Perhaps you could clarify what "brave" means to you. It is defined as: "Having or displaying courage, resolution, or daring; not cowardly or timid" I'd think that anyone that has reason understands what this man did was not an act of "bravery" but an act of cowardice. He only attacked unarmed people mostly of whom were young adults enjoying a camping trip together. If you still feel that he was a brave man by doing this massacre then you really have a very big problem as to determine what is right and wrong. I do hope you take some time and seek medical attention from those in the mental health field for you are out of touch with reality and should try to find out what your problem is. To me by making such a statement you are saying that you agree with what this man did since you see it as a brave act on his part which makes me think that you are also in league with people like him that want to do harm to others that cannot defend themselves. While it is true there are many people out there that do exactly the same thing but are from different religions or political viewpoints, they are still wrong in their methods of seeking a resolution to their grievances.
I agree and in post 56, using personnel experience on the Oslo Fiord, near this island, I explained why it is highly likely that he expected and planned the act so he could kill all on the island an never get caught. I don't know if that makes him a coward, but certainly is far from "brave."
Except that Christianity is not separable from such things. This is a country with a state church, after all.
The fact that it was posted to St0rmfront doesn't necessarily mean he was a white supremacist, unless they have a rule against posting about people who aren't white supremacists. He's a wacko, just like the Unabomber, Bin Laden, etc., so I'm not going to bother reading his manifesto. I just recall reading an article claiming that he wasn't particularly concerned with immigrants who assimilated. Don't know if that's true or not, but I read it.
True, but perhaps misleading. Yes you automatically become member of the Norwegian Church (basically Lutheran), at birth, unless you (or your parents) "opt out." That Chuch is not very important to many, probably most, Norwegians - a place to get married, probably go for Christmas and Easter, etc. but not much more, unless you are a seaman. In most of the world's significant ports you will find a small branch of the "Seaman's Church" funded by Norway. When sailors come to port, they have few days to celebrate, get drunk, find some women, etc. and not rarely, some end up in the local jail. One of the main duties of the social worker associated with the church is to assure local authorities that if they are leased from jail, they will be back on the boat when ship leaves port again, typically after 2 or 3 days. (Often they are taken direct to the ship from jail on the departure date. - Not sure of the legalities, but it helps all concerned - lowers jail costs, etc. so local authorities some times call the Seaman's Church to ask for this "export service") When I lived in Baltimore area, one of my best friends had this job. He put a big trunk full of books on a ship for me and several months later his counter part in the the port of Santos, Brazil, called me to say the trunk had arrived. I drove down, with a bottle of very good whiskey as thanks, and claimed my trunk. The Seaman's Church does many things like this for Norwegians (my wife at the time, not me) all over the world. If you can speak Norwegian, you can get help in most major ports of the world if you need it.
You have to read the manifesto. If it is in fact he who wrote that montrosity, then there is no way in hell he can be pro-immigration. I stopped on page 1335. There is only so much I could take and the explanations of how it is best to kill the majority and not the minority and how to do it.. yeah.. it is a monstrosity. He saw immigration as a cause of the destruction of Norway. It's why he went after the Labour Party both with the bombing and the massacre - because he sees them as the cause - they are very pro-immigration. While this man is a wacko, because of what he believes and how he acted, he isn't crazy. But he is as much of a fanatic and supremacist like other killers of his ilk are.
Well, the French Jacobins added Lunacy to the Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity... Thanks, but I prefer being a harmless nutter...
Your look was a wee too quick -- or you would have read this: "Until, however, we have evidence of such a [Muslim] plot, we cannot indulge in its likelihood, else we would be succumbing to conspiracy theory ourselves. (Update: Lawrence nicely articulates this problem: scroll down in that link [to the reply of "LA" i.e., Lawrence Auster) to "Laura".] And if we begin to think that the establishment -- the Norwegian government, law enforcement and its news media (along with Western news media in general) -- is part of a cover-up of an Islamic cause of this terrorist attack, we would begin to slip into the very same mindset that may have motivated Breivik himself (if Theory #1 is correct, which it most likely is)."
I don't think Breivik's motivation was purely "political". He was also obviously insane. You want to understand and empathize with... 1) I don't want to understand his motives, personally. I'm just saying, that with mass murderers and serial killers, understanding their motives helps in preventing similar acts. 2) I do try to understand the complex motives of jihadist mass-murderers (and Muslim enablers of murder and mass-murder); and I've noticed that the current Western PC MC culture consistently (and often rather willfully) leaves out of the equation Islam -- which is irrational. Not only irrational, but downright potentially reckless. There are virtually no non-Christian non-white terrorists in the world who are not also Muslim. That's because the differences outweigh the superficial similarities. The Norwegian guy is a lone wolf. The Mumbai event involved a commando team, furthermore instructed by more people by cell phone; furthermore quite probably involving individuals in the Pakistani government; furthermore of a piece with Islamic terrorism around the world in terms of shared fanaticism scripted by a blueprint of Islamic tenets and texts. It's like comparing John Wayne Gacy to Hitler. Sure, they both mass-murdered people. But there are important differences as well. If PC MCs like you hadn't been massively whitewashing the Islam factor involved with terrorism and other heinous atrocities around the world committed by Muslims (as well as crowds of thousands of Muslims supporting such grotesqueries as the killing of a novelist for "blasphemy" or a schoolteacher for naming a teddy bear "Muhammad" or a cartoonist for Crissakes for drawing a mocking drawing of Mohammed) -- and then adding insult to injury by vilifying those of us who try to call attention to that Islam factor as "bigots", "haters", "racists" and "fascists" -- then maybe I'd feel a tad sympathetic to your line of logic.
On my own behalf and that of other insane people, F you. Over a billion followers of a religion, maybe 5-10,000 at most who commit violence on its' behalf. But because of the 10 k in your world the over a billion are suspicious. Look at it from a practical perspective, then. Treating all Muslims as potential terrorists turns the terrorists into needles in a haystack. Treating them as the individuals they are divides them and allows inroads into the community, good relations WITH the community...meaning they themselves may well tell us who the needles in the haystack are. Do you understand this? This is the approach I advocate and a lot of counter-terrorism experts advocate. People like you cause them to close ranks. This decreases the likelihood that the Muslim community will report "one of their own." Unless they define us as friends. In which case they are telling a friend about a threat, not "ratting someone out." Do you understand this? As I see it, treating them as individuals...makes better sense than lumping them together. Engagement is safer. Hold your friends close and your enemies closer? and so the way to know who my enemies are among the vast amount of Muslims that are not is to engage the entirety of Islam's followers with some respect.
Same goes for the entire modern West. Unlike the Muslim world, where religiosity has a much more profound hold on people in a variety of sociocultural and psychological ways. But PC MCs can't process that distinction, because it goes against their ideological Box, and if they start to think it, their dogmatic paradigmatic wiring will start to smoke, fizzle and spark. Error... error.... basic Axiom #7413 under threat -- "All People and Cultures are Basically the Same and Non-Western Culture is Better than Western Culture"...!
If people started to treat you like you were like the Oslo murderer, would you "close ranks" and support him? Of course not. Muslims have no excuse for "closing ranks" the way they do all over the world. I'm still waiting for a mass demonstration or riot where Muslims are screaming their disapproval of the latest massacre by their fellow Muslims. Your numbers are way low by the way -- you're either deliberately, or ignorantly, ignoring scads of atrocities and demonstrations of support for atrocity by Muslims around the world for years, decades, centuries.
Hesperado: Why even mention it? Obviously you consider it a real possibility. But on the other hand you say you have no idea of how likely a possibility it is. Did you just want to take a free swipe at those evil Muslims, then, in passing, as it were? All the indications are that he was and is not insane. In particular, all indications are that he is mentally competent to stand trial.
Well, that's a little simplistic of the profound, convulsive and complex changes France went through, throughout the 19th century, after little Napoleon was finally smacked down.
The largest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia. I wouldn't say that the degree of religiosity there is "profound". Not for most people. What's a PC MC? And where do you get your insight into their mindset? It sounds like you think they are hardly people at all. Can you please give me a few examples of PC MCs who specifically use this argument? A few links would be good. Thanks.
Lone wolf? What an interesting term to use Mr Hesperado. A term that is well adopted and adapted to the white supremacist movement, primarily in the US. Probably not the best thread to show your true colours in, Mr Hesperado. Don't play the victim here. The victims are nearly 100 people slaughtered by a terrorist trying to call attention to your cause. No wonder you view him as a lone wolf.
Can you please give me a few examples of to substantiate this claim? A few links would be good. Thanks. (Or, if it's just a vague impression you have based on your axiomatic prejudicial belief that it must be the case, then no need to lift your little finger trying to find links.) A "PC MC" is a politically correct multi-culturalist. To adequately understand what I mean by that term, you'd have to read a few of my essays on my blog. But actually, unlike quite a few in the still amorphous anti-Islam movement, I believe PC MCs are mostly relatively sincere, decent and intelligent people. That's what makes their myopia to the problem of Islam that much more problematic (if not grievously annoying). What you quoted wasn't an argument; it was sarcastic mockery of a position I have seen in various forms over the years many times.
Indeed. And it really pisses me off that not just plain ol' Right Wingers have co-opted that phrase, but the most belligerent and intolerant sorts seem especially fond of it! I'm ok with the black cat symbol for my own causes, but as I am part-canine and I've spend about fifty percent of my time on this planet literally out in the middle of freakin' nowhere with only my dog and my harmonium (and a few other things, of course) for company, I would really like to reclaim that expression; but I shan't for obvious reasons.
