I’ve written on how Anders Breivik is a non-practising ‘Christian’ and how his usage of Scripture is entirely out of whack.
Now I’ll put myself in the mindset of conspiracy theorists and conjecture: Is Anders Breivik actually an agent provocateur for Islam?
Consider the following:
1) He claims to have carried out his shooting massacre in protest the colonization/conquest of Europe by Muslim immigrants. But who did he actually decide to kill? Not Muslims or immigrants, but Caucasians of irreligious/nominally Christian leanings.
2) He cites the Bible and argues his justification for killing. But his citations are out of context and way off, requiring incredible stretches and leaps of logic to fit his agenda. He acts nothing like a Christian, but ordinary Christians bear the brunt of the outraged backlash.
3) He claims his actions are to inspire the West to arouse from its slumber and begin resisting the ‘Muslim invasion’… But anyone with the slightest grasp of what gutless, spineless, milquetoast postmodern European sociopolitics is like (and Breivik claims to be all too aware of it) would know that an act like this would only arouse mass support for Islam, as well as give Muslim agitators potent ammunition in wringing out concessions to make up for the West’s ‘Islamophobia’.
So in one fell swoop, NO MUSLIMS ARE KILLED OR INJURED… But plenty of godless, immoral liberals lie dead. Those Islamophobic conservatives and crusader-spawn Christians take a major PR blow. And Muslims get a (for once) concrete reason for Western Politically Correct handwringing, groveling, apologizing and promises to make up to the Islamic world for the ‘hatred’ shown against their noble culture.
Even though no Muslims were actually hurt, or even directly ‘hated’, in Breivik’s attack.
However, I personally don’t believe that Anders Breivik is some sort of Islamophilic apologist for Muslims, carrying out an incredibly intricate and devious ploy to rouse public and political sympathy for Muslim immigrants (as if there wasn’t enough of that already).
How do we usually know that a terrorist attack (attempted or successful) is motivated by jihad? Their history is usually clearly marked by public proclamations of faith (e.g. Nidal Hassan‘s derision for his infidel coworkers); browsing of extremist and jihadist websites, chatrooms and message boards (e.g. many of the BUSTED terrorist wannabes that The Jawa Report regularly; and of course the telltale giveaway cries of “Allahu akhbar!” as they carry out their murder spree (e.g. Nidal Hassan again and countless others).
None of these markers were present in Anders Breivik, who spent his time polluting fascist chatrooms instead of jihadist ones. He did not ‘come out’ as a Muslim
Very seldom do we hear of a
That said, if Anders Breivik really does turn out to be a ‘secret Muslim supporter’ or a Muslim himself, then his ability to hide/fake his online history and plan out such a convoluted, Tom Clancy-esque strategy shows that is he is a cut above the rest.