Q: How would you view your own current political standpoints 15 years ago?
A: I would most likely think I was a complete nut job due to the fact that I was ignorant
about most issues then.
This guy is pure evil, you don't need to label him otherwise. You don't need to turn this into a debate about whether christians can be terrorists. These kind of arguments represent the very kind of reasoning that leads him to justify his own actions. The kind of debate going on in this thread amongst the usual idiots (sorry to the non-idiots posting in this thread) only demonstrates that dogmatism leads to over the top reactionism.
I've read about 80 pages of his manifesto. I'm not pleased with myself that I'm doing what he wants (he wants his message out there), but I need to understand the root of his evil. In short, he's pissed off that his nation and culture is open while muslims, regardless of nation, are closed, and the muslims are infiltrating the open nations but remain closed to their adopted nations' mores. He sees it as a cultural and religious war, somewhat like the skinheads in the good ole' USA. He just happens to have done well in mainstream society while hiding his views, he wasn't a recluse. In fact he was quite gregarious.
Another quote from the source:
Q: Do you oppose all aspects of multiculturalism?
A: No, I don’t. I support the continued consolidation of non-Muslim Europe and an
unconditional support to all Christian countries and societies (Israel included), in addition
to continuing our good relationships with all Hindu and Buddhist countries. (then he says muslims can stay if they drop their culture and religion)
And again:
Q: Name seven traits you consider most important as a cell operative:
A: Ideological confidence, patience, the ability to motivate yourself, keeping sensitive
information to yourself, resourcefulness, being pragmatical and insightfulness in your
own psyche.
Finally:
Q: How would you describe yourself as a person?
A: I consider myself to be a laid back type and quite tolerant on most issues.
Due to the fact that I have been exposed to decades of multicultural indoctrination I feel
a need to emphasise that I am not in fact a racist and never have been.
Last edited by Kjesse; 07-24-2011 at 08:15 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
Q: How would you describe yourself as a person?
A: I consider myself to be a laid back type and quite tolerant on most issues.
Due to the fact that I have been exposed to decades of multicultural indoctrination I feel
a need to emphasise that I am not in fact a racist and never have been.
I'm not trying to insinuate that it is a creation of media/government, but rather that the 'fear' associated with them is.
I would argue the use of the word caricature where you used it says otherwise.
If the jihadist is real why would you refer to him as a caricature?
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
While Breivik has confessed to the attacks, he denies that he is criminally responsible.
I would expect that his first court date is going to be fairly quick, but I have no doubt that he is going to see this trial as his bully pulpit.
I think its going to be really tough for him to defend himself on state of mind considering his manifesto, his ability to plan a fairly complex plan and his lack of mercy when he was shooting people trying to flee.
I'm still convinced that he had help though, this was an oklahoma city bomb, and while its fairly easy to find the recipe for building a fertilizer bomb on the net (I just did, hopefully the cops don't bust my door down tonight) The timing of this attack was planned out in detail, and he clearly had either gathered or had someone gather intelligence for him.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The timing of this attack was planned out in detail, and he clearly had either gathered or had someone gather intelligence for him.
Disagree. Though could be wrong but I don't think so.
If Lee harvey Oswald taught us anything. One man by himself can take out a President and almost get away with it.
To be successful in this thing he would have had to keep the loop small. The most secure would have been a loop of one. He could have been planning this for a long time, enough to work out the details.
You're only going to hear much more of this mantra "multiculturalism has failed" in Europe, its been said by French, German and UK leaders very recently before all this occured.
Because of this incident? Though you may well hear how multiculturalism has failed but I really doubt it will be because of this incident. This was the work of a lunatic. Muslim immigration was the excuse he used (uses) to justify hsi actions, but if that had never occurred I think his deranged mind would have come up with another reason to do something.
While Breivik has confessed to the attacks, he denies that he is criminally responsible.
I would expect that his first court date is going to be fairly quick, but I have no doubt that he is going to see this trial as his bully pulpit.
I think its going to be really tough for him to defend himself on state of mind considering his manifesto, his ability to plan a fairly complex plan and his lack of mercy when he was shooting people trying to flee.
I'm still convinced that he had help though, this was an oklahoma city bomb, and while its fairly easy to find the recipe for building a fertilizer bomb on the net (I just did, hopefully the cops don't bust my door down tonight) The timing of this attack was planned out in detail, and he clearly had either gathered or had someone gather intelligence for him.
It's impressively planned but like the 9/11 attacks, it wouldn't take a genius to do it. . . . . . . just patience and attention to detail. . . . . . and a nation that was overconfident and wasn't paying enough attention.
The most complicated part would be building the bomb and you found the instructions yourself on the net easy enough.
I'm sure all his associates will be vetted thoroughly but I don't see why its difficult to believe one person could do it.
What stands out solely for me is, even if you have strong convictions, going about killing 90 teenagers through an hour and a half, continuing to pull that trigger even after the initial thrill/shock of seeing the first of them exploding and falling. At some point, you would think some kind of mental fatigue would set in, that the screams would create some self-doubt. But he kept at it.
A well-motivated, sane person could have done the bomb and started the attack on the island but only a truly insane one could have kept hunting and shooting for another hour or more.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Cowperson For This Useful Post:
A well-motivated, sane person could have done the bomb and started the attack on the island but only a truly insane one could have kept hunting and shooting for another hour or more.
But by all accounts this man is the definition of sane. Rationalizing an attach such as this under the moniker of 'insane' only reduces the man's culpability and allows us the freedom to understand the events through the explanation of it being not understandable.
A more honest approach would be to digest this man's sanity committed in the context of these events. There's no shortage of evidence of perfectly sane men committing unspeakable acts of violence. Were all the men of the SS by your definition insane? I would have to think not considering the scale and depth of the organization.
All too often we associate evil with insanity but that couldn't be more wrong it does a terrible disservice to the truly insane who are by no means evil.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
Perhaps he started off more or less relatively sane while beginning the planning of this, but his grip on reality was lost before it came to fruitation? I don't think sanity (or insanity) is always a case of one second you have it, and the next second it is gone. I think it is often a gradual change and something that builds on itself.
It will be interesting to see if he actually does plead insanity, because if he does, it will erase his political objective and would make it all for naught. If his convictions really are as strong as he wants people to believe, then no way would he want people to think he is insane.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
What stands out solely for me is, even if you have strong convictions, going about killing 90 teenagers through an hour and a half, continuing to pull that trigger even after the initial thrill/shock of seeing the first of them exploding and falling. At some point, you would think some kind of mental fatigue would set in, that the screams would create some self-doubt. But he kept at it.
A well-motivated, sane person could have done the bomb and started the attack on the island but only a truly insane one could have kept hunting and shooting for another hour or more.
Cowperson
I don't know if that bears out when related to history, not everyone who mass murders is irrational, for the most part history tells us that the worst maniacs are merely politically committed or cause committed. Most of the members of Pol Pots organization were committed to a political cause and saw the removal of elements of society as a requirement to meet thier ends.
Not every war criminal in Hitlers army or in Bosnia or the soldiers shooting protesters in the middle east are thrill killers or joy killers who kill for an irrational need to kill, they see themselves as executing their duty for the greater good.
In this case when you look at his beliefs and manifesto, this guy is a political animal,he has an overpowering belief in his politics and believes that his beliefs will usher in a better era for his country and for Europe, so the human element where you would suddenly realize that you were wrong would never enter into the equation.
I doubt that sadism even entered his formula, he was sadly able to transcend his doubts and literally overcome his humanity for what he saw as the greater good.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
"The accused believes that he needed to carry out these acts in order to save Norway and Western Europe from, among other things, cultural Marxism and Muslim takeover," Judge Kim Heger told journalists after a 40-minute hearing.
Quote:
He also said during the hearing that there were two other "cells" involving like-minded individuals in Norway.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
What bothers me is that Norway's prison system is notoriously soft and the maximum sentence if only 21 years. Maybe I'll be wrong but I can't imagine the Norwegian people being okay with this guy living in such comfort and being free at the age of 53.
I think the examples provided by Tinordi and Capn' Crunch are reflective of sane individuals within the contest of institutional insanity.
In those cases cited, there's certain peer and society pressure as perhaps some fear as well of what might happen to you from that institution if you don't obey orders.
In this case, it appears its a sole individual who came up with the plan, the method and then the acts itself.
Having said that, there was no institutional pressure behind him after the first half dozen or 15 went down . . . . . and the screaming and begging for mercy of children continued for dozens and dozens and dozens more for a lengthy period of time.
I see a lone individual without those institutional pressures to keep him going. You might cite the "not guilty" plea today as evidence of institutional pressures or justifications.
I just don't.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
It's impressively planned but like the 9/11 attacks, it wouldn't take a genius to do it. . . . . . . just patience and attention to detail. . . . . . and a nation that was overconfident and wasn't paying enough attention.
The most complicated part would be building the bomb and you found the instructions yourself on the net easy enough.
I'm sure all his associates will be vetted thoroughly but I don't see why its difficult to believe one person could do it.
What stands out solely for me is, even if you have strong convictions, going about killing 90 teenagers through an hour and a half, continuing to pull that trigger even after the initial thrill/shock of seeing the first of them exploding and falling. At some point, you would think some kind of mental fatigue would set in, that the screams would create some self-doubt. But he kept at it.
A well-motivated, sane person could have done the bomb and started the attack on the island but only a truly insane one could have kept hunting and shooting for another hour or more.
Cowperson
Psychopaths don't fatigue mentally from harming others, I think they are actually energized. This guy certainly sounds like a psychopath. They have no capacity for empathy, so the screams would do nothing beyond making him aware of his "power". But he also seemed rational and aware of his actions.
Psychopaths are an interesting phenomenon. How do you treat them? Is it possible for their lives to have any value, even to themselves?
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
What bothers me is that Norway's prison system is notoriously soft and the maximum sentence if only 21 years. Maybe I'll be wrong but I can't imagine the Norwegian people being okay with this guy living in such comfort and being free at the age of 53.
Well, at least there is this (from the Herald article posted):
Quote:
She said the country's General Civil Penal Code gives the state prosecutor the right to seek an extension of sentences beyond the 21-year maximum for up to five years at a time, on the condition that the inmate is deemed to be a "high risk" of repeating serious offences.
Psychopaths don't fatigue mentally from harming others, I think they are actually energized. This guy certainly sounds like a psychopath. They have no capacity for empathy, so the screams would do nothing beyond making him aware of his "power". But he also seemed rational and aware of his actions.
Psychopaths are an interesting phenomenon. How do you treat them? Is it possible for their lives to have any value, even to themselves?
Not everyone that does this kind of act is a psycho path, I think that we're way too easy to label people that can do the whole kill without remorse and without stopping with that label.
This was a guy that was politically motivated to the extreme, he was a Stalin personality based in a smaller framework.
Stalin ruthlessly applied a political theory to a real world society.
This person ruthlessly applied political theory to his own action plan.
There are too many aspects that show that he was rational, especially in his planning and the execution of his plan.
He was calm, not because he was nuts, but because he was executing a well thought out plan.
If you read his manifesto where he talks about the innocent dying, I didn't read it as sadistic, or a requirement for him, I read it as him tranlsating the neccesity of his political reality to the victims.
This cat is dangerous because he's not crazy, he's a crusader.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I think what's happening here is that he is dehumanizing his victims by seeing his act in political terms - they are not "children" or "people", but left-wing "sheep" who are part of the establishment that have sold out "his country" to Muslims, Marxists, what-have-you... Was this not a Labour Party event he targeted? He didn't choose a random summer camp, but specifically chose a "political" event - these people are not "people"; they are "traitors", "enemies", "socialists", etc. Stalin didn't kill "people"; he killed "enemies", "exploiters", "traitors to the Motherland", etc.
Not everyone that does this kind of act is a psycho path, I think that we're way too easy to label people that can do the whole kill without remorse and without stopping with that label.
I'd agree with this. I think a lot of peolpe want to label him as psychopath because they don't want to accept that regular fully functioning people are capable of these acts. They don't want to think that they themselves might be capable of these acts.
We, therefore, have a natural compulsion to separate ourselves and humanity from these peolpe by labelling them as "psychopaths". The jury is obviously still out on this guy, but "psychopath" is a very strict definition that many murderers don't fit.
