Boy did I get it wrong, it’s Bill Sparkman in Norway

Readability

Boy did I get it wrong, it's Bill Sparkman in Norway

I’ve talked about the Bill Spark­man story on and off, just to remind you, Spark­man was a man found dead in KY a cou­ple of years ago. The ini­tial reports sug­gested Mur­der and things writ­ten on his body sug­gested an anti-​tax agenda etc by the killers.

Many on the left jumped at this say­ing things like “The body should be sent to Glenn Beck”.

It how­ever turned out Spark­man had in fact killed him­self and in death pur­posely attempted to con­vert his sui­cide into a mur­der to dis­guise it.

The ini­tial assump­tion of mur­der was log­i­cal, but the facts trumped the ini­tial log­i­cal assumption.

That brings me to the Killings in Nor­way Yes­ter­day. As you know when they broke I assumed an Islamic attack, there were plenty of signs of trou­ble in Nor­way and in fact two groups claimed credit for it. Log­i­cal assump­tion. While I was vis­it­ing an elderly friend most of yes­ter­day I was think­ing about how I would deal with these events today on the show. The one fly in the oint­ment, ini­tial reports also sug­gested the camp shooter was dis­guised as a police­man, that screamed eth­nic Nor­we­gian since one of the issues with the Islamic pop­u­la­tion was a lack of assim­i­la­tion, but not know­ing how many Islamic offi­cers there were, I filed it in the back of my mind.

I woke up this morn­ing to find out two things:

1. 80 kids were shot in Nor­way 80, that’s about as bad as it gets.

2. For once it wasn’t an Islamic ter­ror­ist, in fact it looks very much like an Ultra Nationalist.

It seems I com­mit­ted the Bill Spark­man error in reverse, It was of course a log­i­cal con­clu­sion to believe Rad­i­cal Islam had com­mit­ted this attack as they are involved in the vast major­ity of such attacks world­wide, but vast major­ity by its very def­i­n­i­tion means that there is a small minor­ity where they are not involved.

It’s an impor­tant les­son, as we might well remem­ber, our Ger­man friends and those who col­lab­o­rated with them in the 30’s and 40th didn’t need a belief in rad­i­cal Islam to slaugh­ter mil­lions. Mur­ders and killers and their causes pre­date rad­i­cal Islam and will exist long after the Islamists are in the dust­bin of his­tory. There will always be a new group of killers, alone or with fol­low­ers with a new agenda and a new excuse to kill.

Now am I sorry for get­ting it wrong? Yup, as I said, I jumped the gun and I should have known bet­ter. Am I sorry for sus­pect­ing rad­i­cal Islam, nope, Rad­i­cal Islam has a long track record in these mat­ters, and as reported there were spe­cific threats of this nature this very week Let’s remind every­one of this early report:

Weasel Zip­pers spots an inter­est­ing twist:

Update at 10:14 a.m. ET: Although the source of the blast is unclear, Al-​Jazeera TV notes that Nor­we­gian pros­e­cu­tors on Tues­day filed a ter­ror­ism charge against Mul­lah Krekar, founder of the Kur­dish Islamist group Ansar al-​Islam.

Unless you want to start call­ing Al-​Jazeera “Islam­o­pho­bic” then one must con­clude there were ratio­nal rea­sons to assume it was another Islamic attack.

Addi­tion­ally I found the most intrigu­ing update on the mat­ter was this one. It speaks vol­umes: empha­sis mine

Then the police announced that they had arrested a 32-​year-​old sus­pect who, they empha­sized with what seemed like relief or even joy, was a tall, blond eth­nic Nor­we­gian (one police spokesman even called him an “eth­nic Nor­we­gian Nor­we­gian,” a turn of phrase that Nor­we­gians would describe as “smør på flesk” – i.e., putting but­ter on bacon, or, as we’d say in Eng­lish, gild­ing the lily). They insisted that the sus­pect (although they described him not as a sus­pect but as a “per­pe­tra­tor”) had no con­nec­tion to a ter­ror­ist group, though when asked about other con­nec­tions he might have, they seemed to dodge the question.

Now tell me why did the police empha­size with relief and joy that the sus­pect was not Islamic? Does it make the hor­ri­ble mur­der of 80 chil­dren more palat­able? Does it make the destruc­tion in Oslo any less severe or bloody?

No. What it does is it allow them to kick the can down the road on an actual prob­lem that they are still going to have to deal with and would rather not.

If it turns out that this guy is specif­i­cally Anti-​Islamist as well and tar­geted his polit­i­cal foes because they were weak on the sub­ject then he is evil AND stu­pid. Like Scott Roeder (the mur­derer of abor­tion­ist George Tiller) he not only for­gets that an evil act does not jus­tify another evil act but by his actions he gives sup­port and cover to the very evil he opposes.

Now Gates of Vienna notes a few things con­cern­ing this attack:

Now that the sus­pect is in cus­tody and has been iden­ti­fied as an indige­nous Nor­we­gian, the lat­est reports refer to him as a “right-​wing extrem­ist”, pre­sum­ably linked to some ultra-​nationalist group.

Yet his attacks tar­geted the Social­ists, the most anti-​Israel of the major par­ties in Nor­way. Based on the affil­i­a­tion of the peo­ple he killed, some web­sites go so far as to describe him as a “Zionist”.

To make mat­ters even stranger, his Face­book page is quite innocu­ous — unless you con­sider The Prince sub­ver­sive. And it was only set up a few days ago.

So I have no idea what the real story is. When the Scan­di­na­vian Gang of Five wake up in the morn­ing, they will no doubt sift the lat­est Norwegian-​language accounts, and pos­si­bly find some­thing worth reporting.

How­ever — assum­ing that the young man is not really a “Zion­ist” — his being a “right-​wing extrem­ist” does not rule out a jihad con­nec­tion. Not at all.

Although Gates is cor­rect that it doesn’t rule it out, it does make it extremely unlikely and sans cred­i­ble con­nec­tions I have to assume this to be wrong. (Yes it’s pos­si­ble that by dis­miss­ing Gate’s sug­ges­tion I’ll make the same mis­take twice, but this time I’ll risk it).

So to sum­ma­rize, I jumped to a con­clu­sion before all the facts were in, it was a log­i­cal con­clu­sion that most ratio­nal peo­ple would have come to, but it was still wrong. It’s my bad and my Mea Culpa. It is my mis­take and I own it.

How­ever, those who choose to use this mis­take to deny the dan­gers of rad­i­cal Islam are mak­ing a big­ger one. Just ask Molly Nor­ris.

Update: Chris­t­ian Fun­da­men­tal­ist? Please, name me the Chris­t­ian church that has endorsed these actions and then you can cry Fundamentalism.

I’ve talked about the Bill Sparkman story on and off, just to remind you, Sparkman was a man found dead in KY a couple of years ago. The initial reports suggested Murder and things written on his body suggested an anti-tax agenda etc by the killers.

Many on the left jumped at this saying things like “The body should be sent to Glenn Beck”.

It however turned out Sparkman had in fact killed himself and in death purposely attempted to convert his suicide into a murder to disguise it.

The initial assumption of murder was logical, but the facts trumped the initial logical assumption.

That brings me to the Killings in Norway Yesterday. As you know when they broke I assumed an Islamic attack, there were plenty of signs of trouble in Norway and in fact two groups claimed credit for it. Logical assumption. While I was visiting an elderly friend most of yesterday I was thinking about how I would deal with these events today on the show. The one fly in the ointment, initial reports also suggested the camp shooter was disguised as a policeman, that screamed ethnic Norwegian since one of the issues with the Islamic population was a lack of assimilation, but not knowing how many Islamic officers there were, I filed it in the back of my mind.

I woke up this morning to find out two things:

1. 80 kids were shot in Norway 80, that’s about as bad as it gets.

2. For once it wasn’t an Islamic terrorist, in fact it looks very much like an Ultra Nationalist.

It seems I committed the Bill Sparkman error in reverse, It was of course a logical conclusion to believe Radical Islam had committed this attack as they are involved in the vast majority of such attacks worldwide, but vast majority by its very definition means that there is a small minority where they are not involved.

It’s an important lesson, as we might well remember, our German friends and those who collaborated with them in the 30’s and 40th didn’t need a belief in radical Islam to slaughter millions. Murders and killers and their causes predate radical Islam and will exist long after the Islamists are in the dustbin of history. There will always be a new group of killers, alone or with followers with a new agenda and a new excuse to kill.

Now am I sorry for getting it wrong? Yup, as I said, I jumped the gun and I should have known better. Am I sorry for suspecting radical Islam, nope, Radical Islam has a long track record in these matters, and as reported there were specific threats of this nature this very week Let’s remind everyone of this early report:

Weasel Zippers spots an interesting twist:

Update at 10:14 a.m. ET: Although the source of the blast is unclear, Al-Jazeera TV notes that Norwegian prosecutors on Tuesday filed a terrorism charge against Mullah Krekar, founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam.

Unless you want to start calling Al-Jazeera “Islamophobic” then one must conclude there were rational reasons to assume it was another Islamic attack.

Additionally I found the most intriguing update on the matter was this one. It speaks volumes: emphasis mine

Then the police announced that they had arrested a 32-year-old suspect who, they emphasized with what seemed like relief or even joy, was a tall, blond ethnic Norwegian (one police spokesman even called him an “ethnic Norwegian Norwegian,” a turn of phrase that Norwegians would describe as “smør på flesk” – i.e., putting butter on bacon, or, as we’d say in English, gilding the lily). They insisted that the suspect (although they described him not as a suspect but as a “perpetrator”) had no connection to a terrorist group, though when asked about other connections he might have, they seemed to dodge the question.

Now tell me why did the police emphasize with relief and joy that the suspect was not Islamic? Does it make the horrible murder of 80 children more palatable? Does it make the destruction in Oslo any less severe or bloody?

No. What it does is it allow them to kick the can down the road on an actual problem that they are still going to have to deal with and would rather not.

If it turns out that this guy is specifically Anti-Islamist as well and targeted his political foes because they were weak on the subject then he is evil AND stupid. Like Scott Roeder (the murderer of abortionist George Tiller) he not only forgets that an evil act does not justify another evil act but by his actions he gives support and cover to the very evil he opposes.

Now Gates of Vienna notes a few things concerning this attack:

Now that the suspect is in custody and has been identified as an indigenous Norwegian, the latest reports refer to him as a “right-wing extremist”, presumably linked to some ultra-nationalist group.

Yet his attacks targeted the Socialists, the most anti-Israel of the major parties in Norway. Based on the affiliation of the people he killed, some websites go so far as to describe him as a “Zionist”.

To make matters even stranger, his Facebook page is quite innocuous — unless you consider The Prince subversive. And it was only set up a few days ago.

So I have no idea what the real story is. When the Scandinavian Gang of Five wake up in the morning, they will no doubt sift the latest Norwegian-language accounts, and possibly find something worth reporting.

However — assuming that the young man is not really a “Zionist” — his being a “right-wing extremist” does not rule out a jihad connection. Not at all.

Although Gates is correct that it doesn’t rule it out, it does make it extremely unlikely and sans credible connections I have to assume this to be wrong. (Yes it’s possible that by dismissing Gate’s suggestion I’ll make the same mistake twice, but this time I’ll risk it).

So to summarize, I jumped to a conclusion before all the facts were in, it was a logical conclusion that most rational people would have come to, but it was still wrong. It’s my bad and my Mea Culpa. It is my mistake and I own it.

However, those who choose to use this mistake to deny the dangers of radical Islam are making a bigger one. Just ask Molly Norris.

Update: Christian Fundamentalist? Please, name me the Christian church that has endorsed these actions and then you can cry Fundamentalism.