Print

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

[Grakelin]

I think you should reevaluate this thread, because I no longer understand what you are arguing against. To remind you, my initial statement was along the lines of "A large number of people aren't calling this terrorism because it is a white male conservative; whereas the same actions by a Muslim would be labelled terrorism immediately. Instead, with the only variables being the exact nature of his ideological beliefs, his ethnicity, and his religion, we prefer to say that he is simply 'insane' and simply wants to kill people for the sheer pleasure of killing people, and not because he is trying to bring forward a political agenda".

Please return to attempting to invalidate this statement, because the impression I am getting right now can go in one of two directions. You either think:

1) I am hallmarking this as the beginning of a massive, organized, and deadly terrorist movement in Norway

or

2) Terrorists are only terrorists if they work for some sort of 'Official Terrorism Agency' (such as Al Qaeda); and shooting up 80 children belonging to political activists is, therefore, only terrorism if the perpetrator was backed by one of these shadowy groups.

Neither of which is true.

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.

Again, I really have to pick this apart to understand what you are saying here, so you'll have to forgive me if I misinterpret something.

I don't feel it actually is more important to grieve over the tragedy of the terrorist attack than it is to ensure we can create a happy society where we can stop these things from happening in the future (as they will if we divide ourselves along ethnic lines and then refuse to believe we have done so).

And again, you can indeed have political motivations and be driven to commit atrocities because of them without being a formal member of a shadow group.

[scriver]

I think you should reevaluate this thread, because I no longer understand what you are arguing against. To remind you, my initial statement was along the lines of "A large number of people aren't calling this terrorism because it is a white male conservative; whereas the same actions by a Muslim would be labelled terrorism immediately. Instead, with the only variables being the exact nature of his ideological beliefs, his ethnicity, and his religion, we prefer to say that he is simply 'insane' and simply wants to kill people for the sheer pleasure of killing people, and not because he is trying to bring forward a political agenda".

Please return to attempting to invalidate this statement, because the impression I am getting right now can go in one of two directions. You either think:

1) I am hallmarking this as the beginning of a massive, organized, and deadly terrorist movement in Norway

or

2) Terrorists are only terrorists if they work for some sort of 'Official Terrorism Agency' (such as Al Qaeda); and shooting up 80 children belonging to political activists is, therefore, only terrorism if the perpetrator was backed by one of these shadowy groups.

Neither of which is true.

Me or nenjin?

[Grakelin]

Nenjin, none of what I said could have applied to you. You just ninja'd in before me.

I should note, though, that Breivik hates Nazis.

EDIT: To reconfirm, the post was directed to Nenjin, not Scriver. My grammar here is misleading.

[nenjin]

I think you should reevaluate this thread, because I no longer understand what you are arguing against. To remind you, my initial statement was along the lines of "A large number of people aren't calling this terrorism because it is a white male conservative; whereas the same actions by a Muslim would be labelled terrorism immediately. Instead, with the only variables being the exact nature of his ideological beliefs, his ethnicity, and his religion, we prefer to say that he is simply 'insane' and simply wants to kill people for the sheer pleasure of killing people, and not because he is trying to bring forward a political agenda".

I don't really see "a large number of people" claiming this isn't some form of terrorism. The distinction I want people to make is between the terror caused by one probably unbalanced person who ascribes political motives to what they're doing, and the terrorism on a national/global scale that is part of daily life now. I think that's closer to a reflection of what happened.

I'm not defending his race or his politics as to how this was covered. But I think you're crying foul while, to me, the reality confirms what you believe is just the media being stereotypical. If they were wrong about it being Muslim extremism, they MUST be applying some kind of bias to recasting this as a mentally disturbed individual, right?

I don't disagree with you the media erred in the first place. But I feel like you're letting that color your perception of the actual man and soap boxing about it.

[Nikov]

You have to be a little mentally disturbed to kill innocent people in cold blood and show no remorse afterwards. One person? Maybe sane. A hundred people? You're nuts.

[Dsarker]

Have you read his latest statement?

It basically says that he thought it was cruel, but necessary.

I think he might be trying to pull an insanity defence. But then again, he could just as easily believe what he's saying, and that it is necessary to kill nearly a hundred people for some reason. Has anyone skimmed through his manifesto thing? That would be more likely to give us the truth.

[GlyphGryph]

The distinction I want people to make is between the terror caused by one probably unbalanced person who ascribes political motives to what they're doing, and the terrorism on a national/global scale that is part of daily life now.

This is the bit I'm not getting - WHAT global terrorism is part of daily life now? Even with organized groups, organized Islamic attacks are still vanishingly rare.

Stuff like this, random murder-happy individual extremists? This is far more common a threat.

This guy seems to be pretty much the same as the muslim army psych that snapped at that fort in the US and went murder happy, I think. And that was played up and down as an act of Islamic Terrorism.

[nenjin]

This guy seems to be pretty much the same as the muslim army psych that snapped at that fort in the US and went murder happy, I think. And that was played up and down as an act of Islamic Terrorism.

There was at least decent precedent for being concerned about that, because of Ali Muhammed. They were worried they'd had another instance of him on their hands.

To me this seems more like McVeigh...and he had a pretty decent track record for mental disturbances. And he still pulled off a relatively sophisticated attack and wrote a detailed manifesto.

And on that note....this dude's manifesto is apparently 1,500 pages, although police need to confirm it was written by Breivek. Compare that to McVeigh's....23 page manifesto

This is the bit I'm not getting - WHAT global terrorism is part of daily life now? Even with organized groups, organized Islamic attacks are still vanishingly rare.

On American soil. I'd call them pretty frequent when they're at least a yearly occurrence across Europe and the Middle East.

[Grakelin]

Terrorist attacks in the Middle East are common because that is where the major terrorist movements are stationed now. Much like how terrorist attacks in Ireland were commonplace when the IRA was most active. Remember, you obviously already know (since you have stated as much) that Al Qaeda is an organized group. We call them terrorists, but they all believe they're fighting a war. Contrary to what some people would have us believe, Al Qaeda is not stationed out of a series of mosques in New England, and this is why the war these terrorists are fighting doesn't come to the American doorstep every day. They're somewhat more common in Europe, because it is so much easier to smuggle yourself and a kiloton of explosive into an area when you can use an SUV to drive there. It's even easier to pull off a terrorist attack when you just have to cross a street. I don't think global terrorism has become a part of daily life for us here in North America and Europe because it's a part of daily life for people who live down the street from an Al Qaeda safehouse.

McVeigh was a man whose case raised all the points that I have raised about Breivik's case in this thread (and which scriver's articles raised), so it is interesting that you would compare the two. McVeigh is also considered a terrorist. I'm somewhat confused. Are you trying to deny that either Breivik or McVeigh are terrorists? This is the message I have been receiving.

[ECrownofFire]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but here goes. (Honestly, I haven't read the thread, but from the looks of the past few posts, this is vaguely related)

(Also, this is intended to be something slightly humorous, no offence is meant towards anybody)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Bdthemag]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but here goes. (Honestly, I haven't read the thread, but from the looks of the past few posts, this is vaguely related)

(Also, this is intended to be something slightly humorous, no offence is meant towards anybody)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You don't know how much I like this comment.

[Hiiri]

<Fascism rant snip>

Calling this as the *RETURN OF FASCISM* is a huge overstatement. I see the nationalist, right-wing conservative idiocy spreading that's been very common in the states for so long already. In a nutshell it's: "Me wantz moar munny! Dey iz differunt, git dem out of mah chuntry! Deyz be taking mah wimmen! <Cheer for country X>"

Sure there are neo-nazis.. but there has always been neo-nazis. Somewhat racist, sure, but I haven't heard of a single neo-nazi party that's in a parliament of any country. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Lysabild]

Gotta agree with Hiiri, the racism I experience in Denmark isn't "Kill the Bastards who are different!" It's more like "Send them out and send them bananas down there so they don't come up here!"

People don't understand why a majority of immigrants are criminal and think the way to proceed is to get rid of them by sending them home, coupled with the fact that the immigrants never got the chance to fit into Denmark well in the start because the borders were just opened up without much control.

Spoiler: Rant on immigration I felt lost its point and ended up sort of derailed imo. (click to show/hide)

A story I can tell is that my mother was beat up badly by a turkish mother because she spat on and hunted out a turkish boy stealing fruit from her then garden. The police only said "They're new to the country, gotta cut them some slack." She was beaten with a broom, for stopping a thief.

Then later we decided to actually ask them to try and fit in, but by then they had lived here as they pleased for so long. Immigration is not a quick card you just pull out and then it works, and with the now hateful attitude and greedy right-wing, it'll not improve, as they are poor AND disliked now, because of ourselves. Vicious cycle starts here.

Even the "terrible", "horrible", "monstrous" Dansk Folkeparti are merely trying(In a very stupid way) to promote and keep Danish culture alive, since Danish culture IS dying out at large, they're just pointing fingers the wrong way, because it's actually dying to American import, so I find it hilariously stupid how much hate the Muslims recieve, I'd rather be influenced by the Muslims than America, honestly :b

[scriver]

As I said, a quarter of the Swedish 18-29 year-ers have gotten in in their mind that a dictator would be a good thing, and that democracy isn't necessary. These aren't some naive teenagers without any experience of the world, these are people that are supposed to be thinking and mature human beings.

And no, it's not an overstatement. Militarism, fascism and right-wing nationalism go hand in hand, now as always. Extreme conservative and fascist beliefs is what make them the far right. And no, it's nothing new in itself, apart from them never having been as prevalent and bold as now. While I agree I might have sounded over the top alarmist in the above post (bear in mind it was posted at 5 am and without sleeping) it is exactly the kind of handwaving you're doing ("they're just idiots") and ignoring of them that enables them to continue to grow unhindered. Pretending they're no threat do our democracy, when they're already beginning to gain power in our governments.

And "neo-nazi" is an exaggeration for effect, because they don't call themselves neo-nazis any more. Now they are "just" nationalistic, but these are exactly the same people that were neo-nazis not fifteen years ago. The fact that their leaders have grown their hair out and put down their bomber's for suits does not change that these is their base. It's still the same opinions, the neo-nazis just understood they needed a reboot of their image.

[RF]

Back onto the Oslo shooter: Executed for crimes against humanity: Y / N?