Journalism
As I mentioned earlier, I have limited access to cable news here in Asia and am presently reduced to watching CNN as I attend to domestic chores. I am reminded why I long ago dismissed the channel as an actual news source.
CNN's Fareed Zakaria, who has been in overdrive over the past few days demonizing the Tea Party and cheerleading for Obama's policies (I use the word liberally), is presently going one better on those who called the murderer in Norway a Christian by defining him specifically as a follower of the Knights Templar. That was just before he explained that the Knights Templar were the medieval equivalent of Al Qaeda. Of course, Zakaria quickly insulated Islam from criticism by stating that Islamic terror accounts for less than 1% of terrorism in Europe. Home-grown terrorists (i.e., right-wing, conservative nationalists), Zakaria assures us, are the real enemy.
I would have thought it difficult to fit so much ridiculous absurdity within so short a duration. His prejudice against Christianity and the Crusades is egregious, but expected. The 1% assertion regarding Islamic terror seems specious - I suspect the definition of "terror" equates mass murder by Islamic terrorists with harsh letter writing by disaffected separatist groups.
Perhaps Zakaria, of whom I'd never taken heed before, is simply a leftist pundit of little intellectual merit or personal integrity - but I expect he faithfully represents the attitudes and prejudices of CNN as a whole. America is poorly served by these international broadcast ambassadors of the American media.
this is where fareed zakaria got it from:
stephen walt:
Stephen Walt notes … according to the EU’s 2010 Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, the total number of terrorist incidents in Europe declined in 2009. Even more important, the overwhelming majority of these incidents had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. The report is produced by Europol, which is the criminal intelligence agency of the European Union. In 2009, there were fewer than 300 terrorist incidents in Europe, a 33 percent decline from the previous year. The vast majority of these incidents (237 out of 294) were conducted by indigenous European separatist groups, with another forty or so attributed to leftists and/or anarchists. According to the report, a grand total of one (1) attack was conducted by Islamists. Put differently, Islamist groups were responsible for a whopping 0.34 percent of all terrorist incidents in Europe in 2009. In addition, the report notes, “the number of arrests relating to Islamist terrorism (110) decreased by 41 percent compared to 2008, which continues the trend of a steady decrease since 2006.”
separatists in europe not right-wing. nationalism is not right-wing, per se,
hitler was a mationalist and a socialist.
yes:
one of the greatest lies the academie ever promulgated was that hitler was right-wing (ditto mussolin).
both were socialists.
hitler versus stalin was internecine, not extreme left versus right.
a truer more accurate political spectrum has statism on the left and anarchism on the extreme right.
and democratic republics in the middle.
NOTE:
i defy zakaria to name a single non-jihadist terror attack in europe by date.
yet we can easily remember 7/7.
also: the separatist attacks were local events, not international or hegemonic.
QUESTION: would fareed call terror islamo-facsists use to recapture andalusia (or any other part of the caliphate) nationalism? separatism? no different the ETA?
the attacks by islamists are categorically different:
ETA and the IRA see themselves as fighting to reestablish sovereignty.
islamists seek SUBMISSION of infidels via coercion and terror - whether by acid attacks on women, or suicide attacks on mayors and generals and subways and jets.
dies zakaria not remeber what beirut was like BEFORE Arafat and the islamists (now funded by iran) invaded!?!?
does he want that to happen to EUROPE!?
if not, then what does he propose?
will focusing on natioinalist movements in europe save europe from creeping sharia or jihado-terror?
Islamic "attacks" never look impressive compared to, say, Leftest attacks UNTIL you start counting the bodies. It's a fact that Islamic terrorism is much bloodier than other forms of terrorism. What makes this Norwegian attack (or Oklahoma City) so notable is that it was AS BLOODY as a typical Islamic attacks.
I predict more of this from all kinds of terrorists. It increasingly takes high body-count to get noticed by the international news media, and that is ultimately the point of terrorism.
Does anyone pay attention to any commentator on CNN?