Major explosion/bomb in Oslo

[AJS-]

Ozzie Osmond said:

s1962a said:

Hmm.. Why does he want to emulate an organisation that is the opposite of what he believes in?

Because he's a dangerous nutter.

Or because he looked at Europes huge foreign aid spending, it's open door policy towards assylum seekers and it's nervous cowardice as regards defaming Islam compared to the cavalier approach to riding rough shod over European traditions and values, and decided it's actually quite effective, so why not use the same to further his aims?

[Ozzie Osmond]

AJS- said:

...decided it's actually quite effective, so why not use the same to further his aims?

Exactly like I said, dangerous nutter.

There are much better ways to get your point across than flying aircraft into the World Trade Centre or executing other people's children.

As a modest domestic experiment, try punching a small person in the face until they say they agree with you. Then get an independent person to ask their opinion the following day. My bet is they still won't sgree with you but you've made a new enemy for good measure.

[Finlandia]

Ozzie Osmond said:

AJS- said:

...decided it's actually quite effective, so why not use the same to further his aims?

Exactly like I said, dangerous nutter.

There are much better ways to get your point across than flying aircraft into the World Trade Centre or executing other people's children.

As a modest domestic experiment, try punching a small person in the face until they say they agree with you. Then get an independent person to ask their opinion the following day. My bet is they still won't sgree with you but you've made a new enemy for good measure.

Basically there are two ways of getting a person with totally opposite views to start agreeing with you, scare them to it or bribe them to it.

[AnotherClarkey]

Finlandia said:

Basically there are two ways of getting a person with totally opposite views to start agreeing with you, scare them to it or bribe them to it.

Only if you can't demonstrate why your view is correct.

[Finlandia]

AnotherClarkey said:

Finlandia said:

Basically there are two ways of getting a person with totally opposite views to start agreeing with you, scare them to it or bribe them to it.

Only if you can't demonstrate why your view is correct.

It doesn't matter how much one can demonstrate the views to be right or wrong, views totally opposite to each other are so far apart they will never be close enough to meet in an understanding.

[AJS-]

Ozzie Osmond said:

AJS- said:

...decided it's actually quite effective, so why not use the same to further his aims?

Exactly like I said, dangerous nutter.

There are much better ways to get your point across than flying aircraft into the World Trade Centre or executing other people's children.

I agree, but one can see how it's not immediately obvious what they are.

Since Islamic terrorism has become a major threat, many western governments and organisations seem to have been going out of their way to avoid offending Islam. There has also been a tangible hostility to groups like EDL and the BNP who attempt to get their points across in the traditionally more acceptable channels. Given this, it seems rational to assume that the methods employed by Islamic fundamentalists have been successful.

[Colonial]

I'm looking forward to thread were we condone the actions of Al Qaeda under the guise of "understanding" their view.

Oh. No. Wait. That's bleeding heart left wing nonsense.

Carry on.

[AJS-]

If that's directed at me, I'm not condoning it. I'm saying that the governments implied condoning of Al Quaeda's tactics have made such things more likely from other groups.

[Colonial]

AJS- said:

If that's directed at me, I'm not condoning it. I'm saying that the governments implied condoning of Al Quaeda's tactics have made such things more likely from other groups.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but of the group it could be directed at potentially, you are the least likely to have it directed to you, if that makes any form of sense.

I'm not condoning either action. It is more a comment on how odd some threads get. Actions which directly target civilians rather than military personnel do get a very different treatment on this forum, depending on an individuals own bias.

[Finlandia]

Colonial said:

AJS- said:

If that's directed at me, I'm not condoning it. I'm saying that the governments implied condoning of Al Quaeda's tactics have made such things more likely from other groups.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but of the group it could be directed at potentially, you are the least likely to have it directed to you, if that makes any form of sense.

I'm not condoning either action. It is more a comment on how odd some threads get. Actions which directly target civilians rather than military personnel do get a very different treatment on this forum, depending on an individuals own bias.

The lesson learnt here is one that should have been known already, an open political debate is much to prefer than total suppression and acts of violence. Understanding why this happened does not equal condoning it.

[Colonial]

Finlandia said:

The lesson learnt here is one that should have been known already, an open political debate is much to prefer than total suppression and acts of violence. Understanding why this happened does not equal condoning it.

I agree completely.

My question is not about shutting down this debate. It is why understanding this is fine, when understanding Muslim terrorists attacks is just bleeding heart left wing nonsense?

[Finlandia]

Colonial said:

I agree completely.

My question is not about shutting down this debate. It is why understanding this is fine, when understanding Muslim terrorists attacks is just bleeding heart left wing nonsense?

I suppose it's easier to understand, and keep track of the reasons behind this attack, since they are fresh in history.

To even begin to understand AQ and keep track of their reasons one has to go a long way back in history, the various oil crisis, the birth of Israel and not least a total opposite view on culture, life and religion.

[Countdown]

Colonial said:

I agree completely.

My question is not about shutting down this debate. It is why understanding this is fine, when understanding Muslim terrorists attacks is just bleeding heart left wing nonsense?

Because some people sympathise with Bleivik's views on immigration/Islam and hence ask for "understanding" rather than the unconditional condemnation that such an atrocity would have attracted had it been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.

The way I see it - AB is a racist . There are many like him who are racist to varying degrees. He appears to be suffering from issues of sanity which made him think his actions were acceptable and pushed him over the line that separates those who restrict their views to demonstrations/marches from those who believe mass murder is acceptable/desirable.

[Shay HTFC]

Countdown said:

Because some people sympathise with Bleivik's views on immigration/Islam and hence ask for "understanding" rather than the unconditional condemnation that such an atrocity would have attracted had it been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.

Good point. Ironically though, some of the people saying Breivik is completely out of order would probably be the ones saying we should try and understand why the islamic fundamentalists did what they did.
It all just depends which side of the fence you sit on and which 'side' you think is being oppressed.

I think there is enough of a question about the role of immigration in the West that its no longer good enough to keep brushing the debate under the table. There seems to be an 'official' opinion that immigration and multiculturalism is a good thing. End of. And some people (Westerners) are going to get annoyed at that.

Much like America et al seem to be of the opinion that they have free right to go around the world getting involved in and basically taking control of whatever they want, and likewise, some people (non Westerners) are going to get annoyed at that.

Either way, there needs to be debate, not just the catch all situation of anyone disagreeing with immigration being called a "racist", or anyone saying America shouldn't get involved everywhere as being a bleeding heart liberal.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Tuesday 24th April 12:00

[davepoth]

Finlandia said:

I suppose it's easier to understand, and keep track of the reasons behind this attack, since they are fresh in history.

To even begin to understand AQ and keep track of their reasons one has to go a long way back in history, the various oil crisis, the birth of Israel and not least a total opposite view on culture, life and religion.

Keep going further back. The emnity between Islam and "Christianity" (the West) goes to the very beginning of Islam.

[Asterix]

Shay HTFC said:

Countdown said:

Because some people sympathise with Bleivik's views on immigration/Islam and hence ask for "understanding" rather than the unconditional condemnation that such an atrocity would have attracted had it been carried out by Islamic fundamentalists.

Good point. Ironically though, some of the people saying Breivik is completely out of order would probably be the ones saying we should try and understand why the islamic fundamentalists did what they did.
It all just depends which side of the fence you sit on and which 'side' you think is being oppressed.

I think there is enough of a question about the role of immigration in the West that its no longer good enough to keep brushing the debate under the table.
There does seem to be an opinion that immigration and multiculturalism is a good thing. End of. And some people are gonna get annoyed at that.

Much like America et al seem to be of the opinion that they have free right to go around the world getting involved in whatever they want, and likewise, some people are gonna get annoyed at that.

Either way, there needs to be debate, not just the catch all situation of anyone disagreeing with immigration being called a "racist", or anyone saying America shouldn't get involved everywhere as being a bleeding heart liberal.

Edited by Shay HTFC on Tuesday 24th April 11:57

History is littered with examples of what was seen as unreasonable and abhorent acts to force the population/authorities to think or act when the usual passive methods have failed or simply not listened too. I would imagine that women throwing themselves under racehorses, destroying property and setting off bombs was seen as outrageous but the suffragette movement felt it necessary to be that 'extreme' to force the issue. Is there a difference from a lone 'nutter' acting in such a manner or a 'movement'?

Edit: in no way am I condoning what happened - I'm far more interested in the 'why'.

Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 24th April 12:14

[Shay HTFC]

I agree.

Did you ask 'why' when people flew into the World trade centre too?

[Marf]

Shay HTFC said:

I agree.

Did you ask 'why' when people flew into the World trade centre too?

I think the whole world asked why.

[Finlandia]

davepoth said:

Finlandia said:

I suppose it's easier to understand, and keep track of the reasons behind this attack, since they are fresh in history.

To even begin to understand AQ and keep track of their reasons one has to go a long way back in history, the various oil crisis, the birth of Israel and not least a total opposite view on culture, life and religion.

Keep going further back. The emnity between Islam and "Christianity" (the West) goes to the very beginning of Islam.

True, people have always been at war with others, be it over religion, land, minerals or whatever reason they can think of. As long as money matters and religion dictates we will never see true peace from war and terror.

[Asterix]

Shay HTFC said:

I agree.

Did you ask 'why' when people flew into the World trade centre too?

Of course - although islamic/religeous fundamentalism has more of a background thus the escalation, while extreme by their own standards, was probably going to happen at some point because passive methods either weren't listened to, didn't work or didn't even factor in their thinking.