Print

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

[Ampersand]

Of course it works. Once the people are afraid an angry, they will project that fear and anger onto anyone who isn't similar enough to them, either ethnically, or ideologically, and they will do the work of tearing each other apart for the terrorist.

[scriver]

I think it was more about just killing "cultural marxists". Towards the end of his video it said something like "But before we can start our Crusade, we must decimate the cultural marxists".

So yeah. It wasn't about votes or even support, it was about killing the next generation of social democrats.

All you people claiming that him being a Christian conservative extremist is irrelevant because he is alone or "insane" or anything like that, I'd like to offer you an article on this to read.

Also, an article on how the media reacted to the tragedy.

Feels good to be vindicated.

Heh, I thought of saying something earlier, but I didn't understand exactly what you were saying back then

[nenjin]

All you people claiming that him being a Christian conservative extremist is irrelevant because he is alone or "insane" or anything like that, I'd like to offer you an article on this to read.

Also, an article on how the media reacted to the tragedy.

Feels good to be vindicated.

The first article he posted contains next to nothing factual. It's criticizing western governments and "far-right ideology" with being in bed with each other. He's doing to rightists and vague Neo-Nazi threats the same thing everyone else does to Muslims: turns their actions into a conspiracy to commit murder. Again, I reminded of random American gunmen who reads conservative websites and has said something inflammatory online. Once they go out and shoot someone, clearly, this must be part of a grand plan, and not the actions of a disaffected loner with a grudge against the modern world.

wait, so the news instantly went 'it's Al Quaeda'?

Not any of the news I was reading at the time. On site it was probably a different story.

[Nikov]

God dammit, what happened to assassinating archdukes?

Between shooting a hundred people and nothing becoming of it and shooting one person and 16.5 million dying of reactionary mechanisms, I have a hard time deciding which is worse.

Oh, wait, the guy who shoots children.

[Phmcw]

God dammit, what happened to assassinating archdukes?

Between shooting a hundred people and nothing becoming of it and shooting one person and 16.5 million dying of reactionary mechanisms, I have a hard time deciding which is worse.

Oh, wait, the guy who shoots children.

WW1 would have happened anyway.
But you're right, the guys who shoots children is inherently more despicable, isn't it?

[alway]

wait, so the news instantly went 'it's Al Quaeda'?

no wonder so many people hate newspapers at my school ¬.¬

On MSNBC's website for the first half of the day they had stuff like "why are muslims attacking there, of all places?" without even much questioning of whether or not it actually was carried out by islamic extremists. They even had an irrelevant shit section about how it 'smelled like 9/11' with the smell of sulphur in the streets. Though much of that sort of article started disappearing when news of the shooting became more widely available and it became clear it probably was some sort of domestic threat.

As for the future, it sounds like there may be more of them. Reading one of the linked sites about his manifesto, there were supposedly others who went unnamed from other countries who may possibly have been planning towards similar ends. Though whether they actually exist or were figments of his imagination exaggerated into fictitious persona in his own mind has yet to be seen.

[DJ]

God dammit, what happened to assassinating archdukes?

Between shooting a hundred people and nothing becoming of it and shooting one person and 16.5 million dying of reactionary mechanisms, I have a hard time deciding which is worse.

Oh, wait, the guy who shoots children.

The assassination was just a spark, if it didn't happen some other event would've started WW1.

Anyway, the point is that I'd prefer it if political terrorists attacked authority figures rather than general population. Those guys have better security so there's better chances of the attack failing, if it does succeed it's just one person, and it kinda makes more sense to attack the guy that you think is ruining your country rather than kids who *might* be ruining it decades later.

[Aqizzar]

Of course it works. Once the people are afraid an angry, they will project that fear and anger onto anyone who isn't similar enough to them, either ethnically, or ideologically, and they will do the work of tearing each other apart for the terrorist.

Hard to append such a statement to this action, since that was exactly what the terrorist was trying to accomplish.  It's extremely unlikely that a place like Norway would be persuaded to become a radical purist country because of an attack by a native Norwegian, especially since the whole thing was plastered with exactly that intent.  I know truisms are fun and all, but I think this is one that can be safely put in the "holy shit thank god its over and nothing more will come of it" category.

[Svarte Troner]

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

Ha ha ha.

[Nikov]

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

Ha ha ha.

This is how I felt during the Tuscon shooting when everyone assumed he was a Glenn Beck die-hard. Solidarity, my neighbor.

[Grakelin]

All you people claiming that him being a Christian conservative extremist is irrelevant because he is alone or "insane" or anything like that, I'd like to offer you an article on this to read.

Also, an article on how the media reacted to the tragedy.

Feels good to be vindicated.

The first article he posted contains next to nothing factual. It's criticizing western governments and "far-right ideology" with being in bed with each other. He's doing to rightists and vague Neo-Nazi threats the same thing everyone else does to Muslims: turns their actions into a conspiracy to commit murder. Again, I reminded of random American gunmen who reads conservative websites and has said something inflammatory online. Once they go out and shoot someone, clearly, this must be part of a grand plan, and not the actions of a disaffected loner with a grudge against the modern world.

wait, so the news instantly went 'it's Al Quaeda'?

Not any of the news I was reading at the time. On site it was probably a different story.

You seem pretty determined to discredit the idea that this man was politically motivated, to the point where you are ignoring the articles because they don't fit your established view. You're also not reading them, because they give examples of news outlets blaming the attacks on Al Qaeda.

If you can't approach the discussion with integrity, please don't even bother. Nobody has time for that. If you have some evidence which is contrary to what has already been provided, please bring it forward. It is a waste of everybody's time if we ignore eachother's sources so that we don't have to change our minds.

[nenjin]

If you're trying to make the point that western media does sometimes jump the gun attributing things to Muslims, I'm not going disagree with you. (On the day of I stuck to CNN and they merely pointed out that nothing was clear at the time they were reporting.)

But if you want to go on to say that this guy, just because he subscribes to right wing ideology, is equivalent of an Al Qaeda operative, you'd better have something a little more factual to back that up than anything you've cited as "vindication." Because so far, one is an isolated actor that we know of, the other is part of an established organization. I get you're all mad at the media, but to me it reads like you're using that to speculate in the opposite direction about this guy. Having political motivations doesn't exempt him from being off his rocker.

[Grakelin]

But being off his rocker doesn't exclude him from having political motivations, either, which is what has been implied heavily by posters in this thread and by our media at large.

I think you'd be making a mistake if you assumed I was some sort of hipster who got off on being angry all the time.

[nenjin]

But being off his rocker doesn't exclude him from having political motivations, either, which is what has been implied heavily by posters in this thread and by our media at large.

So do half the kooky, dangerous people in this country. Crazy people can have political beliefs too. It just strikes me as alarmist to inflate the violence into some kind of harbinger of "the movement" without some real proof.

I think you'd be making a mistake if you assumed I was some sort of hipster who got off on being angry all the time.

I don't, I just didn't like the direction you were going between the two (mostly separate) issues. In events like these, someone is always going to go off on the media. The media being douches is pretty much a given now. The tragedy and the hunt for facts honestly seems more important than the knee jerk reaction of the media. If there actually is some crypto-facsist conspiracy that he was part of, I don't doubt there are plenty in the media eager to expose it.

[scriver]

The first article he posted contains next to nothing factual. It's criticizing western governments and "far-right ideology" with being in bed with each other. He's doing to rightists and vague Neo-Nazi threats the same thing everyone else does to Muslims: turns their actions into a conspiracy to commit murder. Again, I reminded of random American gunmen who reads conservative websites and has said something inflammatory online. Once they go out and shoot someone, clearly, this must be part of a grand plan, and not the actions of a disaffected loner with a grudge against the modern world.

No. It is saying we shouldn't make excuses for his beliefs (like "oh, it's just a lone madman - nothing worth bothering ourselves with") and dance around the issue just because it's "one of us" (or in the case of American media, a right-wing conservative). The author stresses the importance of this in the light of the growing far-right racist/nationalist/conservative sentiment in Europe.

You may not realise this, as you are American and it's understandable if you would not keep a close eye on this side of the sea, but fascism is on rise and a reality in Europe once again, much like it was in the years preceding WWII. We have nationalist fascists marching down the streets in Hungary, a steadily increasing xenophobia (especially anti-Romani (yet again) and Islamophobic), and I believe the countries that doesn't have racist and/or neo-nazi parties represented in their parliaments are in the minority at this point. A recent study revealed that a quarter of the Swedish population between 18-29 thought it would be "somewhat to very good" with a "strong leader who does not have to care about democratic elections".

This may be an isolated event in it's severity, but the underlying sentiment and ideologies are not. Ignoring and pretending that these undercurrents does exist - even when they shape the political landscape and influence governments an actual people's lives - is dangerous. And that is exactly what media are doing; asserting that it can't be for political reasons simply because the man is from the Great Civilized West and we don't do such things here, once more insinuating that only the barbaric Arabs and Muslims do. Waving the whole thing away instead of dealing with (or even recognising) the parts of society that believes in these ideas and what the effects of such ideologies actually have on society. That being, in this case, a lot of innocent deaths.

There's nothing conspirational about it, just great human foolishness and pride. There is no reason to believe this man is any more a madman than any al-Qaedan or jihadist. Just a man willing to kill for his cause.