Major explosion/bomb in Oslo
Discussion
Piersman2 said:
His issues weren't specifically with the Muslim's or any other immigrants.
He had no problems with a immigrants so long as they assimilated into the country.
He felt that too many were being allowed in to the country which made assimilation difficult, and he blamed the ruling government for this.
Hence the direct attack on the government and it's brainwasking institution.
P.S. and a few other nutjob ideas as well. But the crux of his propoganda as I read it is as above.
If thats the case i agree with his viewpoint but sure as hell not the way he tried to achieve it. He had no problems with a immigrants so long as they assimilated into the country.
He felt that too many were being allowed in to the country which made assimilation difficult, and he blamed the ruling government for this.
Hence the direct attack on the government and it's brainwasking institution.
P.S. and a few other nutjob ideas as well. But the crux of his propoganda as I read it is as above.
We as a society wherever we are in the world need to recognise people have different beliefs lifestyles etc and we also need to recognise and be willing to discuss it and the issues of immigration like adults with a view to making it better??? or i suppose maybe to phrase differently more harmonious to the indigenous population of any given country.
Sadly most governments are clueless and inept.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Piersman2 said:
His issues weren't specifically with the Muslim's or any other immigrants.
He had no problems with a immigrants so long as they assimilated into the country.
He felt that too many were being allowed in to the country which made assimilation difficult, and he blamed the ruling government for this.
Hence the direct attack on the government and it's brainwasking institution.
P.S. and a few other nutjob ideas as well. But the crux of his propoganda as I read it is as above.
If thats the case i agree with his viewpoint but sure as hell not the way he tried to achieve it. He had no problems with a immigrants so long as they assimilated into the country.
He felt that too many were being allowed in to the country which made assimilation difficult, and he blamed the ruling government for this.
Hence the direct attack on the government and it's brainwasking institution.
P.S. and a few other nutjob ideas as well. But the crux of his propoganda as I read it is as above.
We as a society wherever we are in the world need to recognise people have different beliefs lifestyles etc and we also need to recognise and be willing to discuss it and the issues of immigration like adults with a view to making it better??? or i suppose maybe to phrase differently more harmonious to the indigenous population of any given country.
Sadly most governments are clueless and inept.
Mermaid said:
Good points. If the lowest of the low of this country were to migrate to a richer country (Switzerland or Saudi) and are seen to be abusing the hospitality of that nation, would there be a reaction eventually?
The more militant? Absolutely. Others not so as most will simply be too inept to deal with it.Look at dubai as a good example. The indigenous as it were of dubai (muslims) most likely are not huge fans of a lot of the westerners who live and work their and the way they behave however they and possibly more so those in charge allow it as it brings in revenue.
TallbutBuxomly said:
The more militant? Absolutely. Others not so as most will simply be too inept to deal with it.
Look at dubai as a good example. The indigenous as it were of dubai (muslims) most likely are not huge fans of a lot of the westerners who live and work their and the way they behave however they and possibly more so those in charge allow it as it brings in revenue.
You mean the 20,000 odd indigenous people compared to over a million immigrants.Look at dubai as a good example. The indigenous as it were of dubai (muslims) most likely are not huge fans of a lot of the westerners who live and work their and the way they behave however they and possibly more so those in charge allow it as it brings in revenue.
Bill said:
carmonk said:
Whatever he says he is a terrorist and I can't see any connection between him and any spree killer that I know of.
I remain unconvinced, but perhaps you're right. In which case he is similar to the 7/7 and 9/11 attackers, albeit alive, convinced his cause is worth the deaths of innocents.- Breivik's victims were not random innocents
- Breivik had no intention of becoming a martyr
Breivik had no intention of dying in a shoot out with police; he didn't want to die and he was in no way motivated to kill them.
Bill said:
Should we debate their reasoning too?
carmonk said:
Absolutely we should.
...because if we don't we'll fall into the trap of thinking terrorists are terrorists which does nothing to help combat any of them.
fluffnik said:
...because if we don't we'll fall into the trap of thinking terrorists are terrorists which does nothing to help combat any of them.
Hence why i say he is not insane.
I suspect that the decision that Norway have taken to try him through the conventional courts is beginning to pay off. He is not being treated as a 'special' or 'extraordinary' terrorist and the more he talks the more he sounds simply like a sick f
k.
To be honest I think the best punishment he will receive is when someone manages to crack the delusion he has constructed and induce a moment of clarity.
k.To be honest I think the best punishment he will receive is when someone manages to crack the delusion he has constructed and induce a moment of clarity.
stinkysteve said:
Making clear the lack of justification, or that the justification is simply that of a mad man, needs to be emphasised at every opportunity.
Even though that's not true?Breivik has shown his working.
You might not agree with his analysis, indeed you might find it objectionable, but he has explained the reasoning behind his actions.
...and it is reasoned.
He did not go on a random killing spree, he shows no symptoms of paranoia.
He identified the ongoing hegemony of the Norwegian Labour Party as the source of his "problem" and systematically and ruthlessly attempted to excise it.
Insomuch as he has almost certainly killed several future MPs he probably, with reason, considers himself to have been at least partially successful.
We should be thankful that he did not recruit even a few soldiers to his cause...
fluffnik said:
hairykrishna said:
The military don't 'kill for money'.
Yes they do.The extent to which they do and the range of other activities varies around the world but they pretty much all 'kill (or facilitate killing) for money' in the final analysis.
hairykrishna said:
Emphatically no. Their job, i.e. what they're paid for, is to protect our society. This might from time to time involve having to kill people but it's an important distinction - in my opinion anyway.
Ok if you wish to get involved in absolute semantics then you are right. But as i have said elsewhere this military debate was brought about by the claim that soldiers are totally different to breivik. My argument is they are no different mentally. Whether backed by queen and country and sanctioned or not they are still mentally capable and willing to kill someone.TallbutBuxomly said:
Ok if you wish to get involved in absolute semantics then you are right. But as i have said elsewhere this military debate was brought about by the claim that soldiers are totally different to breivik. My argument is they are no different mentally. Whether backed by queen and country and sanctioned or not they are still mentally capable and willing to kill someone.
I disagree totally. Killing people as part of the defence of a society, even if that justification is ultimately judged 'wrong', is totally different from killing people because of a justification that you have arrived at yourself. The mindset is completely different. The second requires absolute faith that you as an individual are in the right. Such faith is indistinguishable from delusion IMO.hairykrishna said:
I disagree totally. Killing people as part of the defence of a society, even if that justification is ultimately judged 'wrong', is totally different from killing people because of a justification that you have arrived at yourself. The mindset is completely different. The second requires absolute faith that you as an individual are in the right. Such faith is indistinguishable from delusion IMO.
Too tired to give any real thought to response. Will come back to it tomorrow maybe when brain is more functional.TallbutBuxomly said:
hairykrishna said:
I disagree totally. Killing people as part of the defence of a society, even if that justification is ultimately judged 'wrong', is totally different from killing people because of a justification that you have arrived at yourself. The mindset is completely different. The second requires absolute faith that you as an individual are in the right. Such faith is indistinguishable from delusion IMO.
Too tired to give any real thought to response. Will come back to it tomorrow maybe when brain is more functional.How? You've described two sides of the same coin.
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.
Not sure about the bit regarding killing politicians. I would have more sympathy if he had burst into parliament and killed 69 MPs. I think it's just that they are generally better defended. 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.
As regards killing Muslims - then he would just be a racist/religionist. He's right that his enemy is the Norwegian government and it's multiculturalism that is allowing Islamification.
That's what's scary about him. His reasoning is there for all to see, and makes sense if you get over your natural aversion to killing children.
Reading a bit further, I also wonder how planned the Utoeya shooting spree was. From what I read earlier it sounds as though he was fully expecting to get killed or caught after the bombing.
fluffnik said:
Finlandia said:
stinkysteve said:
Is the immigration debate in Scandinavia even more stifled than in the UK?
There is no debate here, that is the reason for the massive far right wings and the likes of Breivik, because a normal debate is not allowed.Mermaid said:
Finlandia said:
As I said, there is no debate here, anyone brave enough to raise the question is silenced and branded as a racist nazi.
Does make you think who/what is to blame?Edited by Finlandia on Saturday 21st April 11:25
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff