Understanding the motives of a twisted monster is not the same as countenancing them. For example, one psychologist interviewed Jeffrey Daumer (the mass murderer/cannibal who preyed on homosexuals and ate their organs) and tried to understand why he did it. The scientific attempts to understand motivations of various criminals (ranging all over the map, including the most ghoulish) among other things helps us to more effectively prevent their occurrence again. If I were locked in a building with a complex time bomb, I'd prefer a man of reason to be with me who can keep his cool to figure out how to save lives, instead of emotionally labile individuals who panic and rail and rant.
And I assume y'all were equally consternated and morally outraged after Mumbai, London, Madrid, 911, et cetera ad nauseam... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hesperado: I just took a quick look at your blog, which you advertised here. Please confirm for me that you are seriously entertaining the notion that this act of mass murder could have been a plot by Muslims.
Hmm...there is no political motivation that would cause me to shoot children. I might shoot them if they were threatening my life, but that's a bit different-and they'd have to present a credible threat. Obviously a bombing kills indiscriminately, and I don't support terrorism. This was cold, deliberate, one-by-one slaughter of unarmed, fleeing children. You don't try to understand or delve into the complexity of the motives of suicide bombers if they are of the Muslim faith that's good enough for you...but here, this man... You want to understand and empathize with... You're talking about this right-wing white-supremacist terrorist very differently than you discuss not-Christian, Not-white terrorists. Ignoring the fact that their violence is substantially similar. Would you care to explain why what this Norwegian guy did deserves different treatment from what the latest Mumbai attackers did?
What he did was terrible but it's not hard to understand what would lead to this monstrous act." It is apparently a "mounstrous act" but an understandable one. And you think this is "apt"? What do you deem the disease? This man's ideology or what led him to it [ie his hatred of migrants, Islam, non-whites]? You mean the 'it's terrible but understandable' when you both discuss what this terrorist has done? But your concerns are not that it is a bad thing full stop - that the ideology behind this is bad. You feel that it is a bad thing because he shot "the movement" in the foot - in other words, you feel that his actions are bad because he: "essentially handing a propaganda victory on a silver platter to the very same PC MCs he supposedly intelligently recognizes as being a problem." And this is after all the 'understandable' comments in your blogpost.. I personally found your post disturbing (when coupled with your views on Islam and the left), it puts you in a whole new light Mr Hesperado. But this is not what you are doing. Nor was it what you were doing in your blog. But we know the broad reasons behind why he did it. He has posted and blogged about it for a while now. Your blog and the links you posted merely try to justify it and pass the blame onto others, to the point where you speculate that it could be a Muslim plot and how the search for that link should never stop. And how do you think this can be prevented from happening again? Do you have a suggestion on how to prevent white christian supremacist from acting out on what they deem to be "necessary"? How do you prevent this: "He wanted a change in society and, from his perspective, he needed to force through a revolution," Mr Lippestad said. "He wished to attack society and the structure of society." Give his and your ilk what you want? Deport all non-whites and Muslims? You just described the terrorist Mr Hesperado - ie - he was very cool and calm as he hunted down those children on that island for nearly 2 hours.
You should perhaps take into account that discussions on the motivation of islamic extermists has been so widespread (this forum being a case in point) that a great many people are as sick of hearing it being used as an excuse. I wonder if I would find a rant against "understanding motivation" in an islamic terrorism thread were I to search through all your posts? Or perhaps you saved it for this one? Did you feel safer posting it here? Having read the posted article, I found myself in some agreement with the first point. While the motivations of islamic terrorists have become abundantly clear through repeated examination, those of an increasingly disenfranchised western viewpoint are not. Substantially more rare, as well. That, in itself, is going to generate a lot of discussion about this incident. It is also more of interest to hear of it coming from one of "your own". Of course people are going to be interested in his motivation. This is, predominantly, a western forum. The question becomes one more of "I understand islamic terrorism, I have had it explained to me... why did this man do something like this?" That this particular man felt such an act necessary indicates there are a great many who feel the same and do nothing. Yet that viewpoint is far more commonly and easily dismissed. While it becoming increasingly common for westerners to feel they should understand more about islam, and, furthermore, perhaps even mandatory that they do, anti-islamic sentiment is still dismissed as being a phobia without any real attempt to give it the same consideration. There is an imbalance. As opposed to a suicide bomber who blows up an embassy, or a nightclub, you mean? You're going to nitpick the degree of innocence lost in a mass killing now? This man actually shows a kind of bravery and dedication not displayed by his islamic peers... he was promised no eternal reward, no istishhad. It is not clear yet as to whether or not he acted completely alone... but what is clear is that there are more than a few reasons why this man is more interesting than yet another islamic terrorist bombing.
Interesting that the word "hatred" has become a mandatory description of any terrorist. I don't believe that this should necessarily be the case.
Well well, look what the drunk possum dragged in! How are you Marquis? There is a difference between trying to understand what could motivate someone to terrorism and understanding their motivation. If you get my drift? Mr Hesperado has very vocal blogs, all of which concentrates much on what angered the terrorist. Read through some supremacist sites and the message and their desire is clear. The desire to commence the battle, as they see it.. What Breivik has done is what they talk about doing.. You want an even better examination? Read Breivik manifesto. He also has a bomb making manual in it, you know.. to make sure his fellow brothers and sisters taking up the fight against Governments that allow multiculturalism and Islam onto their shores are prepared. From personal small bombs to large truck bombs and tips on how to disguise it. Because this is the war they apparently need to have. As he comments.. this was "necessary". He has a 1500 page explanation. Reading it gives a whole new insight into this man's psyche. Almost makes me want to re-implement the death penalty and I am anti-death penalty. Well I think supremacists and nationalists will now be getting quite a bit more attention. Which is what Mr Hesperado was complaining about on his blog. Oh please! How brave is it to shoot at hundreds of unarmed children and teenagers who are stuck on an island with no way off? This is his eternal reward. Now tomorrow he gets to spout more about how this was necessary.. He is a knight in his eyes, implementing the new Crusades.
I was commenting on the assumption, not your use of the word in this case particularly. I haven't read anything this man has written, so I haven't formed an opinion as yet.
Oh there is hate. Much much hate. Page 1164 gives a rousing speech about the coming revolution.. There is a lot of hatred there. And it makes for disturbing reading. He is also into copying the works of others.
Well enough. Trying to get into a certain frame of mind again after a few months of blank indifference. Lucy, actually. Sent me an email, and now I'm trying to remember how to write before I reply. Breaking out the WD40, as it were. Absolutely. But does this mean one should discount all of the points made in that article, based on the viewpoint that that of an extremist (or, in this case, someone sympathetic to one) can not have any validity? And this site, as an example, has many threads devoted to analysing the motivation behind islamic fundamentalists and extremists. He's entitled. It is, for example, quite clear that SAM has a rather sympathetic and understanding viewpoint regarding islamic terrorism, as much as she claims she "abhors" it; this is much the same. And yet one is given far more respect than the other. I find this in itself very interesting and indicative of a trend in the western mindset. Those who care enough to post on a website about it. Do you not, however, find that for every one of those, there are thousands more leading their lives in quiet frustration? Meh. I'm not likely to. Bravery, Bells, is not limited by definition to those acts you might perceieve as being heroic. It is basically any act which one might perform (usually from loyalty or belief in something) in spite of the knowledge that it will cause harm to one's self. He has, effectively, given up his life for this... despite the fact that he isn't actually dead. Whether or not you might agree with his cause, or the act he performed, it was certainly a brave one. In case you are wondering, yes I do apply the same criteria to islamic suicide bombers - although I think that he has trumped them on this point. He now has to remain to face the consequences of his own actions and certain vilification. Islamic martyrs do not have to worry about such things.
Hopefully the WD40 is only for the err typing hand. At this point, nothing can really be discounted. The prevailing message is that they can understand why he would be motivated to do this. But they also try to justify it. Mr Hesperado touches on it briefly, but having a look at his other haunts, previous and current, the overwhelming feelings is one of disgust because he is putting what they perceive as their plight and mission at risk, but also because he killed so many white children to 'it was horrible but you can't really blame the fellow, he'd had enough'.. type of responses. I am well aware of the mentality that drove him to do this. And he will not be the last. He has set the challenge for others to follow. I can see you have not been around much. You speak as if we are conditioned to accept one and not the other. Both are equally unacceptable. I cannot sympathise with his motives as I cannot sympathise with those of a suicide bomber in Israel for example. Oh I think there is a lot of frustrated knights type wannabe's. Breivik saw this as a campaign. The twitter comment - it read like he was the brave one going out to do what 100,000 only spoke of doing.. The hero. What is clear is that those who feel frustrated blame everyone else for this and not Breivik himself. He is portrayed as almost being a victim of circumstance that led him to do this. It is mad. It lectures. I see him more like a coward. He has not done anything brave. He has put his ideology on the central pedastal. He now holds the country by the nose as he makes them wait until he gives his explanation. The manifesto. He doesn't think he has caused harm to himself. He has made his issue world wide news. I respectfully disagree. He knows he will be forever known by those who follow his ideology as the man who tried to commit a revolution. There is no bravery when one's sole cause is to harm and bring death to innocents to bring your beliefs into the limelight. I again disagree about the criteria. There is no bravery in killing innocent people for one's ideology, no matter what that ideology is. And he trumped them because the world always blamed them for that kind of extremism. You mean vilification from the evil West and he now has the ability to say 'I told you so' to his fans.. I don't believe that those who murder innocents are martyrs. To me they are cowards because true martyrs would not harm others, especially innocent and defenseless children. This man specifically went after children and teenagers whom he knew had no way to defend themelves against him. And he believes it was "necessary". So any consequences that he ends up having to face will not be a concern. This was all "necessary" to him.
To be fair, he does posit that as the least likely of the three scenarios--also, it be a plot by Muslims and/or disaffected Leftists/Anarchists--and that to pursue it any further, sans evidence, would be to engage in conspiracy mongering. I'm more curious to know why Ward Churchill is "treasonous" (and Noam Chomsky and Lynne Stewart as well, for that matter). I can guess why he might think Lynne Stewart so, but I'm not entirely clear as to the other two.
I doubt it. I don't really understand them either. At one point I thought I understood it out of economic motivation. In the Palestinian's specific individual cases and in their individual lives I can sometimes understand it...rage coupled with despair. I don't think it does the Palestinians any good. I think Israel uses it against them, and they need to stop it. Oppression I understand to a degree. Religiously-motivated terrorism I don't understand though. Not at all. For me to kill someone I'd need to be in fear for my life or have an extremely personal motivation. When I realized the only way to create my political dream of anarcho-syndicalism was to kill a lot of people I gave it up. I won't say I'm a pacifist, sometimes one has to fight...but I don't know what sort of political goal would motivate me to take up arms for it. Mostly I favor the value of human life over political ideal. Not so much that...as I rather thought it would be easier to kill by parking a car bomb and walking away...than if one is sniping terrified children. The degree of disconnect from one's basic humanity here, is, I guess, what I was looking at.
Nonsense. He placed a bomb in Oslo to occupy the police, and chose an island for his murder of 85 unarmed kids so that there was zero danger to him for two hours. He may have planned to escape by small boat after he had killed all, but the "uncooperative kids" hid in bushes or tried to swim to safety so the killing took longer than he may have planned. That killing rate is only 2 kids every 3 minutes - I bet he expected to kill at least 3 kids ever 2 minutes and be safely off the island half an hour before the police could get there. (I have been boating in Oslo Fiord* twice, about where that island is, and always in late summer there were many dozens of small boats in sight.) If the kids had cooperated and he killed everyone on the island and threw all cameras he could find in the Fiord, his identity would probably never been learned. He show a great deal of pre-planning to make little risk for himself - brave as like shooting fish in a barrel is brave! It takes a lot more courage to strap on a suicide bomb vest and pull the trigger. US soldiers rarely take 100% certain death actions, like "hold this bridge until you are killed" to slow the enemy's advance and are exposed to zero danger when killing 85 people by dropping bombs from a B-52 at 30,000 foot altitude, like in Vietnam, etc. ----------- * Norwegians call any long realtive narrow inlet from the sea a "Fiord." - It does not need to have steep walls like most on the West coast do. Hell they would probably call the Chesapeake Bay the "Baltimore Fiord."
Was he a white supremacist? I just read an article stating that he had no problem with immigrants who assimilated. That doesn't sound very white supremacist to me.
http://news.intelwire.com/2011/07/andrew-berwick-manifesto-may-be-linked.html His manifeso was fount on St0rmfront. Sounds like he might be as much or more anti-Muslim. Which considering the right-wing would like to claim this was a Muslim plot? The irony here's enough to give you hyperemia.
Think back on what it was like to be bullied by Christians. Intensify their hatred ten times, and you get self-righteous terrorists.
But I didn't understand them either. They were so smug and superior. I don't enjoy putting myself in a one-up position, or one-down. I don't like hierarchy. I don't like authority, I don't like being authority. Equality, Liberty, Fraternity, y'all.
