Ackerman decodes Breivik's ideology:
[F]or both the Islamic supremacist and the Islamophobe, what matters most is winning the battle with the apostates. It's not an accident that al-Qaida kills orders of magnitude more Muslims than westerners. Nor is it an accident that Breivik targeted white Norwegians instead of the Muslim immigrants that so stir his ire. For both, the stated grievance is pretextual. "Before we can begin our Crusade," Breivik states, "we must do our duty by decimating Cultural Marxism!"
Breivik has apparently declared himself a passionate pro-Zionist as well as a sworn foe of all sorts of Islamization. More attention should be paid to that last aspect: The true "neo-Nazi" gangs in Europe have violent anti-Semitism in common with their ostensibly deadliest Islamist foes, whereas anti-immigrant populists of the Geert Wilders stripe in Holland seek respectability by standing up for Israel, very often against criticism from the multi-culti left.
As we grieve for the heart-rending losses of the families and people of Norway, it seems this crime was not the work of an international Islamist terror network. That fact surprised many media commentators, who immediately guessed that Islamists must be to blame. Those guesses proved wrong, not because Islamists have ceased to wish harm to the West, but because Islamists have lost almost all their ability to coordinate large-scale attacks upon Western countries.
Mollie Ziegler decries "guilt by footnote association":
Mark Twain, Theodore Dalrymple, Melanie Phillips, John McWhorter, Thomas Jefferson, Mahatma Ghandi and hundreds of other people are quoted in this manifesto. What does that mean? What does it mean that Fjordman has so many of his articles lifted into the piece? Do we just immediately determine that these people are guilty by association? If they are guilty, that guilt needs to be argued and not just asserted.
The vindictive part of me wants to blame Geller and her ilk for what happened in Oslo. But then I remember something Abdul Rauf said: "The Quran explicitly states that no soul shall be responsible for the sins of another. Terrorism, which targets innocents who had no part in a crime, fundamentally violates this Quranic commandment." That principle—that no one should be held responsible for another person's sins—is the moral core of the struggle against terrorism. It's the reason I can't pin the slaughter in Norway on bloggers who never advocated sectarian violence. I just wish those bloggers, and the politicians who echo them, would show Muslims the same courtesy.
After massacres and disasters, governments ask themselves, "What laws can we pass so that this is less likely to happen again?" It's a perilous question. Carnage often leads to irrational policy. But attempts at an answer are inevitable. More often than not, mine is, "It's unwise to rely only on the government." It's an impulse that is often mocked when cautious types are seen buying emergency supplies, or organizing disaster drills, or scoping out unattended bags at the train station, or applying for a concealed weapons permit and gun safety classes. But it beats trying to say safer by launching foreign wars and infringing on civil liberties.
(Photo: Flowers and condolences surround the outside of Oslo Cathedral after Anders Behring Breivik appeared in a closed court on July 25 ,2011 in Oslo, Norway. By Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)