Oslo Bombing *Updated in first post*

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Thanks! Though I would join in on blaming right wing conservative Christians. Isn't it always her/their fault for these type of things? Like Tuscon.

Well, because you seem to be missing it.

Not 'always', but in the two specific cases you're talking about, yes they are.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by HOZ

It was Sarah Palin's fault.

Since this thread isn't about muslims and/or liberals and/or liberal leaning groups doing something wrong, there's probably nothing for you to see here HOZ.

The upshot: this frees up your saturday afternoon.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

but in the two specific cases you're talking about, yes they are.

See...it's Sarah Palin's fault.

Sarcasm off.

The only thing, so far, linking the two incidents it that they are young, white and had guns. I am sure the Oslo fellow will also be found to be quite insane.

The first was a non-religious lefty. The second looks to be a left wing progressive cultural-equivalency Hail Mary.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except these groups and people are more then likely going to hell because their actions and interpretations of the bible are flawed and lead to evil actions.

Don't throw these idiots in with Christianity, because they're clearly not.

The KKK murdered, thou shalt not kill.
Westboro for using the word of god to promote hate.

Etc.

I think that what you're saying is actually pretty silly and your taking fringe groups and trying to reflect it onto a larger body that doesn't even recognize those fringe perversions.

Yeah you completely misinterpreted that post.

[Fuschimuschi]

That guy wrote a manifest.
You can read translated parts here:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...22#post5767822

Typical narcissist. He planned all this for a long time.

[Calgaryborn]

The reason why the Muslim extremists are called terrorist and this other guy isn't is obvious: The purpose of these Muslim fundamentalists is to instill fear of within the western world. They hope that because of this fear the Western nations will do what they demand. For every act of terrorism there have been mulitiply threats of violence.

This other fellow so far appears to have worked alone. The reason why he did what he did is still a matter of speculation, as is his mental state. But unless we find an organization behind him who supported his crime we have no reason to believe it will likely happen again.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The reason why the Muslim extremists are called terrorist and this other guy isn't is obvious: The purpose of these Muslim fundamentalists is to instill fear of within the western world. They hope that because of this fear the Western nations will do what they demand. For every act of terrorism there have been mulitiply threats of violence.

This other fellow so far appears to have worked alone. The reason why he did what he did is still a matter of speculation, as is his mental state. But unless we find an organization behind him who supported his crime we have no reason to believe it will likely happen again.

I get what you're saying here, and I think that terrorism has more to do with intent than result. But as you say yourself, we don't what his general motives were, as well as why he went about it this specific way. Until we do, I think it's too early to say that there is or isn't an element of terrorism behind what he's doing. If he thinks that he could scare people from a certain political path, then that's terrorism; if he just wanted revenge on people he saw as being at fault for the current culture in Norway, then it doesn't really fit. I suspect it was both motives mixed together with a lot of crazy, but we'll see.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The reason why the Muslim extremists are called terrorist and this other guy isn't is obvious: The purpose of these Muslim fundamentalists is to instill fear of within the western world. They hope that because of this fear the Western nations will do what they demand. For every act of terrorism there have been mulitiply threats of violence.

This other fellow so far appears to have worked alone. The reason why he did what he did is still a matter of speculation, as is his mental state. But unless we find an organization behind him who supported his crime we have no reason to believe it will likely happen again.

Who cares what his reason is???? Will it make you feel any better to know?

Terrorism is a coercive attempt to change a social climate through fear or violence.

If you have a beef with a part of your society, and you kill people to make your grievance known, you're a terrorist. Your intention is achieved: people begin to think twice about the topic at hand, because they fear violent retribution for their position.

It's really as simple as that. I appreciate you trying to keep muslims in the spotlight here, but your logical train of thought has derailed.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The reason why the Muslim extremists are called terrorist and this other guy isn't is obvious: The purpose of these Muslim fundamentalists is to instill fear of within the western world. They hope that because of this fear the Western nations will do what they demand. For every act of terrorism there have been mulitiply threats of violence.

This other fellow so far appears to have worked alone. The reason why he did what he did is still a matter of speculation, as is his mental state. But unless we find an organization behind him who supported his crime we have no reason to believe it will likely happen again.

From the guy's manifesto ...

Q: Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?

A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church. I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually. The Catholic and Protestant Church are both cheering their own annihilation considering the fact that they embrace the ongoing inter-faith dialogue and the appeasement of Islam. The current Church elite has shown its suicidal face, as vividly demonstrated last year by the archbishop of Canterbury's speech contemplating the legitimacy of Shariah in parts of Britain.

I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed. We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead by a just and non-suicidal Pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.

This is no different than radical Imams. He is using the same language as they are. If they are considered terrorists, so is he.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by flamingreen

From the guy's manifesto ...



This is no different than radical Imams. He is a Christian terrorist.

No such thing. Terrorists by definition are from the Middle East or part of some wacky religion not recognized as the founding religion of America and the chosen people of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Who cares what his reason is???? Will it make you feel any better to know?

Terrorism is a coercive attempt to change a social climate through fear or violence.

If you have a beef with a part of your society, and you kill people to make your grievance known, you're a terrorist. Your intention is achieved: people begin to think twice about the topic at hand, because they fear violent retribution for their position.

It's really as simple as that. I appreciate you trying to keep muslims in the spotlight here, but your logical train of thought has derailed.

Actually a terrorist's goal isn't accomplished until the society has met his demands through intimidation. That is why these fundamentalist Muslims aren't going to quit.

Unless we find out this wingnut acted with others who are still on the loose Norway has little to fear of this happening any time soon. That is why we don't call every mass murderer a terrorist. Is what he did terrible? Sure it is.

[BlackEleven]

NRK has a story about him here:
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7724781

It's about a youtube video he posted and a manifesto he wrote.

I can translate the bits of his manifesto that they posted:

«"Kulturell marxisme", som den forkynnes av Frankfurterskolen, har spredt det populære og destruktive konseptet "kvotering" "multikulturalisme" og "diversitet".
Det er ikke mulig å unslippe disse begrepene i dag. Disse konseptene har ødelagt ethvert forsvar det europeiske samfunnet har, noe som har lagt grunnen for islamiseringen av Europa.»

"Cultural Marxism" as preached by the Frankfurt school, has spread the popular and destructive concept of "special interests"*, "multiculturism", and "diversity". It is not possible to escape from these concepts today. These concepts have destroyed any defences European society has and laid the groundwork for Islamic regin in Europe.

*I don't know if there's an exact translation for "kvotering", best I could come up with.

«Tiden for dialog er over. Vi ga fred en sjanse. Tiden er kommet for væpnet motstand. PCCTS, Knights Templar på vegne av de frie menneskene i Europa, erklærer herved forbyggende krig mot de kulturelle marxist/multikulturalistiske regimene i Vest-Europa. Vi anerkjenner at Europa teknisk har vært i borgerkrig siden 1999 da Europa og amerikanske kulturelle marxister/multikulturalister gjennom NATO erklærte angrep på de kristne serbiske styrkene og fratok dem retten til å stoppe islam i sitt fødeland.»

The time for dialog is over. We gave peace a chance. The time has come for an armed response. PCCTS, Knights Templar on behalf of free people in Europe, hereby declare a preventitive war against the cultural marxist/multiculturalist regime in Western Europe. We recognize that Europe has technically been in a civil war since 1999 when European and American cultural marxists/multicultralists through NATO declared an attack on the Christian Serbian forces and took away their right to stop Islam in their own country.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually a terrorist's goal isn't accomplished until the society has met his demands through intimidation. That is why these fundamentalist Muslims aren't going to quit.

Relevance to topic at hand???

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Unless we find out this wingnut acted with others who are still on the loose Norway has little to fear of this happening any time soon. That is why we don't call every mass murderer a terrorist. Is what he did terrible? Sure it is.

Ah, I see. Now we've tacked on the need to work with others requirement for terrorism.

You should go tell the people in Norway that, by your definition, they've not been terrorized. It was just one guy!

I weep for our world.

[Bonded]

As do I, the original meaning of terrorism and terrorists has been subverted by Western media to specifically refer to Islamic extremists. The man who shot up the holocaust museum should have been defined as terrorism, as should this terrible act, but the West will lose its ability to easily label Islamic people as terrorists if it does, hence, the lack of terrorism labels.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually a terrorist's goal isn't accomplished until the society has met his demands through intimidation. That is why these fundamentalist Muslims aren't going to quit.

Unless we find out this wingnut acted with others who are still on the loose Norway has little to fear of this happening any time soon. That is why we don't call every mass murderer a terrorist. Is what he did terrible? Sure it is.

If, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

If, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?

I think Glenn Greenwald deserves a link there

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

If, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?

If Geller, Pipes and friends are calling for violence I would think that the authorities should be watchful of them. Certainly if it is found that they aided this fellow in some way then obviously there is some kind of terrorist network that needs to be dealt with before something else happens. Right now as it stands it appears that one man acted alone and is now in custody. I'm sure the police are investigating the possibility that he had help.

I don't believe it is wrong to single out people at the airport who look or act like others who are involved in terrorism. It is ignorant and dangerous to ignore patterns and associations in the name of political correctness. Justice must be blind but, the rest of us should use common sense and keep our eyes open. If Blond hair blue eyed white men gain a name as being a threat to National security then by all means give them special attention.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?

No Seabass. They will continue to frisk 80 year-old Grandmas and 6 year-old kids to be politically correct. At least until Nordic males take their act to the air and are funded by billion dollar organizations and governments to do so.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Any fundamentalist Christian who believes these are the so-called End Times and bases political and militaristic public policy on this premise is a terrorist all the same. No different than a Jihadist.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't believe it is wrong to single out people at the airport who look or act like others who are involved in terrorism. It is ignorant and dangerous to ignore patterns and associations in the name of political correctness. Justice must be blind but, the rest of us should use common sense and keep our eyes open. If Blond hair blue eyed white men gain a name as being a threat to National security then by all means give them special attention.

There is so much wrong with this. Innocent until proven guilty unless you look the part?

What an anti-democratic, anti-individual freedom position to hold.