Major explosion/bomb in Oslo

[AJS-]

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.

But is there any serious debate about say, annexing Denmark? Or a Maoist revolution? Probably not, even though I'm sure there's someone who thinks it's a good idea.

There's tons of stuff that I would change about Britain but I know that I'm simply in a minority. I believe sincerely the country is heading in the wrong direction, and would love to do something about it. In the long run I wouldn't even rule out some sort of revolt.

However I can't see any circumstances in which I would resort to this sort of action, against children. There's just no reason.

Or to put it another way. If this had happened in the worst, most genocidal regime in the world - the USSR, Nazi Germany, Idi Amin's Uganda or any other hell hole, would the killing of kids of members of the ruling party be acceptable? Absolutely not.

[Mermaid]

AJS- said:

...Or to put it another way. If this had happened in the worst, most genocidal regime in the world - the USSR, Nazi Germany, Idi Amin's Uganda or any other hell hole, would the killing of kids of members of the ruling party be acceptable? Absolutely not.

Probably happened, but we did not have 24/7 media & transparency.

[chris watton]

AJS- said:

There's tons of stuff that I would change about Britain but I know that I'm simply in a minority.

Are you, though? I suspect you're not in the minority - as with MMCC/GW, the 'great and the good' would like us minions to believe that some views are the minority, when in reality, the exact opposite may be the case - so what they do is try and nip any dissent in the bud by 'labelling' others who do not share their outlook and stigmatising them, an age old trick – they are perhaps scared of the real truth being aired, thus proving what a bunch of lily-livered charlatans the people making the choices for us are. They know they've fked up, and will do anything, even make new laws to cover up their incompetance to silence those who make them uncomfortable.

After all, what’s easier – controlling and threatening a docile Christian native population to appease political correctness, or speaking some real home truths – so you yourself will be liable for the ‘Nazi’ label and state sanctioned bullying.. Hmm..

But, of course, I could be wrong…

Edited by chris watton on Saturday 21st April 11:59

[AJS-]

chris watton said:

AJS- said:

There's tons of stuff that I would change about Britain but I know that I'm simply in a minority.

Are you, though? I suspect you're not in the minority - as with MMCC/GW, the 'great and the good' would like us minions to believe that some views are the minority, when in reality, the exact opposite may be the case - so what they do is try and nip any dissent in the bud by 'labelling' others who do not share their outlook and stigmatising them, an age old trick – they are perhaps scared of the real truth being aired, thus proving what a bunch of lily-livered charlatans the people making the choices for us are. They know they've fked up, and will do anything, even make new laws to cover up their incompetance to silence those who make them uncomfortable.

But, of course, I could be wrong…

True enough. And many more things where the majority would change their mind if they bothered to find out more about it. What can you do? I can vote for the least of available evils, I can campaign against their worst excesses, pass on information to those who are interested and hopefully one day I'll write a book about it all and be remembered as the guy who was right.

Or as I said, it might come to a point where there's an armed revolt, the government oversteps the boundaries and a sensible opposition group tools up to go and turf them out. If they seem a significant improvement then I'll join in.

What I won't do though is indiscriminately kill people who have nothing directly to do with it.

[Finlandia]

AJS- 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.

But is there any serious debate about say, annexing Denmark? Or a Maoist revolution? Probably not, even though I'm sure there's someone who thinks it's a good idea.

There's tons of stuff that I would change about Britain but I know that I'm simply in a minority. I believe sincerely the country is heading in the wrong direction, and would love to do something about it. In the long run I wouldn't even rule out some sort of revolt.

However I can't see any circumstances in which I would resort to this sort of action, against children. There's just no reason.

Or to put it another way. If this had happened in the worst, most genocidal regime in the world - the USSR, Nazi Germany, Idi Amin's Uganda or any other hell hole, would the killing of kids of members of the ruling party be acceptable? Absolutely not.

You may not resort to it, but someone will, if they are pushed over their limit. UK and Scandinavia are very different in many ways, believe me when I say that there is a big need for a debate in this matter, I don't really want to go any deeper on an open forum.

The only thing I don't really understand is why Norway, with all their wealth, in Sweden it wouldn't have been such a surprise.

[TallbutBuxomly]

Finlandia said:

Politicians are to blame for not allowing a normal debate, Breivik is to blame for killing people. If there had been a normal debate, would Breivik still have killed or not?

Edited by Finlandia on Saturday 21st April 11:25

I think this is the single most important comment or question made or raised on this thread.

Until two days ago if asked the same question I would have heavily leaned towards yes.

Now however I am not nearly as sure based on his behaviour and comments made in court.

He has from what I have read asked the relatives to leave the court whilst he describes the killings. That shows compassion.

He has stated that he did not wish to kill anyone under the age of 18 if it could be avoided I believe. (compassion)

He has also I believe at some point said he had not intended to be captured but instead be killed by the authorities.Was this because he did not wish to live with what he had done, not so much remorse/guilt for his victims as remorse/guilt for their families (odd distinction i know but its a disassociation thing the victims were the enemy their families who loved them were not)?

Yet again it would show compassion and a distinction between the humanity/life/feelings of his enemy versus those of their loved ones.Maybe this is over thinking i dunno.

Now this is an interesting one as he surrendered instead of forcing them to kill him. Was it because he was scared of dying? That is a rational fear that I think makes us all human and shows us to have emotional self awareness and scope.

These are very much the opposite of what I would expect of a true fruitloop believer in pixies and unicorns with voices in their head type person who cannot connect emotionally or rationally with others or see right from wrong.

Or is all of this part of his plan and a smokescreen? I just dont see how it could be. If it is he is an incredibly smart and cunning individual.

To me I am starting to think he just reached a limit where he felt completely detached and hopeless maybe. Where he was looking at the way things are/were and the way he saw them going and felt utterly hopeless about the future either in norway or anywhere else and wanted a way out and was maybe too scared to kill himself? Or maybe he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory in his mind and make people aware of his issues but chickened out on his own death at the last minute.

And if all above is correct then maybe open free discussion about his concerns and issues and non vilification or negativity about discussing them would have prevented this tragedy and maybe could prevent anybody else feeling the needs to carry out such an act.

I dunno I got a million thoughts and angles bouncing around in my head trying to work this one out and cant really put my thoughts/feelings into words.

Edited by TallbutBuxomly on Saturday 21st April 13:11

[fluffnik]

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.

Ah, the old "Islam is a race" schtick...

There's nothing enlightened about pandering to superstitious ignorance.

[fluffnik]

TallbutBuxomly said:

Now this is an interesting one as he surrendered instead of forcing them to kill him. Was it because he was scared of dying?

He doesn't seem to see any merit in martyrdom nor has he expressed any enmity towards the police so the fair cop option is the obvious choice.

He suggests that he should be subject to capital punishment not due to any death wish but because he sees it as the only sensible action of a society that finds him to be entirely beyond the pale...

[ExChrispy Porker]

The man is a cowardly mass murdererer, who is trying to dignify his actions.
The sooner he is locked away, the better.

[AJS-]

Finlandia said:

You may not resort to it, but someone will, if they are pushed over their limit. UK and Scandinavia are very different in many ways, believe me when I say that there is a big need for a debate in this matter, I don't really want to go any deeper on an open forum.

The only thing I don't really understand is why Norway, with all their wealth, in Sweden it wouldn't have been such a surprise.

Someone probably will, but even in my opinion (and I'm pretty right wing) they would be wrong.

[Finlandia]

fluffnik 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.

Ah, the old "Islam is a race" schtick...

There's nothing enlightened about pandering to superstitious ignorance.

Pretty much so, yes, and it's the overly PC politicians that are the real problem, not the multi-culti itself.

[TallbutBuxomly]

fluffnik said:

He doesn't seem to see any merit in martyrdom nor has he expressed any enmity towards the police so the fair cop option is the obvious choice.

He suggests that he should be subject to capital punishment not due to any death wish but because he sees it as the only sensible action of a society that finds him to be entirely beyond the pale...

That would be an entirely rational and common persons train of thought though. So are we saying he is entirely rational and therefore not mentally disturbed?

I think i may be heading towards deep philosophical thinking here again.

[Finlandia]

TallbutBuxomly said:

Finlandia said:

Politicians are to blame for not allowing a normal debate, Breivik is to blame for killing people. If there had been a normal debate, would Breivik still have killed or not?

Edited by Finlandia on Saturday 21st April 11:25

I think this is the single most important comment or question made or raised on this thread.

Until two days ago if asked the same question I would have heavily leaned towards yes.

Now however I am not nearly as sure based on his behaviour and comments made in court.

Out of the Scandinavian people that I have discussed this with, all have condemned the killings, but a majority have also come to the conclusion that he might not have done it if the politicians and media would act differently.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Do not defend this idiot. Whether or not he's insane (personally I doubt he's insane) he's a dangerous nutter who needs to be taken out of circulation.

There is NOTHING which can justify his actions.
Same as 9/11
Same as 7/7
Same as the cretinous IRA
Same as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma bomber)

[carmonk]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Do not defend this idiot. Whether or not he's insane (personally I doubt he's insane) he's a dangerous nutter who needs to be taken out of circulation.

There is NOTHING which can justify his actions.
Same as 9/11
Same as 7/7
Same as the cretinous IRA
Same as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma bomber)

What's the difference between a nutter and someone who's insane?

And if you'd read the thread you'd see nobody is trying to justify his actions.

[Mermaid]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Do not defend this idiot. Whether or not he's insane (personally I doubt he's insane) he's a dangerous nutter who needs to be taken out of circulation.

There is NOTHING which can justify his actions.

Agreed, and no one has defended his actions but in time someone surely will.

[NDA]

Mermaid said:

Agreed, and no one has defended his actions but in time someone surely will.

I think some here have got dangerously close to justifying his actions, and that is only one small step to a defence.

[Finlandia]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Do not defend this idiot. Whether or not he's insane (personally I doubt he's insane) he's a dangerous nutter who needs to be taken out of circulation.

There is NOTHING which can justify his actions.
Same as 9/11
Same as 7/7
Same as the cretinous IRA
Same as Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma bomber)

No one is defending him, but to be able to minimise the risk of this happening again, we need to understand the motive behind, and most of all the politicians will have to start being open about things.

[TallbutBuxomly]

Finlandia said:

No one is defending him, but to be able to minimise the risk of this happening again, we need to understand the motive behind, and most of all the politicians will have to start being open about things.

"snort" Fat fking chance of that happening.

[isaduck]

carmonk said:

What's the difference between a nutter and someone who's insane?

Not sure if that's rhetorical or not (my poor English, sorry).

I think 'nutter' is his case = Narcissistic & Antisocial personality disorders at the extreme dysfunctional end of the spectrum (previously known as sociopathic/psychopathic disorders); whereas legally insane = inability to tell right from wrong.

I don't think he's 'insane'. All of his comments along the lines of 'it was difficult, but necessary', indicate he knew very well right from wrong. He just didn't care.