Two dead in Oslo bombing

[Tiassa]

Olberman on the atrocity known as FOX News

Oh, the horror! Someone, please, save those helpless right-wingers from the evil liberals!

Or, Keith Olbermann on FOX News, Hitler Jungend, and the Norway atrocity.
____________________

Notes:

Olbermann, Keith. "Worst Persons in the World". Countdown With Keith Olbermann. Current TV, San Francisco. July 25, 2011. Current.com. July 26, 2011. http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-kilmeade-ingraham-and-beck

 

[quadraphonics]

Ammonium nitrate is the same stuff that was used in the Mumbai bombs. Because it is used as a fertiliser it is possible to buy it in large quantities without arousing suspicion.

Only if you have a farm, and so some legitimate need for large quantities of such, and so can obtain the required licenses. There's been an entire division of the FBI that does nothing other than monitor and investigate ammonium nitrate purchases since like the 1970's. You cannot just walk into a store and buy the stuff, in most countries, for exactly these reasons. In the USA you have to obtain a license from DHS to buy, sell or transport it.

 

[spidergoat]

It would be easier to steal it.

 

[Billy T]

I just received the following Email which starts (it is much longer):

"... Consulate General of the United States of America
www.consuladoamericanosp.org.br <http://www.consuladoamericanosp.org.br/>
acsinfosaopaulo@state.gov
Phone (55 11) 5186-7000
São Paulo, Brasil
July 26, 2011
The Department of State has issued this Worldwide Caution to update information on the continuing threat of terrorist actions and violence against U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world. U.S. citizens are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness. This replaces the Worldwide Caution dated January 31, 2011, ... "

Perhaps timing is only a coincidence, but I suspect not entirely that. - Perhaps it intends to imply that some who the US hates, for good reasons, were connected to this Norwegian tragedy?

 

[James R]

The Marquis:

Even the most guilty of child murderers still plead not guilty, just for the chance to say "I did it to get back at the bitch who deserted me". It doesn't mean he genuinely thinks he isn't guilty of the crime... it merely indicates he wants his say.

I'm only going on what his defence counsel says. But never mind that. I'm sure you're right.

If you're arguing that he actually thinks his country will think about his actions, realise he was right, and set him free with a medal for services rendered, then you're arguing he's clinically insane, in effect.
He doesn't come across that way to me.

I'd say he is disconnected with reality, but that doesn't mean he didn't know exactly what he was doing. He should face trial. He is criminally responsible.

Again, I haven't read this manifesto. But did he actually say they were deserving of their fate, or that their deaths were necessary?
The one is not the same as the other.

I haven't read it either. Why do you think the difference is important here?

I can assure you that there are those who can put aside "humanity" for a while in order to achieve an aim. You dismiss that as a form of insanity, and such a dismissal gives you comfort; yet history is replete with those who have succeeded in their aims simply because they could do exactly that.

I haven't dismissed that. Where did you get that idea?

Some of them, to you, are now the giants of history. Some are insane tyrants.
It all depends on where your sympathy lies.

No. An insane tyrant is pretty much objectively an insane tyrant regardless of his "success". Maybe you have some counterexamples, though.

Really. So the guy charging into a machine gun to save his mates, to you, is either insane or incredibly stupid.

Where do you get this stuff? Please don't put words in my mouth.

It doesn't seem to occur to any of you that perhaps that is exactly what he thought he was doing.

I don't think that killing unarmed teenagers at a summer camp is quite in the same category as charging into a machine gun to save your mates. But I look forward to your explanation of how they really are the same after all.

Tell me. Do you think it would have been any less brave for a soldier of the Waffen SS to charge into an American machine gun in world war 2 than it was for an American to charge into an SS machine gun?

No. Nor do I see any relevance to this line of argument.

Does the word "courage" only apply to those who act in your cause?

No. I have made no such statement.

No, as I said - he got attention. Simple as that.

I think you forgot that he killed 76 people.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Duke Whittaker has been banned from sciforums for 3 days for trolling and general idiocy.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Thanks James.

 

[Hesperado]

Do you not understand how the First Amendment works?

We can no more suspend other laws to benefit a religion than we can suspend a religion. Consider, for instance, that freedom of religion is not protecting Christian parents who victimize their own children by refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer. Consider, for instance, that we aren't letting abortion clinic shooters or bombers off the hook for acting according to their religious beliefs.

Do you really believe that the Constitution of the United States is strong enough to withstand those challenges, but weak enough to buckle in the face of radicalized assertions of Islam?

I don't think you understood my question. I am asking about that one part of the Amendment that speaks of the Government "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. The Amendment says the Government can't do that.

But obviously, if a religion came along attacking people willy-nilly with bombs, a supervening concern would cancel out that part of the Amendment -- namely, self-defense and law & order (not to mention treason, if the religious folks involved are U.S. citizens).

 

[Hesperado]

I'd like to know. Do you say this because you believe it, or because you yourself are desperate to be seen as moderate in order to undo the damage you perceive him to have done?

I believe the killing done in WW2 by the Allies was tragically necessary. I don't believe in the killing done by paramilitary goons like Breivik or John Brown.

I suppose if I felt the West was in thrall to evil "Leftist Elites" I might be driven to Breivik's view; but I don't. I believe the West is still fairly healthy, and that most government, police, intelligence and news media people are relatively good, decent and intelligent people -- albeit stuck in a paradigmatic Box that causes them to whitewash Islam reflexively. But I'm confident they'll shake off that twitch in the coming decades, through the normal process of waking up to the Reason they already have, albeit complicated by their rather recent and artificial worldview.

Since my sense is that the West is this way, I consider someone who believes in a mass conspiracy of "Leftist Elites" so strongly they plan for years to mass-murder, and then actually carry it out, to be insane (among other things): i.e., gravely out of touch with reality.

 

[Hesperado]

So something like Ku Klux Klan Christianity?

I wouldn't consider the KKK "Christian" under the dominant orthodox standard -- but they certainly had Christian flavor and were a heterodox sect or splinter off of Christianity.

And I certainly support the extended efforts by the U.S. government over the decades (before and after the F.B.I. was formed) to thwart them and bring them to justice -- i.e., to supervene the idea that the U.S. government is powerless to "prohibit the free exercise" of the KKK's purported "religion" (if they had one).

 

[The Marquis]

No. Nor do I see any relevance to this line of argument.

Clearly not. Furthermore, you wouldn't bother looking for it.

Never mind. A fleeting visit it was always intended to be.

 

[James R]

The Marquis:

The most important question you need to answer is this one:

I don't think that killing unarmed teenagers at a summer camp is quite in the same category as charging into a machine gun to save your mates. But I look forward to your explanation of how they really are the same after all.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

It's obviously meant to represent the culprit's perspective.

 

[Billy T]

... But obviously, if a religion came along attacking people willy-nilly with bombs, a supervening concern would cancel out that part of the Amendment -- namely, self-defense and law & order (not to mention treason, if the religious folks involved are U.S. citizens).

I am glad you recognize that freedoms guaranteed in the constitution are not absolute, (religious and political freedoms included), when they destroy the rights of others also guaranteed in the constitution.

Many years ago, Chief Justice Marshal put this well: "Your freedom to swing you arms ends just where my nose begins."

Under the mistaken guise that his religious and /or political freedoms were absolute, even imposing an honorable duty one him, this mass murderer did much more than bloody someone's nose.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

I don't see why everybody's trying so hard to throw in some religious motive. Religion seems to have the smallest role in this.

 

[The Marquis]

The Marquis:

The most important question you need to answer is this one:

Already have, James.

 

[nietzschefan]

I don't see why everybody's trying so hard to throw in some religious motive. Religion seems to have the smallest role in this.

Anti-Religion if anything.

 

[James R]

Already have, James.

The question was asked in post #185.

Since then, you have made two posts, neither of which answered the question.

Please don't tell lies.

 

[billvon]

I don't see why everybody's trying so hard to throw in some religious motive.

I think because Breivik threw an awful lot of religion into his manifesto. When a terrorist is planning a martyr mass before his act of terrorism, when he joins a militant Christian organization (the "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ", the Templars) and when he calls himself an anti-Muslim crusader - it's hard to ignore the religious motives.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

Please don't tell lies.

He might not be lying. Did you go back and read his entire posting history to see if there is an answer standing on record? No? Why not? How could you be so unreasonable as to tacitly expect him to point you to the post in order to remind you so that the question could be more easily settled?

• • •​

I don't think you understood my question. I am asking about that one part of the Amendment that speaks of the Government "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. The Amendment says the Government can't do that.

But obviously, if a religion came along attacking people willy-nilly with bombs, a supervening concern would cancel out that part of the Amendment -- namely, self-defense and law & order (not to mention treason, if the religious folks involved are U.S. citizens).

Um ... sure. Whatever you say.

At any rate, I think the American tribes will win their right to consume marijuana, psilocybin, and peyote long before Sharia law ever has a chance to take hold in the U.S.

I suppose if I felt the West was in thrall to evil "Leftist Elites" I might be driven to Breivik's view; but I don't. I believe the West is still fairly healthy, and that most government, police, intelligence and news media people are relatively good, decent and intelligent people -- albeit stuck in a paradigmatic Box that causes them to whitewash Islam reflexively.

Well, it's good to know the threshold for a guy with "many liberal views about society and politics" to start shooting the place up.

Meanwhile, I might as well take this opportunity to remind you that if your liberal views make you into a bigot, you're doing it wrong. Of course, that was clear from the outset.