Muslims among their other bag of rhetorical tricks and devices, like to put effect before cause and then blame things they do on the things that happened after. Basically its the logic of the school yard bully who claims that ‘the fight started when he hit me back’.
One example would be the building of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, then claiming its proof of Israel being an Islamic territory despite archeological and contemporary evidence of thousands of years of Jewish existence there before Mohamed was even born, and then fighting to return it to a state it never was. Sort of a living, continuous simulacrum.
Now the New York Times adopts the same logic. They blame, albeit indirectly, US conservative bloggers like Robert Spencer and Gates of Vienna for the Norway mass murder by a man who, in his own manifesto, demonstrates that he has been planning and training for this attack for nine years. This would be several years (it doesn’t matter how many. More than 1 second is enough) before any of the sites he uses as his excuse for the attack ever began writing.
What is clear, is that the man wished to kill a lot of people and in a spectacular way. It is clear that he wished great notoriety for doing so. It is clear he wished to have a grandiose reason for his horror which he made up as he went along, well after he decided to do this attack.
What a pity the times is complicit in this reasoning. But as this analysis points out, it is not inconsistent with its overall reporting of matters Islamic or concerning what it views as the ‘right wing’
Eeyore for Vlad