Major explosion/bomb in Oslo
Discussion
stinkysteve said:
AJS- said:
stinkysteve said:
No to what? We agree?
No to this partstinkysteve said:
Better to say:
"this man was a loon who knew nothing of Norway's immigration or social policy, which is actually working well, as evidenced by X, Y, Z"
Why get into the X,Y,Z of why Norway's immigration policy is or isn't working? It's subjective anyway. Let's focus on the fact that he killed 77 people."this man was a loon who knew nothing of Norway's immigration or social policy, which is actually working well, as evidenced by X, Y, Z"
If we just focus on the fact he killed 77 people there's not much to discuss is there?
He's guilty. So we're only left to discuss the sentence he receives? That's a pretty meaningless thread.
Probably fair to say his psychosis was the root/main cause of the killings. Was any other factor a CONTRIBUTING cause of the killings?
What made him so psychotic in the first place? That are the important questions to me as if we understand that we increase our chances of preventing a similar tragedy in the future.
For example:
Was he abused as a child?
Has any of his genetic family had mental health problems?
Has he encountered any seriously negative aspects of Norway's immigration policy?
Has he had a history of drug abuse?
Was he bullied out of the Norwegian Labour Party?
Were his parents Nazi's?
etc.
Agree that it's important to look at the causes. I just read his Wikipedia page and there isn't much that points towards violence. A bit of steroid use.
I can't buy the idea that an innate psychosis caused the outburst because it was planned so methodically over so many years. He wasn't a nutter looking for a cause. It almost seems he intentionally drove himself mad in order to carry out this atrocity.
AJS- said:
It almost seems he intentionally drove himself mad in order to carry out this atrocity.
I thought about this last night and i agree with your sentence above, that's how it appears (caveat : i'm not a trained psychologist)Either way this is a very unique case with a unique criminal.
Also, the fact he attacked the government and not the 'immigrants/muslim/ethnic minority' communities that he hates is also unique i believe. Whilst 'My enemies friend is my enemy" is understood, i can't understand why he has taken his first action against them and not against say a mosque? Again, unique.
I considered when else in history has someone murdered, using a gun, so many people.
The only parallels i can think of are what we would normally call "Ethnic Cleansing". Serbia, Nazi Germany, Failed African States.
In most of these examples, children as well as adults have been murdered. But in every case i would suspect not by a single person, but by a 'death squad', and children were never the PRIMARY target. Utoya was again, unique i believe.
On that basis i considered what impact this will have on the world and my thoughts were worrying. I mentioned copycats before, but i think his acts may inspire in a different way.
Every other terrorist on the planet will have seen humanity's outrage at the murder of innocent children. I suspect this makes it more likely that our terrorist enemies, namely Al-Queda, would attack children in future. It's a very soft target with a massive impact.
Quite frankly that thought is s
t scary.MX7 said:
Cameron tried with an immigration cap. I don't think it went too well, but I can't remember the outcome to be honest.
No immigration cap's allowed within the EU. The majority of immigrants to the UK are from EU countries so the numbers haven't really been impacted. Perhaps Finlandia's contribution gives an insight as to why Breivik attacked the Government (future Government), rather than the ethnic minorities he has an issue with?
It's an unusual target as i said in my previous post.
Is the immigration debate in Scandinavia even more stifled than in the UK?
Oh, and for the record, for some readers....
This isn't a debate on immigration policy, just trying to understand the background to this most heinous of crimes in the hope that, somehow through the power of PH, we can prevent a recurrence.stinkysteve said:
I thought about this last night and i agree with your sentence above, that's how it appears (caveat : i'm not a trained psychologist)
Either way this is a very unique case with a unique criminal.
Also, the fact he attacked the government and not the 'immigrants/muslim/ethnic minority' communities that he hates is also unique i believe. Whilst 'My enemies friend is my enemy" is understood, i can't understand why he has taken his first action against them and not against say a mosque? Again, unique.
I considered when else in history has someone murdered, using a gun, so many people.
The only parallels i can think of are what we would normally call "Ethnic Cleansing". Serbia, Nazi Germany, Failed African States.
In most of these examples, children as well as adults have been murdered. But in every case i would suspect not by a single person, but by a 'death squad', and children were never the PRIMARY target. Utoya was again, unique i believe.
On that basis i considered what impact this will have on the world and my thoughts were worrying. I mentioned copycats before, but i think his acts may inspire in a different way.
Every other terrorist on the planet will have seen humanity's outrage at the murder of innocent children. I suspect this makes it more likely that our terrorist enemies, namely Al-Queda, would attack children in future. It's a very soft target with a massive impact.
Quite frankly that thought is st scary.
I'm not a psychologist either, but I'd disagree. Plenty of psychos have shot up schools and the like and the only difference between Breivik and them is an apparent political agenda. Either way this is a very unique case with a unique criminal.
Also, the fact he attacked the government and not the 'immigrants/muslim/ethnic minority' communities that he hates is also unique i believe. Whilst 'My enemies friend is my enemy" is understood, i can't understand why he has taken his first action against them and not against say a mosque? Again, unique.
I considered when else in history has someone murdered, using a gun, so many people.
The only parallels i can think of are what we would normally call "Ethnic Cleansing". Serbia, Nazi Germany, Failed African States.
In most of these examples, children as well as adults have been murdered. But in every case i would suspect not by a single person, but by a 'death squad', and children were never the PRIMARY target. Utoya was again, unique i believe.
On that basis i considered what impact this will have on the world and my thoughts were worrying. I mentioned copycats before, but i think his acts may inspire in a different way.
Every other terrorist on the planet will have seen humanity's outrage at the murder of innocent children. I suspect this makes it more likely that our terrorist enemies, namely Al-Queda, would attack children in future. It's a very soft target with a massive impact.
Quite frankly that thought is s
t scary.But he's latched on to the political agenda as part of his reasoning to excuse his own inadequacies.
Bill said:
I'm not a psychologist either, but I'd disagree. Plenty of psychos have shot up schools and the like and the only difference between Breivik and them is an apparent political agenda.
But he's latched on to the political agenda as part of his reasoning to excuse his own inadequacies.
You seem to be repeating what certain Norwegian sources are saying, and their aim appears to be to divert attention away from Breivik's alleged reasons. He didn't latch on to anything, he devoted a huge chunk of his life to a specific cause. Unlike some in this thread I don't know any facts about his mental condition, I can only speculate, but I'm as certain as I can be that this atrocity was not simply the result of inadequacy. The world is crammed full of inadequates and always has been, and sometimes they snap like Ryan, like Bird, and kill a few random people, but this is a unique situation. Refusal to recognise that fact comes with a cost. Whatever he says he is a terrorist and I can't see any connection between him and any spree killer that I know of.But he's latched on to the political agenda as part of his reasoning to excuse his own inadequacies.
stinkysteve said:
I thought about this last night and i agree with your sentence above, that's how it appears (caveat : i'm not a trained psychologist)
Either way this is a very unique case with a unique criminal.
Also, the fact he attacked the government and not the 'immigrants/muslim/ethnic minority' communities that he hates is also unique i believe. Whilst 'My enemies friend is my enemy" is understood, i can't understand why he has taken his first action against them and not against say a mosque? Again, unique.
I considered when else in history has someone murdered, using a gun, so many people.
The only parallels i can think of are what we would normally call "Ethnic Cleansing". Serbia, Nazi Germany, Failed African States.
In most of these examples, children as well as adults have been murdered. But in every case i would suspect not by a single person, but by a 'death squad', and children were never the PRIMARY target. Utoya was again, unique i believe.
On that basis i considered what impact this will have on the world and my thoughts were worrying. I mentioned copycats before, but i think his acts may inspire in a different way.
Every other terrorist on the planet will have seen humanity's outrage at the murder of innocent children. I suspect this makes it more likely that our terrorist enemies, namely Al-Queda, would attack children in future. It's a very soft target with a massive impact.
Quite frankly that thought is st scary.
As said in his position I would have done the same as it is the only logical option in that course of action.Either way this is a very unique case with a unique criminal.
Also, the fact he attacked the government and not the 'immigrants/muslim/ethnic minority' communities that he hates is also unique i believe. Whilst 'My enemies friend is my enemy" is understood, i can't understand why he has taken his first action against them and not against say a mosque? Again, unique.
I considered when else in history has someone murdered, using a gun, so many people.
The only parallels i can think of are what we would normally call "Ethnic Cleansing". Serbia, Nazi Germany, Failed African States.
In most of these examples, children as well as adults have been murdered. But in every case i would suspect not by a single person, but by a 'death squad', and children were never the PRIMARY target. Utoya was again, unique i believe.
On that basis i considered what impact this will have on the world and my thoughts were worrying. I mentioned copycats before, but i think his acts may inspire in a different way.
Every other terrorist on the planet will have seen humanity's outrage at the murder of innocent children. I suspect this makes it more likely that our terrorist enemies, namely Al-Queda, would attack children in future. It's a very soft target with a massive impact.
Quite frankly that thought is s
t scary.If you attack the Muslims or immigrants you make them martyrs and everyone feels sorry for them and rallies round to protect them.
Attack the politicians yet the same situation except the politicians fear for their own lives and only moderately less than they would those of their kids or other peoples as displayed on here with everyone focusing it being kids.
As an added if you kill a bunch of politicians its no big deal per say as they are easily replaced by yet another bunch of people who won't listen to your views and there will be large swathes of people who dislike those killed and therefore won't feel any real sympathy or care about your cause.
logical option is therefore to go after those who are future politicians who hold opposing views to your own who everybody will feel sorry for.
To all those of you on here who are now going to misconstrue what I have just written and claim I am a loonies a psycho or a supporter of breivik or his views knock yourselves out.
I don't I am here to follow the case and get a better understanding of things.
TallbutBuxomly said:
As said in his position I would have done the same as it is the only logical option in that course of action.
If you attack the Muslims or immigrants you make them martyrs and everyone feels sorry for them and rallies round to protect them.
Attack the politicians yet the same situation except the politicians fear for their own lives and only moderately less than they would those of their kids or other peoples as displayed on here with everyone focusing it being kids.
As an added if you kill a bunch of politicians its no big deal per say as they are easily replaced by yet another bunch of people who won't listen to your views and there will be large swathes of people who dislike those killed and therefore won't feel any real sympathy or care about your cause.
logical option is therefore to go after those who are future politicians who hold opposing views to your own who everybody will feel sorry for.
To all those of you on here who are now going to misconstrue what I have just written and claim I am a loonies a psycho or a supporter of breivik or his views knock yourselves out.
I don't I am here to follow the case and get a better understanding of things.
What is the difference, in your opinion, between what you describe and the Taliban in Afghanistan who target their own people for colluding with the west or trying to pursue 'western values'? Both opposite ends of the same spectrum surely?If you attack the Muslims or immigrants you make them martyrs and everyone feels sorry for them and rallies round to protect them.
Attack the politicians yet the same situation except the politicians fear for their own lives and only moderately less than they would those of their kids or other peoples as displayed on here with everyone focusing it being kids.
As an added if you kill a bunch of politicians its no big deal per say as they are easily replaced by yet another bunch of people who won't listen to your views and there will be large swathes of people who dislike those killed and therefore won't feel any real sympathy or care about your cause.
logical option is therefore to go after those who are future politicians who hold opposing views to your own who everybody will feel sorry for.
To all those of you on here who are now going to misconstrue what I have just written and claim I am a loonies a psycho or a supporter of breivik or his views knock yourselves out.
I don't I am here to follow the case and get a better understanding of things.
TallbutBuxomly said:
As said in his position I would have done the same as it is the only logical option in that course of action.
If you attack the Muslims or immigrants you make them martyrs and everyone feels sorry for them and rallies round to protect them.
Attack the politicians yet the same situation except the politicians fear for their own lives and only moderately less than they would those of their kids or other peoples as displayed on here with everyone focusing it being kids.
As an added if you kill a bunch of politicians its no big deal per say as they are easily replaced by yet another bunch of people who won't listen to your views and there will be large swathes of people who dislike those killed and therefore won't feel any real sympathy or care about your cause.
logical option is therefore to go after those who are future politicians who hold opposing views to your own who everybody will feel sorry for.
To all those of you on here who are now going to misconstrue what I have just written and claim I am a loonies a psycho or a supporter of breivik or his views knock yourselves out.
I don't I am here to follow the case and get a better understanding of things.
I don't follow that logic to be honest. If you attack the Muslims or immigrants you make them martyrs and everyone feels sorry for them and rallies round to protect them.
Attack the politicians yet the same situation except the politicians fear for their own lives and only moderately less than they would those of their kids or other peoples as displayed on here with everyone focusing it being kids.
As an added if you kill a bunch of politicians its no big deal per say as they are easily replaced by yet another bunch of people who won't listen to your views and there will be large swathes of people who dislike those killed and therefore won't feel any real sympathy or care about your cause.
logical option is therefore to go after those who are future politicians who hold opposing views to your own who everybody will feel sorry for.
To all those of you on here who are now going to misconstrue what I have just written and claim I am a loonies a psycho or a supporter of breivik or his views knock yourselves out.
I don't I am here to follow the case and get a better understanding of things.
Imagine WW3 starts, It's the West Vs the Muslim World (which is a scenario presented by others on another thread)
Will Breivik's actions have helped the West's Battle? No.
If he killed Muslims - Possibly.
So in that hypothetical world (which is the one which Breivik desires) he's not helped his 'Cause'.
I cannot see the logic for his target.
GentleFellow said:
I think you have to start with the idea that murdering civilians is immoral and non-logical, in every instance. Murder in itself cannot be justified morally, and to say that the consequences Breviek's actions will be positive disregards any relative or friend of the 77 victims. I can 'see' why Breviek did what he did but it wasn't logical. That's what most people here don't agree with.
War isn't murder. You have to look at it from that standpoint to find logic in his actions.GentleFellow said:
Is this misconstruing you?
I think you have to start with the idea that murdering civilians is immoral and non-logical, in every instance. Murder in itself cannot be justified morally, and to say that the consequences Breviek's actions will be positive disregards any relative or friend of the 77 victims. I can 'see' why Breviek did what he did but it wasn't logical. That's what most people here don't agree with.
Imagine this. If you became a MP, and I was worried about the popularity of your politics; I decided to acquire firearms, travel to the Ayia Napa beach on which you and your football off-season friends were holidaying, with all their children, and I shot them all dead with my slit-eyed, chubby, balding face, shot all dead except you; then I put my arm around your shoulders, and watched the tears cascade down your face, as you blubbed at the barabarity of my despicable rampage... and then I said: "That was the only logical way to stop you." What would you say?
I think you'd feel that I'd behaved a bit strangely; you'd probably have wanted me to go on a march or protest outside your Barking offices instead of killing everyone you knew.
Then consider that I next decapitated you before surrendering to police; being taken to court, and being filmed claiming I murdered all your friends and family as 'self defence'. Would that also be weird?
I should point out that the picture I have painted is entirely hypothetical, and that I have no intention of physically harming any living creature, yourself included. But I do hope that my words have injured the reinforced armour, which you have built around your persoanl beliefs. You are entitled to your views about this massacre, and I don't think think less of you as a person for holding them. But I do think that due to being not very intelligent, you have been influenced in such a way that has made you see your views about Breviek as reasonable. If I have misinterepreted your points across this thread then I apologise, and offer you this final piece of advice:
Consider what you post about Breviek next because I am sure you are not the dangerous person the police will think you are, as they read your comments.
I really dont care what the police think of my comments. Last time i checked i live in a free country where you are allowed freedom of speech and opinion though many would most likely disagree these days.I think you have to start with the idea that murdering civilians is immoral and non-logical, in every instance. Murder in itself cannot be justified morally, and to say that the consequences Breviek's actions will be positive disregards any relative or friend of the 77 victims. I can 'see' why Breviek did what he did but it wasn't logical. That's what most people here don't agree with.
Imagine this. If you became a MP, and I was worried about the popularity of your politics; I decided to acquire firearms, travel to the Ayia Napa beach on which you and your football off-season friends were holidaying, with all their children, and I shot them all dead with my slit-eyed, chubby, balding face, shot all dead except you; then I put my arm around your shoulders, and watched the tears cascade down your face, as you blubbed at the barabarity of my despicable rampage... and then I said: "That was the only logical way to stop you." What would you say?
I think you'd feel that I'd behaved a bit strangely; you'd probably have wanted me to go on a march or protest outside your Barking offices instead of killing everyone you knew.
Then consider that I next decapitated you before surrendering to police; being taken to court, and being filmed claiming I murdered all your friends and family as 'self defence'. Would that also be weird?
I should point out that the picture I have painted is entirely hypothetical, and that I have no intention of physically harming any living creature, yourself included. But I do hope that my words have injured the reinforced armour, which you have built around your persoanl beliefs. You are entitled to your views about this massacre, and I don't think think less of you as a person for holding them. But I do think that due to being not very intelligent, you have been influenced in such a way that has made you see your views about Breviek as reasonable. If I have misinterepreted your points across this thread then I apologise, and offer you this final piece of advice:
Consider what you post about Breviek next because I am sure you are not the dangerous person the police will think you are, as they read your comments.
My "views" are merely an assessment of what I believe he was thinking feeling and trying to achieve. If people wish to think I am simple for stopping and actually thinking about his actions and why he undertook them instead of just dismissing his actions as those of a madman and moving on with life then I am not the simple one.
His thought process to my mind was perfectly logical and clinical to have the required effect. To use yet another terrible example, if there is something wrong with my car i dont simply take it round to a mechanic.
I work out what it is, broken window, flat tyre, engine misfiring etc and i then work out who it would be best to take the car to, to get the desired result.
A sign of maturity and intelligence is being able to have the common sense to stay calm and assess a situation with a view to cause and effect.
davepoth said:
GentleFellow said:
I think you have to start with the idea that murdering civilians is immoral and non-logical, in every instance. Murder in itself cannot be justified morally, and to say that the consequences Breviek's actions will be positive disregards any relative or friend of the 77 victims. I can 'see' why Breviek did what he did but it wasn't logical. That's what most people here don't agree with.
War isn't murder. You have to look at it from that standpoint to find logic in his actions.In my book they are all murderers.
s1962a said:
This wasn't war. Unless you count the actions of the 9/11 or July bombers as part of a 'war' as well.
In my book they are all murderers.
We could get hopelessly philosophical here. Who is to say who is the enemy and who is right versus who is wrong. To the july or 9/11 bombers it was a war to us it was an atrocity. Who is to say our view was right and theirs was wrong. Who is to say any of us are right in the grand scheme of things..In my book they are all murderers.
s1962a said:
What is the difference, in your opinion, between what you describe and the Taliban in Afghanistan who target their own people for colluding with the west or trying to pursue 'western values'? Both opposite ends of the same spectrum surely?
As said in my above post it is all very subjective and philosophical who is right in their thoughts, beliefs and actions versus who is wrong.Quite frankly the taliban like many others are hopelessly hypocritical in their thoughts and actions.
You could also apply a great deal of flexibility and philosophy to rules of war etc.
My argument here is everything is open to interpretation and a requirement for understanding.
stinkysteve said:
I don't follow that logic to be honest.
Imagine WW3 starts, It's the West Vs the Muslim World (which is a scenario presented by others on another thread)
Will Breivik's actions have helped the West's Battle? No.
If he killed Muslims - Possibly.
So in that hypothetical world (which is the one which Breivik desires) he's not helped his 'Cause'.
I cannot see the logic for his target.
You are looking at it from the wrong angle.Imagine WW3 starts, It's the West Vs the Muslim World (which is a scenario presented by others on another thread)
Will Breivik's actions have helped the West's Battle? No.
If he killed Muslims - Possibly.
So in that hypothetical world (which is the one which Breivik desires) he's not helped his 'Cause'.
I cannot see the logic for his target.
His goal was maximum impact to get his views heard. It was to put it in a simplified way intensely selfish thinking purely of his own beliefs and that people should pay attention and react to.
You therefore break down how to create the maximum impact both nationally and internationally to highlight "your "issues. If you kill someone, who is anyone anywhere in the world going to care about regardless of race colour nationality etc? Innocent children.
Will anyone "truly care" or be shocked about the death of a bunch of 40-60 year old politicians (there are regular tragedies and atrocities around the globe where there are multiple adult deaths no one really pays them any attention) who are variably liked and disliked both within Norway and around the world? No because no one really likes politicians. ( not trying to be funny or glib or mean just a social observation)
If you kill the people who you see as causing the problem who the politicians are trying to welcome into the country and support all you do is make them "victims" that the incumbent government will go to even further lengths to protect and placate.
His actions have made him and his issues internationally famous and talked about. Maximum impact desired maximum impact achieved.
Edited by TallbutBuxomly on Friday 20th April 13:23
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff