Major explosion/bomb in Oslo

[Finlandia]

MX7 said:

Ok, I must admit that I'm not that familiar with the culture there, but if it's really that bad I find that worrying, and perhaps the most beneficial lessons that can be learnt from this are in the countries that are starting to adopt a similar level of PC as the Scandinavian countries.

Thank you for your insight.

Thanks.

Read back through my posts on this thread, they paint a bleak but unfortunately true picture of Scandinavia.
The thing is that it's not so much the multi-culti itself that is the problem, but the PC brigade that does everything to wash out the culture and history of the country and people they are in charge of, and totally ignore all problems in doing so.

[Finlandia]

MX7 said:

I must admit that I've probably missed out huge parts of the thread. It didn't look like it was really going anywhere between the fateful day and the start of the trial. Sorry!

I take what you say at face value, and it is a genuine concern that discussion can be so suppressed in some countries. Are Finland, Sweden and Denmark falling into the same trap?

It's mainly Sweden in the lead, followed by Norway while Denmark is a bit more restrictive and Finland does not really have any problems at all.

There is a party in Sweden that was voted in to parliament, they want to cut the Swedish immigration to the same level as Denmark and Finland.

Finlandia said:

In the neighbour to the East there is a party, which was elected into parliament, who tries to openly discuss these problem, only to be silenced, heckled and called nazis. It has even gone so far as to foreign national criminals have been given media time to openly incite hate towards this democratic party, even the PM said "with these racist views, you can expect violence happening".

It's not good.

[Finlandia]

MX7 said:

Wow! Well, that's not good. We read about the flaws of Scandinavian countries in our gutter press sometimes, but you always feel that they put their own spin on it.

I don't mean to doubt you, but I guess you paraphrased "with these racist views, you can expect violence happening", as I tried to read a bit more about it, and Google didn't throw up any results. Do you have a link for what was said? Thanks.

This was after a knife attack on one of the party representants.

Swedish PM said:

- Jag tar avstånd från alla former av våld och hot. Men vill gärna påpeka att de som lever på att driva upp ett vi- och dom-tänkande och ett i grunden hatfullt sätt att se på relationer mellan människor inte ska bli förvånade om sådant händer, sa Fredrik Reinfeldt.

- I reject all forms of violence and threats. But would like to point out that those who live to create an "us" and "them" mentality and have a fundamentally hateful way of looking at relationships between people should not be surprised if that happens, said Fredrik Reinfeldt.

http://www.expressen.se/kvp/reinfeldt-om-sd-attacken-de-ska-inte-bli-forvanade/

One may, or may not agree with the political views of the party, but they are a elected party in the parliament of a democracy, and must be treated as such.

[Finlandia]

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.

[Finlandia]

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.

Blair was quite individual about getting UK troops to go to war.

[Finlandia]

GentleFellow said:

Finlandia said:

Blair was quite individual about getting UK troops to go to war.

He was a member of the ruling state.

He pretty much convinced the state to go through with it all by himself though, but that's another topic for another thread.

[Finlandia]

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.

[Finlandia]

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.

[Finlandia]

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.

[Finlandia]

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.

In what way is debate suppressed?

As I said, there is no debate here, anyone brave enough to raise the question is silenced and branded as a racist nazi.

[Finlandia]

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?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Finlandia]

TallbutBuxomly said:

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.

Unfortunately I think you may be right.

[Finlandia]

isaduck said:

He knew (and knows) it was wrong, and he did it anyway.

He sees himself as a soldier at war, like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he knew/knows what he did was wrong but he did it anyway for a greater good, at least in his mind.

[Finlandia]

isaduck said:

Finlandia said:

He sees himself as a soldier at war, like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki he knew/knows what he did was wrong but he did it anyway for a greater good, at least in his mind.

Are you sure about that?

I think soldiers in war kill for many reasons. It may be they trust the powers that give the orders to see the bigger picture and know better. It may be to save their friends who are directly in harms way. It may be something else entirely. I really don't know, I've not been there. I think in general though, they feel that what they are doing is honourable (maybe not morally right, but necessary).

I don't see anything honourable in what Breivik did, any way you care to slice it. I don't think he's stupid, and I suspect he doesn't see it as honourable either.

I question why he identified himself with the Templars. Because they were an honourable group of fighters? Or because they were betrayed by their commanding power?

I think the latter & his motivation/justification (in his personal reality) was revenge pure & simple. No 'greater good' involved.

As you said, soldiers trust the leaders, Breivik trusts his revolutionary visions and his own leadership, soldiers fight for their country and friends, in his mind Breivik does the same, soldiers think it's honourable and necessary, maybe Breivik doesn't see it as honourable but certainly as necessary.

He identified himself with the Templars because he sees himself as a honourable freedom fighter (in the bigger picture), who has been betrayes by the commanding powers of his country?

He also said something about his actions being considered as terrorism now, but will be seen as heroism in 100 years.

[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.

[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.