Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Um...you do realize that there are Buddhist countries out there who have been accused of human right violations when suppressing insurgencies (Sri Lanka, Myanmar)? And the Myanmar government in particular was involved heavily in funding Buddhist temples and promoting Buddhist religion, not sure about Sri Lanka.

Don't exclude "state terrorism" from the equation.

A militant group differs from our popular conception of a terrorist group based on their targeting of civilians.

No, just no. A military unit does not automatically not feel terrorism just because he holds a uniform. And the American Revolutionaries's tarring and feathering of tax collectors is not something to be excused.

[Heliman]

That... is alot of death.

[RedKing]

I'm usually off the grid on my days off, so it was a shocker to pop into a store this morning and see this as the headline of the local paper. My strongest condolences and sympathies with the Norwegian people. 

[Ottofar]

I wonder if this guy is one of those black metal pagan fanatics? They burn churches up there sometimes.

No. This man was a right-wing extremist.

He set up a bomb in the center of Oslo, the capital city of Norway, as a diversion. He did this to hinder the growth of left-wing parties, in twenty years.

Here's a link to something.

[Tofu]

[Redacted]

[Leafsnail]

So... it may not have been an act of terrorism in the traditional sense (an attempt to win hearts and minds or coerce politicians into doing something).  Rather, a massacre of people he felt would be bad for his agenda in a few decades time.

Ugghh.

[Nikov]

This is altogether disgusting.

It is fundamentally irrational to shoot up a youth camp, so I'm not surprised we can't find a rational ends to his means. Nobody sees someone with blood on their hands and decides to go vote for who he likes.

I'm curious just what sort of right-wing he actually is, since the expression is subjective to the political norm. Market liberals don't go around shooting up the unemployment offices in protest of the minimum wage. National Socialists have a different track record, however. I'm wondering if the Norwegian hard right runs more along those lines.

Lastly I never see anything fundamentally Christian in shooting innocents, so whatever he is, he is not Christ-like in the slightest.

[nenjin]

Mentally unstable people latch on to politics precisely because their motivations don't need to rational. They just need to be political, in some form. The party leader of which he was a member (and that had met him apparently) seems just as genuinely appalled as everyone else.

Reading over stuff, to me his motivation sounds like some paranoid schizophrenic channeling WWII delusions.

[Nikov]

Well, no. Mentally unstable people don't latch on to politics any more than anything else. Oswald was communist and this man was also politically motivated, but Reagan's attempted assassin wanted Jodie Foster to like him and the Tuscon shooter was obsessed with grammar. Politicians are just very prominent targets, I suppose. But we don't hear too much about serial killers who target the homeless.

[nenjin]

I imagine as people unearth more of this guy's life, we're going to hear some pretty weird beliefs that he held too. Sort of like Loughner.

[olemars]

This is altogether disgusting.

It is fundamentally irrational to shoot up a youth camp, so I'm not surprised we can't find a rational ends to his means. Nobody sees someone with blood on their hands and decides to go vote for who he likes.

I'm curious just what sort of right-wing he actually is, since the expression is subjective to the political norm. Market liberals don't go around shooting up the unemployment offices in protest of the minimum wage. National Socialists have a different track record, however. I'm wondering if the Norwegian hard right runs more along those lines.

Lastly I never see anything fundamentally Christian in shooting innocents, so whatever he is, he is not Christ-like in the slightest.

From what they've uncovered he seems to be the English Defence League sort of fringe lunatic, with some rants about marxism added into the mix. Apparently he considers himself a modern Templar Knight defending europe from whatever.

The latest it that he released a 1500 page rant with his views and motives, how he planned the whole thing and bomb recipes online just before he began the attacks.

[Leafsnail]

It is fundamentally irrational to shoot up a youth camp, so I'm not surprised we can't find a rational ends to his means. Nobody sees someone with blood on their hands and decides to go vote for who he likes.

The speculation is that he doesn't give a damn about what people think of what he did, and he instead thinks he suceeded in taking out a generation of future left wing leaders.

Lastly I never see anything fundamentally Christian in shooting innocents, so whatever he is, he is not Christ-like in the slightest.

I don't think anyone suggested he was Christ-like.

[Grakelin]

What disturbs me more than the direct action of the terrorist is the subtle implication made by the line of thinking I keep seeing everywhere on the internet after both Loughner and the Oslo Shooter:

Islamic, Arabic Terrorist Destroys Building: My God, why do people allow themselves to be used as pawns in their game? What is it about the Quran that makes people literally think they're going to get 42 virgins upon death should they do these terrible things?

White, Blonde Male with Political Agenda Destroys Building: My God, crazy people just... they just don't need any reason to be crazy, do they? I mean, they'll just latch onto any political idea in their thirst for blood!


I'm going to get a flurry of responses for this post along the lines of "That's not what we're saying at all!", so I'll challenge you to go back through all the threads on terrorism we've had here and present evidence that this has not been what you've done before you disagree with me. It would be wiser to stop and reflect on what you think, and maybe, if you actually do come to the conclusion that there's a dangerous flaw in your reasoning, consider how you can change that.

Or come back here and struggle to prove that you're an infallible saint. Either way.

Um...you do realize that there are Buddhist countries out there who have been accused of human right violations when suppressing insurgencies (Sri Lanka, Myanmar)? And the Myanmar government in particular was involved heavily in funding Buddhist temples and promoting Buddhist religion, not sure about Sri Lanka.

Don't exclude "state terrorism" from the equation.

A militant group differs from our popular conception of a terrorist group based on their targeting of civilians.

No, just no. A military unit does not automatically not feel terrorism just because he holds a uniform. And the American Revolutionaries's tarring and feathering of tax collectors is not something to be excused.

So you think the people in Myanmar and Sri Lanka who abused their civilians were following the teachings of Buddhism? Seems more likely, to me, that they donated money to religious buildings to appease their populace. They also wouldn't be terrorists until death squads were running into public places and gunning down civilians going about their day at random.

I think you misinterpreted my distinction between a militant group and a terrorist group, as well. The terrorist group deliberately attacks civilians, and not military targets. This distinction is why groups like the French Resistance and (in popular fiction) the Rebel Alliance aren't typically villified by our society.

[olemars]

He apparently released this movie along with his manifest an hour before the attack, the original upload seems to be deleted but people made copies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwp2FnRmsE

[nenjin]

White, Blonde Male with Political Agenda Destroys Building: My God, crazy people just... they just don't need any reason to be crazy, do they? I mean, they'll just latch onto any political idea in their thirst for blood!

Do we really need to point out the difference between a terrorist whose own party rejects their actions, versus a member of a world-wide organization with the stated goal of killing anyone who they disagree with? You'd have to provide evidence this guy was part of a larger movement with political goals and organizational backing before you go equating what he did to what Radical Muslims who are part of cells and organized resistance movements do. Some people ARE just crazy, and back up their crazy with pseudo-political beliefs. Some people hold pseudo-political beliefs, and back them up with a whole lot of crazy action.

Either way, I don't think this is a case of skin color, religious or political white-washing. Loughner is certifiable and acted alone. Again, if there were some publicly known, world-wide organization of white people who were well-financed, highly organized and hell bent on blowing up civilians of all nations.....I'd be willing to attribute his attack to something else other than a serious case of the crazies.

As it is, there's no evidence of that, so why SHOULD we put him on the level of an Al-Qaeda operative with political motivations we at least understand, or a very angry Muslim with a government that has a hostile foreign government on their soil? Every once in a while, some crazy person does pull off a highly successful attack. I believe this is one of those.