an equivalent adversary, yet we may forget that it is just fighting a single small Islamic cabal, not even an equal opponent "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence, Westerners often forget this fact, but non-Westerners never do" (Samuel P. Huntington).

Moreover, after 9/11 the U.S. responded in a fashion that aggravated an already bad situation, the outcome of which will be very difficult for the West to define. In view of the fact that today, the US is now the antagonist in the Muslim world. Primarily, America's response to its fear on the war on Islam, in turn, made Americans less safe and has inspired more threats and attacks. Nevertheless the consequences will surely end up with what it fears most, a single Islamic entity. "The Military is now Americas only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions not values, will get America out of this war." Anonymous, Imperial Hubris.

President Obama inherited the various foreign policy situations of the former administration, and has no choice but to try and manage the bequeathed mess. In the end, this will be the defining factor of his Presidency and the key measure for the establishment. As Dmitry Shlapentokh of the Asian Times website notes: "The problem was not President Barack Obama's geopolitical naivety, shyness or even betrayal, as critics assert, but the non-workability of the Neo-cons geopolitical designs, constructed in the same way as the U.S. economy, that is, based on quick financial speculation or printing of dollars".

The belief that building Democracy through the barrel of the gun will work in the Muslim world, making it relinquish the return to Islam has now turned into a quagmire. Despite the fact that Obama's Cairo speech was meant to re-brand the USA, reassuring Muslims that America is not on a collision course with Islam, this was exposed by the Wikileaks fiasco, removing every ambiguity that this is evidently the case. In response, the Muslim Ummah must exert itself to exercise its right to self-determination and free itself from the hegemony of the west. Consequently the present Middle East Revolution must demand for al-Dawla al-Islamiyah (the Islamic State).

In addition AfPak is a neologism used within US foreign policy circles to designate Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single theatre of operations. The thinking behind the Afghan conflict is linked to Pakistan's nuclear delivery system to the entire region and beyond and the possible convergence of these two issues makes the thought of leaving the region in its current state unimaginable for the Americans. Yet, US public opinion is now polarised and no longer by-partisan on the issue. A recent CNN poll indicates this; "The polling data also revealed that 52% of Americans believe that the war has turned into another Vietnam", due to the record death tolls of US troops [CNN website].

If the US president disengages from the AfPak conflict and the situation deteriorates, he will surely be labelled forever as the defeatist president, making it paramount to stay till the end. Hence, the need for the surge and the daily Predator and Reaper drone attacks on innocent Muslim women and children.

In addition, the US needs the help of Pakistan in Afghanistan; it knows how to importune Pakistan's elites to carry out its brutal work. Most of the solutions put forward are designed to draw those elements of the AfPak conflict that do not have the quest for global Jihad, like moderate Taliban, into some sort of arrangement in order to facilitate a US exit strategy. However, the drawback to this strategy is that Afghanistan is allied to Pakistan's mortal enemy, India. Consequently, the repeated attempts by Washington to convince Islamabad that India will not pose a threat to Pakistan if they support the destruction of the Taliban is seen as the key to a US victory in Afghanistan. This is a war America can never win.

Turning to the question of why the Muslim world holds such a strong dislike for the US, let us consider some facts and figures. America has close to 800 military bases around the world, the majority deeply embedded in the Muslim lands, whilst still building new and ever bigger ones. It has occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, compelled a huge Muslim army to carry out its bidding in Pakistan, deployed Special Forces to numerous Muslim countries (Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen), imprisoned thousands without recourse, and waged a massive war of ideas involving Islamic clerics to twist the concepts of Islam and erected institutions to invade Muslim countries with western norms. Likewise, it is true that the millions of teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, diplomats etc, from the west living in the Muslim world are used as spies, debriefed by various security agencies when they return home. Thus far, Americans still seem strangely mystified as to why some Muslims might be angry about this situation.

The conviction that Muslims have of Allah (SWT) and His Prophet (SAW) is far more passionate and enduring than the faith displayed by America's Israeli supporting neo-cons and Zionist Christian movements that have played a major role in steering US policy in the direction they wanted, as well as including economic interest. Nonetheless, the westerners also love their faith, God and brethren similar to the "Islamist", a western coined term. The difference is that the evangelists have yet to take up a struggle in His defence, because all have accepted the American and European legal divide between church and state. No contemporary western religious leader has advocated the creation of a state based on the Christian faith, whereas Muslims call for the implementation of the Quran and Sunnah, guides for all aspects of life; personal, familial, societal, economic, political and international. Allah سبحانه وتعالى in the Quran says:

إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ

"The rule is to none but Allah" [al-Anaam, 6:57]

This idea is the nucleus that is at the centre of America's waging of unending war on Islam. "Forget exit strategies, we're looking at a sustained engagement that carries no deadlines" declared Donald Rumsfeld [New York Times Sept 27 2001].

The US is also adept at manufacturing consent for attacks on its adversaries, the latest target being Iran. With the backing of top US lawmakers the Israeli government has not ruled out launching a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, "The clock is ticking and in fact, it has almost run out" said Democratic Representative, Howard Berman speaking to Jewish leaders in comments intended to allay concerns that President Obama's administration is not doing enough to tame Tehran's nuclear ambitions. AFP

On the other hand, the preferred option is the strategy of containment. The term was first introduced by the renowned George F. Kennan, a diplomat and U.S. State department adviser on Soviet affairs. He suggested a "long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies". This political concept was meant to achieve three goals; the restoration of the balance of power in Europe, the curtailment of Soviet power projection, and the modification of the Soviet conception of international relations. Iran is neither an ideological state nor a super power, therefore if the Soviet Union could be contained and finally destroyed without a single shot being fired, so can the grand nuclear designs of the mullahs in Iran. In short, Tehran is not Moscow. By using inhuman sanctions and, to an extent, restrictions on basic necessities like food, Iran may be persuaded to change course.

The calling for the return to Islam entails the highest form of thinking, i.e. Political thought. It is the amalgamation of legislative (Quran & Sunnah), Rational, and Scientific thoughts on world events to deduce a (practical) political solution. To safeguard Islam and Muslims from their enemies it requires keeping a constant watchful eye on every political episode around the globe.

In future, for the soon-to-return Islamic State to prevail it will also require closing the gap between military means and strategic ends. The Islamic State must bridge the gap between what the Islamic army is asked to do and what they are capable of doing and must always rely on its ideological valour. The United State's army for all its advanced technological sophistication has yet to accomplish any of its assigned missions since the fallout of 9/11. Indeed it has failed to meet any of its objectives like taking the battle to the enemy, disrupting his plans, and confronting the worst threats before they emerge. Henceforth, the western world must now prepare for how to live side by side with the inevitably emerging Islamic state.

Also, a nuclear energy policy must be formulated now not later. It must exclusively be guided by the Islamic viewpoint. This will help the Islamic State project military power beyond its borders, while providing security independence from potential threat.

The sense of Ummah, this collective revulsion it has about its situation must be concentrated on establishing Political Islam. The State was the only thing that brought guaranteed protection against threats, insecurity and enemy hostilities for the Prophet during his time, it will surely bring the same for his Ummah today. Unity under one State is the solution i.e. Islam must combine its ideological strength and military power to end this unjust war waged on its lands and upon its people.

"It doesn't matter how powerful you are militarily, you cannot destroy ideas with bullets and bombs, especially ideas rooted in the need for self-determination, justice and political rights." Alan Harts, former Vietnam correspondent for ITN.