The recent attack by a Muslim immigrant to Belgium where he deliberately targeted children and Christmas shoppers with illegal weapons in Belgium has been nicely swept clean of all potential for accusations of Islamic influence etc.
His face book page has nothing left on it except 19 ‘friends’, most of whom are female and no reference to Islam whatsoever, or for that matter, to anything at all.
This German site claims his FB page was entirely filled with Jihadist material and Islamic ‘extremist’ lectures and images. Yet it would appear that the powers-that-be in Belgium managed to scrub it clean before the act of terror was even done.
I wonder who does more damage to the people of a democratic society. A jihadi who shoots up people at a mall during Christmas shopping season or a government that works overtime to make sure it’s own citizens are lied to about the facts in order to maintain a narrative. A narrative that may in fact spell the undoing of Western liberal democracy altogether.
Any German speakers who wish to properly translate this page would be deeply appreciated.
Eeyore for Vlad.
A reader of Vlad was kind enough (Thank you very much Rembrandt C) to properly translate the German article on the Belgian attack.
Rembrandt Clancy says:
December 17, 2011 at 12:42 am (Edit)
Here is the translation from the German of an article from “Die Achse des Guten” which you requested above: http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/der_diskrete_charme_der_berichterstattung/.
From: Die Achse
Guest Author 14 December 2011
The Discrete Charm of News Reporting
Whenever, on the occasion of a crime report, the comment areas of the leading online-media, after a brief and seemly interval, are closed or simply not even opened, then one knows that now something has happened again which for the guardians of political correctness is very much amiss. Just so did it also happen after the terror attack in Liège. For it must be declared as such, when someone in camouflage fatigues, armed with grenades, revolver and Kalashnikov gets into a car, drives to the Liège Christmas market, climbs to the roof of a bakery and cuts down anything he can catch sight of. The gunman knew exactly what he wanted, said a female Journalist, who, as witness, experienced the entire incident. He intended to hit as many people as possible.
Up to now there are five dead and 123 wounded. Note: The wounded were also designated for death. The 33 year old assassin shot himself, or, was killed accidentally by a hand grenade. Speaking for the latter is the fact that he still had by no means used all his ammunition. On the other hand it is claimed that witnesses saw him shoot himself in the head.
The perpetrator has a long criminal career behind him. The prosecutor names offenses against gun control laws, drug-related crime, receiving stolen goods and sex offenses. In the Fall of 2008 he was sentenced to 58 months in prison. 2,800 cannabis plants, 9,500 weapons parts and a good dozen weapons were found at his home, among which were weapons of war and a bazooka. After only two years he was free again in 2010 on parole. On Tuesday he was summoned to an interrogation on account of indeterminate “moral offenses.” He did not observe the hearing deadline and the next day set off to complete his last act. “The man wanted to do as much damage as possible” headlined der Spiegel. Naturally one can express it that way; it sounds better than “Massacre.”
The German media for the moment is disseminating the impression that they would be ecstatic if the event could be discounted as an isolated act of a weapons fanatic. Why? Now, the perpetrator is called Nordine Amrani, in German media-language: Nordine A. Already the name should doubtless have sufficed to trigger certain protection and defence reflexes among some Journalists. Could it be that it has to do with a “southerner” or possibly even a – no, we prefer not to say it, not yet. Only if the perpetrator has short blonde hair may one prematurely and exhaustively muse about where he hails from, what drove him to act, what his name is, whether he is Catholic, how many of his kind are still on the loose and who might be his spiritus rector.
Perhaps Nordine Amrani wished to perpetrate a crime of the same dimension as Anders Brevik. He was armed to the teeth, and the deed took place not on impulse but it was planned. The Belgian press had no problem comparing Breivik’s and Amranis’ deeds, but they also hurried to speak of a lone perpetrator and allowed absolutely no speculation to surface about his motive. But in the Belgian forums and blogs questions, which concern citizens during such an event, were taken up. Why free on parole so early, why no arrest after the missed interrogation deadline, why in possession of weapons again, who delivered these weapons, for how long did he plan it, why the Christmas market, whence so much hatred, are there backers, what was his motive? And yes, they write that the perpetrator likely was an Arab or a North African and a Moslem. One question stands out especially: did he collect the weapons of war, which they found at his home in 2008, because he was a weapons fanatic?
On his Facebook site there is (still) 21 predominantly female friends, and contacts on sites such as “Un-avennir Meilleur-Insha’allah,” “Prêche en Islam” or “Anasheed c’est ici.“ Women above all may have a fancy for “Prêche en Islam”, for they read there that a woman without a veil does not obey the commands of Allah and it threatens her with eternal hellfire. “Anasheed c’est ici“ is inspired by Dr. Zakir Naik, the president of the “Islamic Research Foundation”. Last year Canada and Great Britain refused entry to the preacher and hardcore Islamist. On YouTube one can find a video in which he explains why only Muslims go to heaven. He also thinks that a man may now and then calmly strike his wife.
That was a part of the mental environment of the assassin. Why must that be concealed? How come one does not engage such far-reaching speculations as in the case of Breivik or the donor-murderers? Why is such a tremendous crime not illumined from all sides as is also every other? What is this silence cartel supposed to bring, that it does not even permit the publication of all the facts and hurriedly presses on to an agreeable alternative – lone assassin without recognisable motive?
Why are reflections about a religious or a political motive unwelcome as soon as they concern Islam? What favour does one do for a faith community when one concedes to it continuous special status and thereby properly stigmatises it? Why this infantile tabooing, which, however, simply leads the discussion in an unwelcome direction? Why is it thought that some subjects can be expected of us and not others? We do not require any filtered information and pre-stamped opinions. We do not require to be safeguarded from fallacies. We are all adults, responsible citizens; in any case, we readers and viewers.