Terrorist Attack in Oslo, Norway

[Starsoul]

Bin Laden was an outsider, & part of a violent culture bent on destruction, rather than a deranged individual.

:clap this isnt the last time bias creeps through such statements,you don't get to diss 'violent culture' to a handpicked cia puppet ploy, when you yourself come from the country which has the biggest crime rate ever.

 

[Starsoul]

First: are you suggesting the nineteen 9/11 hijackers should have been called an "individual"? Second: who exactly has refrained from calling him a terrorist? Of course he is a terrorist.

I am not suggesting that, the Americans do, all the time, in every debate/discussion that happens here or there, they blame him for all their worries, all their ills, all the chaos in the world.. yeah he is a terrorist but what i'm pointing at is, that even after having islam's name associated with bin laden's terror for no good reason for so long, you will hardly see the muslims, or their media calling this norwegian nut a christian terrorist. There is no christian bashing going on here, like the one that is faced by muslims all over the world just because of bin laden. Hope you understand now.

 

[Revoltingest]

:clap this isnt the last time bias creeps through such statements,you don't get to diss 'violent culture' to a handpicked cia puppet ploy, when you yourself come from the country which has the biggest crime rate ever.

What does bin Laden's belonging to a relatively small & violent organization have to do with the crime rate here?
I honestly can't understand what you're objecting to or why you seem miffed about the treatment of Breivik.
Do you have some point to make....something you could clearly state?

.....even after having islam's name associated with bin laden's terror for no good reason for so long, you will hardly see the muslims, or their media calling this norwegian nut a christian terrorist. There is no christian bashing going on here, like the one that is faced by muslims all over the world just because of bin laden. Hope you understand now.

It would seem that you want to downplay the relationship between Islam & bin Laden's terrorism, while making a big deal of Breivik's Xianity.
You can't have it both ways. Religion played a role in both of their crimes. Breivik is a Christian terrorist & bin Laden is a Muslim terrorist.
The big difference I see is that Breivik appears to be less sane, & more erratic. That would suggest different methods in addressing his flavor of violence.

 

[Copernicus]

What does bin Laden's belonging to a relatively small & violent organization have to do with the crime rate here?
I honestly can't understand what you're objecting to or why you seem miffed about the treatment of Breivik.
Do you have some point to make....something you could clearly state?

I don't agree with your attempt to portray Breivik as an isolated individual. He was very much a member of right wing terrorist groups, and that became clear in his huge manifesto of quotes from right wing hate literature. That literature has long sought to tar liberals as sympathizers of terrorism and Communism, and it was the target of that literature that Breivik pointed himself at, not Muslims. Breivik is a symptom of a social illness that infects large numbers of people who are just less insane than he is. The fact that he stepped over the brink, rather than just up to it, does not make him an isolated phenomenon.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't agree with your attempt to portray Breivik as an isolated individual. He was very much a member of right wing terrorist groups, and that became clear in his huge manifesto of quotes from right wing hate literature.

You miss my point that bin Laden was the head of an organization which carried out mayhem in a widespread & methodical fashion.
Breivik differs in that it appears he acted largely alone. I don't judge which is worse. But recognizing differences can be useful for prevention.

That literature has long sought to tar liberals as sympathizers of terrorism and Communism, and it was the target of that literature that Breivik pointed himself at, not Muslims.

Meh....terrorists & thugs can find a home on both the left & right.
That isn't the fault of the peaceful majority on the left & right.

Breivik is a symptom of a social illness that infects large numbers of people who are just less insane than he is. The fact that he stepped over the brink, rather than just up to it, does not make him an isolated phenomenon.

No argument here. That is actually my main concern with him & his ilk....that their violence should be prevented to the extent we can in a free society.

 

[Copernicus]

You miss my point that bin Laden was the head of an organization which carried out mayhem in a widespread & methodical fashion.
Breivik differs in that it appears he acted largely alone. I don't judge which is worse. But recognizing differences can be useful for prevention.

It is true that bin Laden was originally the beneficiary of money, arms, and training from a well-known superpower at the beginning of his career of violence. I'm not saying that there aren't differences, but the real danger from terrorism is not from al Qaeda, but from al Qaeda wannabes. Breivik was part of a different social support group--the McVeigh wannabes.

Meh....terrorists & thugs can find a home on both the left & right.
That isn't the fault of the peaceful majority on the left & right.

It is when there is a well-funded, well-organized campaign to vilify one side of the political spectrum. You pride yourself in not watching Fox News and similar propaganda outlets, but I still recommend you waste some heartbeats on doing that more often. It might open your eyes as to just what some of the "peaceful majority on the right" are up to these days. Their drumbeat on the Breivik mass murder was that it was an isolated incident that had nothing to do with their own campaign of hatred.

No argument here. That is actually my main concern with him & his ilk....that their violence should be prevented to the extent we can in a free society.

We are very much in agreement on this point, but part of that prevention requires people on both sides--but particularly on the right--of the political spectrum to condemn rhetoric in their own camp that can incite people like Breivik. We cannot eliminate the existence of deranged lunatics or weapons of mass destruction. But we can stop some of the nutty rhetoric that encourages nuts to arm themselves and commit acts of violence.

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand how any human could act this way...

Google "Milgram experiment" and "Stanford prison experiment," Sahar. Our civilized behaviour is a thin veneer. It doesn't take much to bring out the kind of behaviour we saw on Utoeya in otherwise normal people.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Google "Milgram experiment" and "Stanford prison experiment," Sahar. Our civilized behaviour is a thin veneer. It doesn't take much to bring out the kind of behaviour we saw on Utoeya in otherwise normal people.

Why then do we find it so rare and shockng?

 

[Valjean]

Social controls evolved over millenia, and perhaps a military outlet for anti-social tendencies.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is true that bin Laden was originally the beneficiary of money, arms, and training from a well-known superpower at the beginning of his career of violence. I'm not saying that there aren't differences, but the real danger from terrorism is not from al Qaeda, but from al Qaeda wannabes. Breivik was part of a different social support group--the McVeigh wannabes.

I see'm all as dangerous. Why exclude al Qaeda?

It is when there is a well-funded, well-organized campaign to vilify one side of the political spectrum. You pride yourself in not watching Fox News and similar propaganda outlets, but I still recommend you waste some heartbeats on doing that more often. It might open your eyes as to just what some of the "peaceful majority on the right" are up to these days. Their drumbeat on the Breivik mass murder was that it was an isolated incident that had nothing to do with their own campaign of hatred.

I see enuf hatred & vilification on both sides of the aisle. It's not that I've never watched Fox & MSNBC, but rather that I always find both offensive for the same reasons.

We are very much in agreement on this point, but part of that prevention requires people on both sides--but particularly on the right--of the political spectrum to condemn rhetoric in their own camp that can incite people like Breivik. We cannot eliminate the existence of deranged lunatics or weapons of mass destruction. But we can stop some of the nutty rhetoric that encourages nuts to arm themselves and commit acts of violence.

Since I live in an area where lefties bombed an FBI office, torched the ROTC building & The Unabomber got his education,
I'll continue to see both sides as capable of fomenting violence. But your larger point is correct...don't encourage violence.

 

[bobhikes]

Why then do we find it so rare and shockng?

The authority figure we put our trust in is rarely a socialpath.

These experiments were designed to show what happens if you have bad leadership ie Hitler.

 

[Copernicus]

I see'm all as dangerous. Why exclude al Qaeda?

What gave you the impression I was excluding al Qaeda? My complaint is that all the attention paid to Muslim terrorism distracts us from a far greater threat--that of domestic terrorism. That is not to diminish the threat posed by radical Muslims, but to put it in a more realistic perspective.

I see enuf hatred & vilification on both sides of the aisle. It's not that I've never watched Fox & MSNBC, but rather that I always find both offensive for the same reasons.

I think you may be engaging in what Paul Krugman--I know. Not your favorite commentator--has called the "cult of balance". People tend to feel that they must blame both sides in every dispute as if they each had an equally valid point of view. There is far more vilification coming from the right these days, but it is politically incorrect for people to acknowledge that.

Since I live in an area where lefties bombed an FBI office, torched the ROTC building & The Unabomber got his education, I'll continue to see both sides as capable of fomenting violence. But your larger point is correct...don't encourage violence.

There is no question that extremism from either side is a danger. The threat from the left was very real in the 1960s and 1970s. I was in the midst of the riots that occurred at Ohio State in the period of the Kent State shootings, so I am by no means trying to exonerate leftist extremism. It is just that extremism does not seem to be much of a threat from the left in these times. Most extremism seems fueled by religious and right wing political causes. The main problems on the left come from those who provoke rioting at WTO meetings or engage in eco-terrorism or animal rights terrorism. And you just don't hear much about them in comparison to other types of terrorism.

 

[Revoltingest]

What gave you the impression I was excluding al Qaeda?

Your statement: "..... but the real danger from terrorism is not from al Qaeda, but from al Qaeda wannabes."

My complaint is that all the attention paid to Muslim terrorism distracts us from a far greater threat--that of domestic terrorism. That is not to diminish the threat posed by radical Muslims, but to put it in a more realistic perspective.

It makes sense to pay attention to all real threats, eg, domestic & foreign, left & right, religious & even us non-religious types.

I think you may be engaging in what Paul Krugman--I know. Not your favorite commentator--has called the "cult of balance". People tend to feel that they must blame both sides in every dispute as if they each had an equally valid point of view. There is far more vilification coming from the right these days, but it is politically incorrect for people to acknowledge that.

Or perhaps I'm avoiding Krugman's partisan laden approach....a "cult of blaming my foes & exculpating my friends".
"Balance" is not the issue.....think of seeing traits in common with all threats, rather than equivalence of them.

It's interesting that you bring up this issue. I've noticed that sometimes when lefties will accuse righties of sins which afflict both,
my admonishment will be met with the accusation of saying these sides & sins are "equivalent". This is an easy straw man to attack,
since equivalence is virtually impossible. But it is to misrepresent or misunderstand the attempt to fight demonization of a single
side, & recognize those traits which afflict all sides. Btw, I'm not saying that you do this....just I'm reminded of the problem.

There is no question that extremism from either side is a danger. The threat from the left was very real in the 1960s and 1970s. I was in the midst of the riots that occurred at Ohio State in the period of the Kent State shootings, so I am by no means trying to exonerate leftist extremism. It is just that extremism does not seem to be much of a threat from the left in these times. Most extremism seems fueled by religious and right wing political causes. The main problems on the left come from those who provoke rioting at WTO meetings or engage in eco-terrorism or animal rights terrorism. And you just don't hear much about them in comparison to other types of terrorism.

It depends on what interests the media which one frequents. It doesn't matter to me whether the left or the right exhibits greater sin at the moment.
I object to the prevalent attitude that it's always the other side which causes the trouble.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Since we started this discussion I've gotten a few questions about the Norwegian penal system and I thought it would be best to start a separate thread to deal with that.
So, here is a short rundown of how the Norwegian penal system works: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/european-politics/118636-about-norwegian-penal-system.html

 

[Rakhel]

Yeah, I heard he wants the government to resign and the throne to be abdicated before he'll talk about anything. I thought that was kinda funny.
Suspected Norway gunman Anders Behring Breivik demanded government's resignation during interrogation - NYPOST.com

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yeah, I heard he wants the government to resign and the throne to be abdicated before he'll talk about anything. I thought that was kinda funny.
Suspected Norway gunman Anders Behring Breivik demanded government's resignation during interrogation - NYPOST.com

As his lawyer said it: "He doesn't have the same view of reality as the rest of us."

 

[Copernicus]

What is so striking and so scary about these people is that they are not stupid. They are irrational, but their craziness does not prevent them from being lucid and methodical. I am thoroughly convinced by Michael Shermer's argument in Why People Believe Weird Things that smart people are very good at defending dumb ideas--in their own minds, at least. The ideas appear dumb to other people, but not to them.

It is easy to dismiss irrational people as merely human aberration, but we all suffer from some delusional beliefs--those that we are reluctant to give up even in the face of overwhelming counterevidence. Breivik is an individual who suffers from a very extreme case of our normal tendency to see patterns in reality that do not really exist. What makes beliefs delusional is the extent to which we work hard to ignore counterevidence. So we end up with lots of people who believe crazy things, and some of those people among us are dangerously deluded.

 

[Chisti]

This man isn't crazy or deluded. His is a right-wing ideology taken to its logical conclusion.

 

[Father Heathen]

This man isn't crazy or deluded. His is a right-wing ideology taken to its logical conclusion.

Most conservatives I know, as wacky as their views are, wouldn't massacre children.

 

[Copernicus]

This man isn't crazy or deluded. His is a right-wing ideology taken to its logical conclusion.

But what do you think "delusion" means? If this man is not deluded, then who is? Everyone is more or less deluded about something. The best of us strive to think critically--to question and challenge our beliefs, even core beliefs. Breivik strikes me as a person who is totally incapable of challenging his own beliefs. Strong beliefs are not delusions unless there is an abundance of counterevidence. They become delusions when no amount of counterevidence can cause us to question them.