Major explosion/bomb in Oslo
Discussion
GentleFellow said:
davepoth said:
War isn't murder. You have to look at it from that standpoint to find logic in his actions.
War is state sanctioned, not initiated by indivduals. Logic is not subjective.TallbutBuxomly said:
His actions have made him and his issues internationally famous and talked about. Maximum impact desired maximum impact achieved.
I know what you're saying but why not attack a Muslim School, Or an Islamic equivalent of 'Sunday School' (i know it'd be a friday 
), or an Islamic Children's Camp site? i'm certain the horror we all feel would have been the same if 70 Muslim children had been killed.I don't know the answer and i accept i probably never will.
The more i watch the reporting of the trail the more i realise we're hearing the 'Story', not the case. I guess that's normal though.
The reason i quoted that part of your post Talbot is to flag something up.
He's Infamous, not famous. It's an important difference.
Bill said:
It is also unusual for soldiers to go out of their way to deliberately kill 77 unarmed civilians. And if they did they would end up in front of a war crimes tribunal.
Absolutely but that point is the mental ability to point a gun at a living human and pull the trigger thereby ending their life. Claiming that soldiers are therefore completely different to Breivik is incorrect unless you are claiming we all have it within us mentally to point a gun at someone and kill them.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.
He seems to have had a more specific aim than "destabilise through general terror", namely to "cripple the Labour party's ability to govern Norway in the future".Given that he's almost certainly killed more than one future MP his strategy may well be sickeningly rational as well as just plain sickening.
stinkysteve said:
I know what you're saying but why not attack a Muslim School, Or an Islamic equivalent of 'Sunday School' (i know it'd be a friday ), or an Islamic Children's Camp site? i'm certain the horror we all feel would have been the same if 70 Muslim children had been killed.
I don't know the answer and i accept i probably never will.
The more i watch the reporting of the trail the more i realise we're hearing the 'Story', not the case. I guess that's normal though.
The reason i quoted that part of your post Talbot is to flag something up.
He's Infamous, not famous. It's an important difference.
Yes but internationally infamous seemed grammatically incorrect however happy to stand corrected and agreed on that point. ), or an Islamic Children's Camp site? i'm certain the horror we all feel would have been the same if 70 Muslim children had been killed.I don't know the answer and i accept i probably never will.
The more i watch the reporting of the trail the more i realise we're hearing the 'Story', not the case. I guess that's normal though.
The reason i quoted that part of your post Talbot is to flag something up.
He's Infamous, not famous. It's an important difference.
As to attacking a muslim school you still have the same issue. Yes people will be mortified you killed kids BUT you will garner sympathy for those you see as the problem (muslims/immigrants)and furthermore the government will then potentially make moves to fight the corner of those who he felt are part of the problem muslims/immigrants which is the opposite of what he wished to achieve.
Breivik said that the victims were in no way innocent, they were brainwashed to fit the purpose of the party. He sees the leading party as a rightful enemy, and wanted to wipe it out, including the future of the party. As an added bonus killing youngsters, apparently he tried to avoid killing children under 18, will be very emotive and result in worldwide coverage.
He and his likes sees the politicians as the enemy.
He and his likes sees the politicians as the enemy.
Finlandia said:
Breivik said that the victims were in no way innocent, they were brainwashed to fit the purpose of the party. He sees the leading party as a rightful enemy, and wanted to wipe it out, including the future of the party. As an added bonus killing youngsters, apparently he tried to avoid killing children under 18, will be very emotive and result in worldwide coverage.
He and his likes sees the politicians as the enemy.
Hmmm now that is interesting wasnt aware of that. Ok so new light here. He and his likes sees the politicians as the enemy.
carmonk said:
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.
As opposed to those who agree with his reasoning if not his method? (NB I am not saying you think his attack is in any way justified.) I wonder how this thread would be going had he been a communist who'd shot a bunch of right-wingers on their holidays?If his attack means that his reasons get discussed, what message does that send out? Catch-22.
.
carmonk said:
He didn't latch on to anything, he devoted a huge chunk of his life to a specific cause.
And? He appears to have an attention span. carmonk said:
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.
This whole thread is speculation, including your assertion he's not an inadequate.carmonk said:
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.
Fact? Or your opinion.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. Should we debate their reasoning too?Bill said:
But he's latched on to the political agenda as part of his reasoning to excuse his own inadequacies.
What you talking about inadequacies? He reached level 398 on World of Warcraft and possessed the Staff of Disintegration with BFG attachment!A few other points: I haven't read his manifesto, but can anyone who has read it clarify if he is extreme Left-wing or extreme Right-wing? I mean the Chinese and Soviet commies killed a lot of innocent people and were also very nationalistic. Gordon Brown dissmissed 'Just some bigoted woman' for asking where all these immigrants were coming from yet she was a lifetime Labour supporter. Does being anti-immigration now automatically link with a right-wing mentality now, or does the Norwegian have some clear views on market forces and competition?
On the war point: My Dad probably helped kill loads of children from his Lancaster, but it was WW2 and most people in this country thought it was OK at the time. Just like lots of Germans and Italians thought it was OK to kill British kids if necessary when they bombed Britain. I don't think he volunteered to join the RAF from a neutral country because the coalition government gave the nod to Bomber command to flatten cities. His decision was part of a complicated rationalisation that included political sympathies, relatively good pay, youthful desire for excitement, optimism, and maybe some other stuff he never told me about (on reflection he thought the war was a terrible thing and regretted getting involved). A lot of other people did the same thing and in a broad context it was acceptable. If no-one thought so now we surely wouldn't have Trident submarines.
Finally, on the understanding motives issue: As I recall events, after the July 7th London bombings the British government allocated funding to some Muslim groups with the aim of improving understanding and integration. Was that factually or morally wrong?
Edited by Fantic SuperT on Friday 20th April 14:15
fluffnik 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.
He seems to have had a more specific aim than "destabilise through general terror", namely to "cripple the Labour party's ability to govern Norway in the future".Given that he's almost certainly killed more than one future MP his strategy may well be sickeningly rational as well as just plain sickening.
Bill said:
carmonk said:
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.
As opposed to those who agree with his reasoning if not his method? (NB I am not saying you think his attack is in any way justified.) I wonder how this thread would be going had he been a communist who'd shot a bunch of right-wingers on their holidays?If his attack means that his reasons get discussed, what message does that send out? Catch-22.
You're missing the point by your last statement. If it takes the death of 77 civilians to prompt a discussion on arguably the greatest societal change in a country's history then the fault doesn't lie with a one-off murderer, it lies with the government and the fascist suppression of free speech in that country.
Bill said:
carmonk said:
He didn't latch on to anything, he devoted a huge chunk of his life to a specific cause.
And? He appears to have an attention span. carmonk said:
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.
This whole thread is speculation, including your assertion he's not an inadequate.Bill said:
carmonk said:
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.
Fact? Or your opinion.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. Should we debate their reasoning too?carmonk said:
fluffnik said:
He seems to have had a more specific aim than "destabilise through general terror", namely to "cripple the Labour party's ability to govern Norway in the future".
Given that he's almost certainly killed more than one future MP his strategy may well be sickeningly rational as well as just plain sickening.
The aims of terrorists can extend past simple destabilisation, but my point is that Breivik's actions have no connection to spree killers or lunatics who take leave of their senses or decide one day to teach people a lesson. Given that he's almost certainly killed more than one future MP his strategy may well be sickeningly rational as well as just plain sickening.
I should probably have used methodology rather than aim.
Breivik's killing spree was most certainly not conceived as an end in itself, it was a way to serve his greater purpose.
carmonk said:
As you say, there is a clear rationale behind what he did and the terrible nature of his crimes can't detract from that. A lot has been learned by studying these people in the past, and indeed many professionals devote their careers to it, so I find the calls for the world to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend this never happened to be illogical at best.
Indeed.It amazes me how few people seem to be aware of the rational behind his actions despite them being in the public domain before the smoke had cleared.
TallbutBuxomly said:
As to attacking a muslim school you still have the same issue. Yes people will be mortified you killed kids BUT you will garner sympathy for those you see as the problem (muslims/immigrants)and furthermore the government will then potentially make moves to fight the corner of those who he felt are part of the problem muslims/immigrants which is the opposite of what he wished to achieve.
again, i know what you're saying, and that was probably his 'logic'.Considering that logic though, and extending it;
1. He knows his actions would have increased 'sympathy' for the Labour Party?
2. What would his 'supporters' or others backing his 'cause' have thought of his target. Anti-immigration/far right groups would find it easier to support his 'action' if he had targeted the enemy, would they not?
It's entirely possible he didn't think this far, or he disregarded these points, or he considered these points and decided they were outweighed by the others you mention. Your supposition as to why he choose that target is probably fairly accurate.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Hmmm now that is interesting wasnt aware of that. Ok so new light here.
It's a quite "normal" train of thought, if you can't reason with them, try to beat them. Many here on PH have thought about and posted what they would like to do with politicians that ruin the county, 99.9% of the people have a mental block or a line that they won't cross, some do not have this block and the disaster is a fact.
Breivik even drugged himself to become more aggressive.
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.
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.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Finlandia said:
Breivik said that the victims were in no way innocent, they were brainwashed to fit the purpose of the party. He sees the leading party as a rightful enemy, and wanted to wipe it out, including the future of the party. As an added bonus killing youngsters, apparently he tried to avoid killing children under 18, will be very emotive and result in worldwide coverage.
He and his likes sees the politicians as the enemy.
Hmmm now that is interesting wasnt aware of that. Ok so new light here. He and his likes sees the politicians as the enemy.
The claim that he tried to avoid killing under 18s is new AFAIK, but nothing else...
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.
This is 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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff