BBC report. Looks like someone was trying to get the Prime Minister; first a bomb outside the government building where he has his office, then a gunman firing indiscriminately at a youth camp where he was supposed to be making an appearance. Apparently domestic, not al-Quaida or similar groups.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So it's some domestic right-winger, but that's not going to stop people from having assumed that this was an Islam thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, it doesn't necessarily help that the news in the US (I was watching ABC at my parents house where I'm visiting), referred to it as "terror attacks." That's strongly evokative of Islamic militant terrorist attacks.
Is it really a terror attack when the person doing the attacking is not advancing the agenda of an actual terror group? That seems rather an important distinction.
Perhaps "wantonly violent attack" is a little more appropriate. Why is it automatically terrorism? I don't know the politics of the attacker. That is an important detail to note. I'm just pointing out- "terror" is not the only type of attack that can possibly be committed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If the aim was to kill Stoltenberg, 'attempted assassination' is perhaps a more accurate description. Assassinations usually do have some sort of political agenda, but are not explicitly about spreading terror; perhaps the deaths were collateral damage? But the gunning down of children on Utøya seems to contradict this; sure, Stoltenberg was supposed to be there, but a rifle and a single shot would seem more effective than indiscriminate shooting into a crowd of teenagers.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Apparently there was also a rather more deadly shooting at a youth camp as well.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I bet the shooter got his guns at a gun show. Oh wait..
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Absent gods help us, 80 confirmed dead in the shooting. How does one gunman kill 80 people?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I bet the shooter got his guns at a gun show. Oh wait..
You're completely right, Capax! If this shooter didn't get his weapon from a gun show, that just proves that concerns about the frequent ease of purchase and poor background checks at gun shows (to say nothing of stolen goods) were never anything but bunk!
Oh, wait...that's actually a deeply stupid idea. That sets aside the classiness of openly using the death of scores (maybe even a hundred or more, as they're still searching) of kids to crow about your position on gun control. I'm grateful you're making it so clear I was not wrong to hold your approach to politics in contempt.
--------
By posing as a police officer and telling a bunch of kids to gather round, apparently. Freaking hell:( Awful.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Utilizing absolutely normal human panic with a plan thought out ahead of time, working with the confusion and flight responses you can generate with a lethal assault on a group of people, wearing a police uniform, attacking mostly young people trapped on an island.
This is all pretty brutal. Also, since some dopes out there in the media and abroad are still reflexively pinning this on islamic terrorism, I'm going to go ahead and put this here, just so everyone knows.
quote:The Norwegian police charged a 32-year-old man on Saturday, who was identified by the Norwegian media as Anders Behring Breivik. The photo above is a screen grab from his Facebook page, which has since been blocked. Breivik has been identified as a "Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections," according to the Times, as well as with anti-Muslim views, according to multiple sources.
quote:According to the BBC, Breivik has a Facebook and Twitter account that he set up a mere few days ago on July 17, where he identifies himself as a Christian and a conservative. There are several reports of his anti-Muslim views. In a post in Norwegian in an online forum on December 2009, a user named Anders Behring Breivik claims there is not one country where Muslims have peacefully lived with non-Muslims, stating that instead it has had "catastrophic consequences" for non-Muslims.
quote:Apart from his anti-immigration policies, the Daily Mail and Fox News report that Breivik also argued that socialism was breaking down traditions, culture, national identity and other societal structures and that this in turn made society weak and confused.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, wait...that's actually a deeply stupid idea. That sets aside the classiness of openly using the death of scores (maybe even a hundred or more, as they're still searching) of kids to crow about your position on gun control. I'm grateful you're making it so clear I was not wrong to hold your approach to politics in contempt.
Yeah, also, this ^^^
capax, honestly, if you can't figure out how not to say things as classless, dumb, and ill-timed as this, clam up instead of trying to fork in some reactionary gun debate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am so sorry. There are no words.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Absent gods help us, 80 confirmed dead in the shooting. How does one gunman kill 80 people?
One report stated the weapon was "like an M-16". Assuming it was only one weapon, even with an extended magazine that would mean several reloads.
And reports state that the gunman would walk over to people he'd shot, kick them in the head to see if they were alive, and then fire at close range if they were. That's disturbingly methodical.
I haven't seen any reports of what actually happened to the gunman.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The children were at a youth camp on an island. A small island. They could not escape. They were like fish in a barrel. And the lunatic was said to be dressed as a policeman, someone kids would normally turn to for help.
Just when you think human perversity can get no worse, something like this happens. Humanity does need a Saviour, and a Final Judgment to make the whole world right and eradicate evil forever.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I haven't seen any reports of what actually happened to the gunman.
He surrendered to the police and is being interrogated.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What a senseless tragedy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Just when you think human perversity can get no worse, something like this happens. Humanity does need a Saviour, and a Final Judgment to make the whole world right and eradicate evil forever.
It would be great if this kind of thing were something new-this sort of tragedy I mean. But it's not. We've been having these kinds of signs since a guy picked up a rock.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Most recent reports say the police took 1.5 hrs to get to the island once shooting began. What a terrible long time to be hiding, swimming, or running while hoping to live.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
This just gets more horrible. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because the level of anti-Muslim sentiment throughout much of Europe just isn't sufficient, I guess. I wonder how long (if it hasn't happened already) it will be before someone wonders whether or not he was actually some sort of progressive/leftist/liberal/atheist double-agent, because of course this attack will be spectacularly unsuccessful at raising anti-Muslim sentiment.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
This guy had significant knowledge of weapons, tactics and explosives. He claims he was working alone, but he must have interacted with a number of people in order to have the training and planning in place to carry this out. At the very least, he must have given some people an indication of his opinions and that he was planning something.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, it doesn't necessarily help that the news in the US (I was watching ABC at my parents house where I'm visiting), referred to it as "terror attacks." That's strongly evokative of Islamic militant terrorist attacks.
Is it really a terror attack when the person doing the attacking is not advancing the agenda of an actual terror group? That seems rather an important distinction.
Perhaps "wantonly violent attack" is a little more appropriate. Why is it automatically terrorism? I don't know the politics of the attacker. That is an important detail to note. I'm just pointing out- "terror" is not the only type of attack that can possibly be committed.
The person in question did his actions because he wanted to terrorize and cause fear in order to push a right-wing political agenda. He even released a long manifesto to explain his ideology.
Definitely sounds like terrorism to me.
Unfortunately the anti-Islam fear-mongering in Europe is so bad these days that most people actually think Islamic terror is a real threat, and that it makes up the most terrorist attacks in Europe. Both claims are completely false.
Islamic terrorism makes up roughly 0.5% of European terrorism. Most terrorism in here is done by separatist Corsican, Baski and Northern Ireland groups. After that it's the extreme left wingers and extreme right winters.
Not that anyone would know that, thought. Papers don't really report about any other terrorist threats besides Islamic ones. It sells better, I guess.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
you know, all this easy-to-stir islamophobia ironically means our attitudes and actions are remarkably easy for islamic extremists to control, and it is exactly that which empowered Al-Qaeda's strategy against the united states to, effectively, be successful.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, the guy's manifesto is kinda interesting. Excluding the stuff on (anti)multiculturalism, pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian stuff that the news will probably cover, there is some stuff that ranges from the chillingly mundane ...
quote:I am currently watching Dexter, the series about that forensic mass murderer. Quite hilarious. I’m also looking forward to watch the new movie-series about Carlos the Jackal(the Marxist-Islamist and Che wannabe scumbag). Hopefully, it will be as good as the Baader Meinhof Complex. I really enjoyed that one. Oh, and I’m also playing Fallout 3 – New Vegas atm after just finishing Bioshock 2. I’m also going to try the new World of Warcraft - Cataclysm when it is released in December. Time to dust of my mage…
... to Dawkins ...
quote:Twice divorced, Richard spends his days popularizing the idea that everything, absolutely everything (including his marriage failures) can be explained through purely materialistic means. Raised in the Church of England, he decided that the theory of evolution better explained the universe than his religious understanding. So, in 1976, Mr. Dawkins wrote a book called, The Selfish Gene, to show that we are only selfish creatures at best, and the only reason why we survive so well is because we are actually good at being selfish. Our selfishness is part of our genetic make-up, and it drives almost everything we do.
... to epic levels of cliche
quote:Secondly, I don’t hate Muslims at all. I acknowledge that there are magnificent Muslim individuals in Europe. In fact, I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect. This does not mean however that I will accept an Islamic presence in Europe. Muslim individuals who do not assimilate 100% within 2020 will be deportedas soon as we manage to seize power.
quote:First coming costume party this autumn, dress up as a police officer. Arrive with insignias:-) Will be awesome as people will be very astonished:-)Side note; imagine if law enforcement would visit me the next days. They would probably get the wrong idea and think I was a terrorist, lol )
quote:I have now sent an application for a Ruger Mini 14 semi-automatic rifle (5.56). It is themost “army like” rifle allowed in Norway, although it is considered a “poor man’s” AR-15. I envy our European American brothers as the gun laws in Europe sucks ass in comparison. However, the EUSSR borders to Turkey and the Middle East so acquiring illegal arms isn’t exactly rocket science providing you are motivated enough. In any case; I would rather have preferred a Ruger Mini 30, but I already own a 7.62 bolt rifle and it is likely that the police wouldn’t grant me a similar caliber. On the application form I stated: “hunting deer”.It would have been tempting to just write the truth; “executing category A and B culturalMarxists/multiculturalist traitors” just to see their reaction
[ July 25, 2011, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect.
Why do people always have to say this? It's like 'I'm not no racialist, but...' as far as defenses go. Yes, you are. Accept it.
And don't, please, kill anyone.
ETA: In other news, it appears that Glen Beck is staying classy on this issue. He apparently believes that the teenage victims were members of something like the Hitler youth.
[ July 25, 2011, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: [QUOTE] Islamic terrorism makes up roughly 0.5% of European terrorism. Most terrorism in here is done by separatist Corsican, Baski and Northern Ireland groups. After that it's the extreme left wingers and extreme right winters.
I live in Europe as well. But Czech republic is not historically concerned much with terror attacks. Which makes total sense- there are very few islamist terrorists in Europe, and the Czechs have no other minority groups with serious grievances, except Roma, who are not traditionally in the killing people business.
I wasn't saying he *couldn't* be a terrorist, mind you, only that he might not be one. Clearly he is though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: ETA: In other news, it appears that Glen Beck is staying classy on this issue. He apparently believes that the teenage victims were members of something like the Hitler youth.
That sure makes me feel bad for calling him an insane idiot who preys on dumb insane conservatives. Of course! Let's compare the dead teenagers to hitler youth. What a perfect comparison. And appropriate to the tragedy, too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: "There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler youth. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing."
yeah seriously, that would be like holding a, a, a Tea Party Youth Conference Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'm sorry, I just can't process the words "Glenn Beck" and "staying classy" in the same sentence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's a reason people find Glenn Beck loathsome as well as deeply stupid: it's because he is.
There's also a reason why people find serious ethical and moral problems with the Tea Party: it's because lots of their rock stars are like that. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's a reason people find Glenn Beck loathsome as well as deeply stupid: it's because he is.
I knew it was something...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Self-explanatory. The least surprised I have ever been was when I was told that this guy read and propagated the Atlas Shrugs blog. A hateful islamaphobe reads Pam Geller? What a twist.
Numbers 4 through 100 are the non-political things, not really poking at one side or another, but just being horrified by the whole event and, you know, stuff like that. They captured pictures of the guy shooting cornered children on the island. Every so often, this event brings out.
To quote someone else, the advantage conferred by this event is a bit of a change in priorities. Maybe some of his islamophobia can get coaxed away to die with him.
quote:I think its starting to change. EuroPol recently released a report on the mismatch of intelligence attention vs actual threat, noting that in europe less than half of a percent of terrorism is from muslims, yet the vast majority of resources are spent harassing muslims. Many federal agencies are also starting to look at re-establishing long abandoned "Right wing extremism desks" at their intelligence analysis facilities and the more academic anti-racism groups, SLPC, Searchlight, FDB,Expo, are getting a little more respect from police + intelligence agencies as go to points for expert advice on the right.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: ETA: In other news, it appears that Glen Beck is staying classy on this issue. He apparently believes that the teenage victims were members of something like the Hitler youth.
Nighthawk - er, I guess sarcasm doesn't translate over the internets. Take another look at the second sentence you quote above. We're talking about the same thing. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I'm sorry, I just can't process the words "Glenn Beck" and "staying classy" in the same sentence.
Not without assuming it is sarcastic. A good bet here.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Nighthawk - er, I guess sarcasm doesn't translate over the internets. Take another look at the second sentence you quote above. We're talking about the same thing.
Mphrgle... Yeah, been that kind of day.
Well in one way or another we're all wrong anyway, so there. Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
I watched the video in the link twice and no where in it does Beck say the shooter, much less his actions, were 'right.' The sound bite used is in reference to Wilder's comments about multiculturalism. Yes, the Norway shooter is against multiculturalism as well, but why not just say that?
There's plenty to go after Beck about, I don't know why anyone would need to make something up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The clip doesn't say what Beck was saying the shooter was right about, just that he (Beck) said the shooter was right...about something.
He did, in fact, say that. The shooter also thinks (among a bunch of other stuff) that multiculturalism and feminism and all kinds of other liberal stuff is killing and would eventually kill Europe. I'm not sure why you reject that association of Beck with him, if it's not because it's accurate in a small way and that's pretty uncomfortable.
Is there some point at which you'll contribute meaningfully to this topic, or will your points be knee-jerk defense-of-far-right as a rule?
From a ridiculous point that this attack invalidates the points or view of gun control advocates, to defending Beck who agreed the this guy's vision of the world re: multiculturalism and Europe was right (to say nothing of likening the kids to the HITLER YOUTH), you're a hack. Still. Hasn't changed.
[ July 26, 2011, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by sock_puppet (Member # 12608) on :
(Post Removed by Janitor Blade. With apologies to Tom and Rakeesh.)
[ July 27, 2011, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, you said this on Ornery, too -- but I don't understand where you're getting your data. What makes you think that non-Islamic terror is a tiny, marginal percentage of terror attacks worldwide?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Let's just cut straight to the chase, sock. The large majority of terrorism in Europe isn't Islamic. The stats are widely known and well circulated. You can find 'em in less than 15s on Google.
You gonna acknowledge that?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blah, blah, blah, you're a hack.
It took you a lot of words to say what you really wanted to say. You're the epitome of predictable...
I bet it's difficult to come up with a response quickly without sounding totally dismissive. We've seen quite a few of your pre-baked responses. You act incredibly thin-skinned just to have the occasion to argue with someone. Oddly, you're never insulted by comments from your cronies, just people that have a history of pissing you off with their differing world views.
Your comment didn't really address what I said. I'll expound: The blog post's title is misleading and the video is a sloppy cut-and-paste misrepresentation. It's a 'three degrees from Kevin Bacon' approach to making Beck appear to support mass-murder. Beck shares the shooter's assessment of multiculturalism. That doesn't mean he shares "this guy's vision of the world" because Beck isn't out bombing buildings and slaughtering kids. This is clear to see. When you gonna acknowledge that? Honestly, Beck equated the youth at the labor party camp to the Hitler Youth. I can understand outrage at that comment..
But we can call that one a foul ball and let you step up to the plate again. And hey, don't feel obligated to draft a lengthy response, just tell us how you really feel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My 'cronies'? Who are they, exactly? I suspect you'd likely throw Orincoro and Samprimary in that mix, since I know they have fun pointing out how dishonest your politics are too. But I've said variations on, "Geeze, man, don't say that!" to them before too.
I act this way with you because you've got a history of saying nonsense and crowing about how dumb gun control is, using a bunch of dead kids to do it.
Anyway, I did actually address what you said, quite specifically in fact. Right there, black and white. I acknowledged that Beck didn't support mass murder, and specifically stated that the only thing Beck was agreeing with was a world view about European multiculturalism.
All of that is factual, capax. Now you can get huffy about that all you like. What you can't honestly claim is that Beck, at that time (I wouldn't be surprised at some backpedaling), disagreed with the shooter about multiculturalism's impact on Europe. The shooter thought it was killing Europe. The commentator said something, well, *quite similar*. Beck agreed with the commentator.
If a=b and b=c, then a=c. Pretty straightforward. To people who aren't dishonest political hacks, that is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:Initiates Hatrack crony secret handshake with Rakeesh:
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, you said this on Ornery, too -- but I don't understand where you're getting your data. What makes you think that non-Islamic terror is a tiny, marginal percentage of terror attacks worldwide?
I'm not sure where capax is getting his data. But a good place for people interested in raw data is the Global Terrorism Database. I used it for a project in a Political Science class last semester.
There's a lot of issues with how to code this sort of stuff. For instance, is a separatist movement attacking a military barracks terrorism or insurgency or civil war or some degree of all three. There's no real academic consensus on definitions, but I think GTD does a good job of trying to be open about inclusion criteria, and their own definitions.
Looking just at Europe, of named terror groups, Islamic terrorists accounted for about 10% of terror incidents since 1994. They also accounted for about 20% of deaths from terror incidents. In both cases, the proportions are increasing slightly over time (Islamic terror is becoming more frequent and more deadly, relative to other forms of terrorism).
The greatest number of terror incidents in Europe come from separatist groups or reactionary nationalist groups, with a relatively small number (comparable to or smaller than those from islamic terror) coming from other ideological groups (communists, fascists, animal rights activists, etc.). Islamic terror appears to be particularly deadly, with the number killed/incident larger than any other class of groups.
I haven't done the analysis worldwide; maybe if I have time after lunch I'll look at the statistics for that, although I've had to hand-code whether each named terrorist group is Islamist or not, which might be daunting for a world-wide analysis.
*Note: I've excluded Russia and former Soviet states from the analysis. Including Russia (and hence, Chechneya) may impact the results for Europe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Excluding Russia because you are considering it to be Asia?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Another point to consider when talking about what is terrorism and what is not, is the gray area of crazy lone gunmen. Looking back at the Jared Lee Loughner case, I think most people wouldn't consider what he did to be an act of terrorism in the same way that the 9/11 attacks were terrorism. This is due, to some degree, to Loughner's apparent insanity, his lack of ties to established groups that engage in terror attacks, and his personalistic motives for attack.
Again, there's not a clear consensus (either in the media, the legal system, or academia) about where insane lone gunmen leave off and terrorists start. Breivik's case is still to some degree unclear; his manifesto has been described as rambling and incoherent, but it also includes a lot of non-personalistic, ideological analysis.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Excluding Russia because you are considering it to be Asia?
To some degree. Because the database didn't break out attacks in Russia by those occurring in European Russia vs those in Asian Russia I felt like it would be better to exclude it. In some cases the localities are included, and if I really wanted to I could go through and include those that occurred in what I'd consider "European" Russia, but it was too much effort.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Ooh, ooh, can I be one of Rakeesh's cronies?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Weren't you somebody or other's flunky, back in the day? Did they release you from that? Because if not, then no; I'm afraid you can't be Rakesh's crony.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I want cronies. And flunkies.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I was celia's minion, and I'm pretty sure I was something to Ralphie, but I don't remember if the term was "flunky". And of course I was Pat's clone or some such.
So who died and put you in charge of the flunkies and cronies, Jake?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The power was handed over in one of those closed-door meetings with Slash the Berserker.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
He made me pinky-swear not to let you double up, Jon Boy. I believe he called the inevitability of your trying to do so "an outrage. An Outrage!"
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
*burninates Jake*
How's that for doubling up?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I find that outrageous.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Can I have a minion?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
What exactly is the difference betweena "flunky" (or is it "flunkie"?), "crony" and "lackey"? I know "minion" is the broad term that encompasses them all, but I'm curious as to the specifics for each one.
Maybe this merits a separate thread...
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Can I have a minion?
Of course! Pick someone and bend them to your will. No poaching someone else's minion, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Maybe this merits a separate thread...
Nah. This one will work just fine.
I know I had minions, back in the day. But I'm not sure any of them are still active here.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Back on topic, I'm really sad this happened. Nobody deserves to die like this, and the guy that did it should be thrown off a bridge.
Sadly is looks like the guy will only serve 21 years in prison. I don't know how European prisons are, but I know someone like him wouldn't last a week in a US prison.
I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
A large part of this guys Manifesto was copied word for word from the Manifesto of the UnaBomber, Mr. Ted Kacyznski himself.
Whatever the guy's political affiliation, I think should be said that what happened was horrible and should have never happened.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Excellent. Can we then depend on the right-wing to leave the politics out of other politically motivated terrorist attacks?
P.S. That means you can't mention William Ayers ever again. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I wouldn't usually call reading a guy's thousand+ page right-wing manifesto, as coming to an "automatic" conclusion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I went back to look at the proportion of attacks worldwide perpetrated by Islamists. Since the dataset is large, I looked only at 2008 (the last year for which there was data).
In 2008, almost exactly 50% of attacks by named terror groups worldwide were done by what I'd call Islamist groups, although this includes several groups of Muslim separatists who might not have setting up an Islamic state as their primary goal (e.g. some of the more secular Palestinian terrorist groups). Those groups were responsible for about 40% of deaths resulting from terrorist attacks by named terror groups. This is surprising since, as I indicated in my previous post on Europe, Islamic terror groups generally cause greater deaths per attack than other terror groups.
Either way, while it might not be technically true to say that non-Islamic terror is a small minority of all terror incidents, it is true that (at least in 2008) Islamic terror worldwide accounts for significantly more attacks and deaths than any other ideological grouping.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Sadly is looks like the guy will only serve 21 years in prison. I don't know how European prisons are, but I know someone like him wouldn't last a week in a US prison.
I have no idea what Norwegian prisons are like, and I'm totally against cushy sentences, free Playstations and gym membership for inmates - but I still don't see why high rates of rape and murder in US prisons are so commonly seen as a good thing.
It's not like it has reduced crime.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: The power was handed over in one of those closed-door meetings with Slash the Berserker.
You say that like there are open-door meetings.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
I take it, given your views on the propriety of bringing politics into such situations, that you have something more than a selective rendition of Loughner's reading list, or tweets by someone who hadn't seen Loughner in several years to justify the labeling of Loughner as Liberal?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:Sadly is looks like the guy will only serve 21 years in prison. I don't know how European prisons are, but I know someone like him wouldn't last a week in a US prison.
I have no idea what Norwegian prisons are like, and I'm totally against cushy sentences, free Playstations and gym membership for inmates - but I still don't see why high rates of rape and murder in US prisons are so commonly seen as a good thing.
It's not like it has reduced crime.
I've always liked that quote that said something to the effect that the state of a country's prisons says a lot about that country.
I think it's completely wrong that we presume some sort of menace on the part of the prison populace is part of one's sentence.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And what is actually wrong with gyms and comfortable living conditions in prison? I think rehabilitating people is probably easier if they aren't living in constant stress and fear.
You have to remember, the average time served for homicide crimes is far lower than you'd assume. Often less than ten years. So you do have to consider how people are going to act when released.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Oh, sure, I'm all for humane treatment and rehabilitation. It's just but if it's all too lovely there won't be much reason (apart from the whole lack of freedom bit - which matters more to some than others) not to want to go there.
There should be some line between all the comforts of home and a living hell.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
This is silly. Nobody 'brought' politics into this, it was already political. It was a politically motivated, premeditated attack by a focused right-winger.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: I bet it's difficult to come up with a response quickly without sounding totally dismissive. We've seen quite a few of your pre-baked responses.
^^^ VERY IRONIC RESPONSE ^^^
(psst, we're also not rakeesh's cronies. you're just so easily identifiable as a weak performer that multiple people have independently come to the same correct conclusions about your posting as I have)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Norway's prisons are the epitome of what we might consider "cushy" *AND* their violent crime rate is substantially below ours. Clearly the severity of sentences is not the only factor that affects the level of crime.
We probably should be more focused on what we can do to reduce crime, including recidivism, than on how horrible we can make the consequences of criminal acts. The former is a practical good, the latter is just pointless vindictiveness.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I never discuss my feelings on prison because my family is very sensitive on the issue. My aunt was killed by a drunk driver and all of my relatives feel like any torture he faces would be insufficient. For me, all I care about is will he drink and drive again. I don't care how long he serves or if he suffers, provided he doesn't do it again. I have yet to be convinced that fear of prison convinces people not to commit crimes- mostly cause everyone I know who is shady says they will not be caught, if they have even thought that far ahead.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
This is silly. Nobody 'brought' politics into this, it was already political. It was a politically motivated, premeditated attack by a focused right-winger.
No matter the political proclivity of the attacker, what he did was his own decision. His beliefs may have made his sick mind think he was doing the right thing, but they did not force him into action. I don't blame liberalism for all of the eco terrorists out there. Liberalism isn't responsible for The Weather Underground, The Weather Underground is. ALF, ELF, and other "eco-terrorism" groups are on the FBI watch list. If one of those groups carry out an attack, should I quickly place blame on liberal ideals?
So I'm confused Sam, what is silly about what I said?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Maybe this merits a separate thread...
Nah. This one will work just fine.
I know I had minions, back in the day. But I'm not sure any of them are still active here.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: psst, we're also not rakeesh's cronies...
I wonder, does that count as swearing at another poster? Linking straight to a video where a guy aggressively says, "I don't remember asking you a godda@! thing!" and addressing it specifically to another poster? Because hey, lots of people can play that game.
Anyway Capax, thanks for a big pile of not addressing what I said. No surprise.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Now I want to watch Pulp Fiction again.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wonder, does that count as swearing at another poster? Linking straight to a video where a guy aggressively says, "I don't remember asking you a godda@! thing!" and addressing it specifically to another poster? Because hey, lots of people can play that game.
Anyway Capax, thanks for a big pile of not addressing what I said. No surprise.
I haven't addressed you yet. Wait your turn.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Maybe this merits a separate thread...
Nah. This one will work just fine.
I know I had minions, back in the day. But I'm not sure any of them are still active here.
Aha! Wasn't sure if you still visited here regularly. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The theories some people suggest for putting a positive spin on imprisonment of criminals are really hard to take seriously. Especially when the word "rehabilitation" is bandied about. Maybe it can happen for the juvenile car thief or druggie. But does anyone really expect that this character who planted bombs and shot up dozens of kids is ever going to be "rehabilitated"? Would any sane person want that character ever to be let out of prison, to walk among us again?
The main purpose of prison is to keep dangerous people off the street, to protect the rest of society from any future predations. Providing deterrence and possible opportunity for rehabilitation can at best only be secondary or tertiary purposes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I haven't addressed you yet. Wait your turn.
I was also referring to the whole thread, where your usual style of evasive dishonesty persists, but I'll settle for a direct, relevant response to any of it!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The main purpose of prison is to keep dangerous people off the street, to protect the rest of society from any future predations. Providing deterrence and possible opportunity for rehabilitation can at best only be secondary or tertiary purposes.
Given that some of the most dangerous people in our society (actual, you might encounter them rather than bolt-of-lightning odds against being the victim of a terrorist attack) are people who've been to prison and learned how to be *really* hardened criminals there...there's a case to be made for the idea that 'rehabilitate' and 'protect society' aren't such different goals after all.
It's just that one is straightforward, easy, and makes most people feel good. Scumbag did something awful? Lock 'em up! Everyone can get behind that. 'Scumbag did something awful, but not *so* awful that we can lock 'em up for life, and when they get out it would be prudent that they don't learn how to be even more effective and vicious in the meantime...'
That's a tougher sell.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have just had enough. Rakeesh you always complain about how people don't address your points, while in the same breath as those points adding in peevish little asides about how you know they won't address it, name calling, character assaults and general hostility and negativity. Two wrong don't make a right, you can not occupy high ground -and- be a argumentative, bitter, hateful, contemptuous bastard.
You may think that my not talking to you is just a cop out because my arguments don't have what it takes to answer your points, but since I have decided to not speak to you, I have bitten my tongue again and again while you distort topics with "points" which are utterly and easily put down, because it is your hugely malignant emotional content which I have no interest in being a part of.
You are a part of the problem.
If you want to be a "good guy" try being nice, even when someone is wrong, especially when someone is wrong, because getting up in their face and demanding their surrender while letting them know just how little you think of them is not effective, not productive and not honorable.
You seem to enjoy fighting, arguing and "putting people in their place", and while you can have valid points and bring good perspective to a conversation, as long as you maintain a combative style of posting, seeking out arguments and grinding them into the ground your positive attributes are out weighed by the negative.
I have struggled to control these very same negative styles, which is very much why I don't talk to you, it leads to angry fights which are not constructive or helpful to gaining or sharing understanding.
I'm not saying all this stuff to "score a point off you" or show how much better a person I am than you...I'm asking you to please analyze this problem and help to solve it. If someone is duplicitous or negative, combativly harassing them doesn't actually make them stop or let people know they are full of it (people know), it just makes things worse here and drags you down to their level.
Let's work together to make this a kinder, gentler Hatrack where a-holes are just tiny blips on the radar because no one has to get into a verbal fist fight with them, we simply let them pass by and go back to productive discussion. Please?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:I have just had enough. Rakeesh you always complain about how people don't address your points, while in the same breath as those points adding in peevish little asides about how you know they won't address it, name calling, character assaults and general hostility and negativity. Two wrong don't make a right, you can not occupy high ground -and- be a argumentative, bitter, hateful, contemptuous bastard.
Hahaha.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Stone_Wolf, if you want to make a kinder, gentler Hatrack, I suggest you start by taking your own advice.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm trying Jon Boy, one day at time, I'm trying.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Maybe try not to call people argumentative, bitter, hateful, contemptuous bastards. That might be a good start.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: psst, we're also not rakeesh's cronies...
Samuel L. Jackson also does not remember a single time you've not been laughable in a political debate here, so I guess it's a good thing you outsourced your replies to him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Jon Boy: I meant it as constructive criticism and not condemnation nor name calling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: So I'm confused Sam, what is silly about what I said?
Why do I have to repeat the identification of what's silly about what you said? This event was political on its outset. This was a politically motivated outset. Noting this is quite different than laying the blame fundamentally at the feet of the NDL or other political groups he may have had fairweather political association with. He's a virulently hateful, islamophobic right-winger who was driven to these murderous political acts by his ideology, so it's silly to wish people didn't "bring politics" into something that already had a 99999999% chance of being described and analyzed politically. Especially when he does manage to provide a helpful reminder about the danger and potential inspiration of right-wing nationalism and the blatant islamophobia that it frequently spits out (including our own American conservative party) and how this culture and these fearmongering tactics must be delegitimized.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Jon Boy: I meant it as constructive criticism and not condemnation nor name calling.
How ... how did you honestly believe as you were writing that, that in a million years it could be passed off as "constructive criticism?"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, I was calmer writing the second half...probably should have edited the first half in a calm state of mind...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Jon Boy: I meant it as constructive criticism and not condemnation nor name calling.
Here's some constructive criticism: stop deceiving yourself and take a good, honest look at your own behavior. You keep complaining about everyone else's behavior and how you're being treated, but you seem unable to see your role in it all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I retract my above rant to be rewritten on the marrow as it is insulting, ineffectual and ultimately hypocritical.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Stone_Wolf: You cannot expect me to ask other posters not address you for fear of feeling harassed if you cannot refrain from addressing them and essentially invite them to address you yourself.
edit: Especially in that manner.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I want this thread to be nice, but then it'll just be sad again. Can't win.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm not sure where capax is getting his data...
That was a confusing exchange up there, but it was actually sock_puppet that made that comment.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway Capax, thanks for a big pile of not addressing what I said. No surprise. ----------------- I was also referring to the whole thread, where your usual style of evasive dishonesty persists, but I'll settle for a direct, relevant response to any of it!
This thread deserves an agonzing reappraisal of the whole scene. I've made relevant responses before but you seem to ignore the relevant parts of my comments in favor of the angles by which you can express your dislike for me.
There is a reason I didn't acknowledge your gun control comment earlier in the thread. I decided it wasn't worth derailing the thead in order to debate that issue. Once the shock of the incident wears off, the Norway shooting will become the topic of gun control debates because it has direct relevance. But maybe now is not the time.
I'll assume that you called my sarcastic comment insensitive (totally understandable) and leave it at that for the moment because it wouldn't be productive to initiate such a discussion at the moment. The real issue I have is that you bring whatever past discussions we've had into the current debate and that requires me to wade throught the personal nonsense before I get to the relevant part of your comment. I do the same to you, which is why our exchanges go nowhere. I'll apologize for the possible ToS violation of my comment to Samprimary but, really, any time you and your 'cronies' (My apologies again. Like-minded individuals is more appropriate.) direct a comment my way it's usually 'me vs you' and not 'my opinion vs your opinion,' if that makes sense.
I was less defending Beck and more highlighting the dishonest portrayal of high profile figures in the media. I don't know what more to say than what I've already said. We don't agree about A and B, so when we arrive at A=C, there will be understandable friction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But maybe now is not the time.
'Maybe'? Your first remark on the death of scores of kids was to crow about how foolish a particular gun control argument is. Deeply insensitive, and very much a silly argument because no matter where he got his guns in this case, that doesn't change some pretty serious problems with many gun shows. Which was the point I and others made at the time. It was a ridiculous, deeply distasteful statement, characteristic of your political style.
If you had started in this thread differently, it's quite likely you'd have been treated a bit differently. But you didn't.
quote:The real issue I have is that you bring whatever past discussions we've had into the current debate and that requires me to wade throught the personal nonsense before I get to the relevant part of your comment.
My issue with you is exemplified by past discussions and your entry into *this* discussion. You started right in like a hack-crowing about how this suggests gun control claims against gun shows are ridiculous-and you continued it by defending Beck.
Which is what you were doing, by the way. The article didn't say, 'Beck agrees with massacring kids!' it said 'Beck agrees with shooter'. He does, on a given issue, which it went on to clarify. They both think multiculturalism is killing Europe. Breivig thinks that. So does Beck. They agree.
Which is *also* what I said in response to you, despite your claims that it's 'me vs you' rather than challenging your opinions. I've done so at least three times now. There's really nothing *to* disagree about regarding a and b. It's a matter of factual record. They agree. He's on record as espousing an idea, and so is Beck. An unfortunately major media figure who has likened the camp goers to the freaking Hitler Youth (and he's a proven hypocrite on that criticism) also expresses agreement with one of the shooter's ideas, one of the more controversial ones at that.
Should they just...not report on that because it makes him look bad? Hint: he doesn't look bad because of how they reported it. He looks bad for saying the kids were like the Hitler Youth, among other things.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee:
quote:Sadly is looks like the guy will only serve 21 years in prison. I don't know how European prisons are, but I know someone like him wouldn't last a week in a US prison.
I have no idea what Norwegian prisons are like, and I'm totally against cushy sentences, free Playstations and gym membership for inmates - but I still don't see why high rates of rape and murder in US prisons are so commonly seen as a good thing.
It's not like it has reduced crime.
Why do people keep bringing up the false 21 year thing? Yes he will get an initial sentence of 21 years but then he will be locked up indefinitely for being a public threat. In other words he will never get out of prison. As for Norway's prisons being "cushy". Norway's legal system is based on reforming criminals not punishing them and it works. Their recidivism rate is FAR below the US's rate.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I do find it unfortunate that people automatically bring politics into this, saying he is a "right winger" and a "right wing extremist." The same thing happened during the Giffords thing, then it turned out the guy was Liberal.
This is silly. Nobody 'brought' politics into this, it was already political. It was a politically motivated, premeditated attack by a focused right-winger.
So was Loughner's. He went to a political rally, purposefully, to shoot at a politician. His writings were full of anarchistic ramblings about the evils of the state, much like Breivik. Breivik seems to have latched onto a (marginally) more coherent political philosophy to obsess about than Loughner (multiculturalism is destroying our society vice the government is controlling our minds through language), but I don't understand what is fundamentally different between the two cases. It seems to me they were both deeply disturbed, lone individuals who acted out against boogeymen they'd created to deal with their own feelings of lack of control and inadequacy.
Now maybe as time passes and more details come out about Breivik I'll reform my opinion. Its possible he's more a cold-blooded killer and less a mentally ill young man. But I've been wondering for days why the narrative about Breivik has been so different than that of Loughner. In the end I think several factors are contributing to it including that this attack resulted in far more deaths, it was more brutal in targeting children, and it occurred in a country unused to such attacks. But I also think that at least part of the reason it's being reported and discussed in different terms is that liberals are using it to score political points (and because Glenn Beck said something incendiary).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Now maybe as time passes and more details come out about Breivik I'll reform my opinion.
Have you read his "manifesto?" Seriously, but for the fact that he's a psychotic mass-murderer, he'd fit right in at Ornery.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Wasn't most of it ripped from the Unabomber?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Now maybe as time passes and more details come out about Breivik I'll reform my opinion.
Have you read his "manifesto?" Seriously, but for the fact that he's a psychotic mass-murderer, he'd fit right in at Ornery.
No, I've only read news accounts of his manifesto. Are you saying they seem both lucid and original? Or just that the thing he's obsessing about is something "normal" people also discuss.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wouldn't say "original," but it's mostly lucid if you grant what I think are some flawed premises. He's very didactic, in a "I'm going to explain this at length so that everyone agrees with me, but only by using arguments that will only be compelling if you already agree with me" sort of way. Certainly he'd fit right in with a lot of modern culture warriors.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The way I would characterize it, if you can put aside the fact that he's a mass murderer (which is admittedly difficult), the actual text is fairly coherent and cites relatively normal (i.e. slanted toward mainstream anti-Muslim writers vs. conspiracy writers) sources.
As the quotes on the first page demonstrate, I would put its readability in a technical sense clearly above most newspaper comments and roughly on the level of some of the more literate posters on ornery.
I think part of what gets lost in the coverage is that his "extremist" views aren't actually all that extremist, at least not these days. His views on multiculturalism, "marxism," the assimilation of immigrants, the war on Christmas far from kicking him out of ornery, probably wouldn't even kick him out of the running for parts of Congress.
Despite some coverage, he's not even really a fundamentalist Christian. He doesn't put much thought into whether Jesus exists and IIRC, there is no discussion of things like Revelations. What he is is rabidly pro-Israel, an occasional church-goer in times of stress, says the occasional prayer, and assumes the superiority of Christian culture. (Ironically, on paper, he's the kind of "moderate" Christian that some atheists have advocated that we should deal with in order to counter the truly fundamentalist groups.)
What makes him truly extraordinary are his actions, not necessarily what he put to paper.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A quote from the manifesto:
quote:By September 11th, 2083, the third wave of Jihad will have been repelled and the cultural Marxist/multi-culturalist hegemony in Western Europe will be shattered and lying in ruin, exactly 400 years after we won the battle of Vienna on September 11th, 1683.
From the several news accounts I've read, the manifesto is rambling and disjointed. It also (again, based on news accounts) includes large sections dedicated to his personal issues with his family, and his feelings of emasculation (which he Breivik blames on Marxist-social influences).
I guess all I'm really trying to say is I feel that, while the easy story is that this was an act of right-wing terrorism, the truth is significantly more complicated and nuanced than that. I don't like or approve of the sources Breivik drew on in creating his imaginary enemy (the widely reported "anti-jihadist" blogs), and I'm still weighing my opinion on how culpable they are for his actions, but I think the narrative thus far has been overly simplistic.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: So was Loughner's.
At the end of the day, I don't disagree!
(Loughner is admittedly, though, harder to find emblematic of anything because of his particular mental instability, and that his attachment to anything political is like a side effect of schizophrenic mentality. To say nothing of the fact that targeting Loughner's liberalism — what little of it makes sense enough to associate with left-wing mentalities and causes — still leaves you with a liberal target and liberal victims.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I guess all I'm really trying to say is I feel that, while the easy story is that this was an act of right-wing terrorism, the truth is significantly more complicated and nuanced than that.
I'd object to describing this as "right-wing terrorism." I think you need more of a pattern and an established line of culpability among the nationalist right-wing groups over there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It also (again, based on news accounts) includes large sections dedicated to his personal issues with his family, and his feelings of emasculation (which he Breivik blames on Marxist-social influences).
One of the interesting things about the manifesto is that this is not a disjointed digression, once you understand what he's arguing about. The target of the manifesto isn't Islam: it's the entire concept of multiculturalism, which the author considers to be an accidental product of deconstructionism that's been hijacked by rampant "feminists" -- and he's as careful about publicly distinguishing between a sincere concern for women and "feminism" as, say, Rush Limbaugh is -- and other people who (he believes) see the destruction of cultural standards and Western hegemony as a way to increase their personal power.
He complains of feeling emasculated and having poor relationships with his friends and family because he believes these things are a direct consequence of a society that has been manipulated by selfish, wrongheaded people into vilifying the traditions and structures and social arrangements that would have kept him engaged and happy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I want to apologize for my rant last night, it was derogatory and hypocritical.
I also want to thank Rakeesh for not responding to it, that was very gracious and magnanimous.
Instead of rewriting it, I am going to follow my own advice and try to be nicer and bolster a more forgiving and understanding environment here.
Thank you for your patience and tolerance all.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It also (again, based on news accounts) includes large sections dedicated to his personal issues with his family, and his feelings of emasculation (which he Breivik blames on Marxist-social influences).
One of the interesting things about the manifesto is that this is not a disjointed digression, once you understand what he's arguing about. The target of the manifesto isn't Islam: it's the entire concept of multiculturalism, which the author considers to be an accidental product of deconstructionism that's been hijacked by rampant "feminists" -- and he's as careful about publicly distinguishing between a sincere concern for women and "feminism" as, say, Rush Limbaugh is -- and other people who (he believes) see the destruction of cultural standards and Western hegemony as a way to increase their personal power.
He complains of feeling emasculated and having poor relationships with his friends and family because he believes these things are a direct consequence of a society that has been manipulated by selfish, wrongheaded people into vilifying the traditions and structures and social arrangements that would have kept him engaged and happy.
But isn't that exactly the pattern of mental illness we'd expect? I mean, if you assume Breivik was disturbed about some personal issues and he went looking for something to blame them on, why is it surprising that the way he describes the thing he chooses to latch onto (if you accept the reality of it) explains his issues? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I am going to follow my own advice and try to be nicer and bolster a more forgiving and understanding environment here.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: So was Loughner's.
At the end of the day, I don't disagree!
(Loughner is admittedly, though, harder to find emblematic of anything because of his particular mental instability, and that his attachment to anything political is like a side effect of schizophrenic mentality. To say nothing of the fact that targeting Loughner's liberalism — what little of it makes sense enough to associate with left-wing mentalities and causes — still leaves you with a liberal target and liberal victims.)
I agree but still do not understand why you believe Loughner's liberal political beliefs do not carry as much weight as Breivick's "right-wing" beliefs. Both of these guys are sick. No matter Loughner's (Or Breivick's) policitical motivations, they both had a twisted world view, and they killed people. Whether Loughner shot a liberal or conservative congressman doesn't matter one bit.
Sixty-Four Pages of 1500 were copied from the Una-Bomber's manifesto. Should we pin 4.25% of the blame on liberal ideals? Of course not! The guy is a nut job.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's not a matter of idealistic violence not ever solving problems...it's more like random violence is evil and only crazy people try and use it to get a point across because as a message, the only thing it really delivers well is "I'm craaaaaazy!".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: ... Both of these guys are sick.
It should be noted that this is not clear. While Loughner has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, Breivick has not been diagnosed with anything yet which is why he is undergoing psychiatric tests now. link
I have no problem believing that someone might try and kill a bunch of people because they were pissed off and didn't give a crap...the reason I think people who try and use random violence to support a specific political agenda is that all they do is make people retract from any similar sentiments as the ones they propose were the purpose of killing people. They actually hurt the cause they are trying to further, and any sane person would know that. Maybe they aren't clinically insane, but instead only insanely stupid.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I agree but still do not understand why you believe Loughner's liberal political beliefs do not carry as much weight as Breivick's "right-wing" beliefs. Both of these guys are sick. No matter Loughner's (Or Breivick's) policitical motivations, they both had a twisted world view, and they killed people. Whether Loughner shot a liberal or conservative congressman doesn't matter one bit.
Sixty-Four Pages of 1500 were copied from the Una-Bomber's manifesto. Should we pin 4.25% of the blame on liberal ideals? Of course not! The guy is a nut job.
I don't get the Loughner-Breivik analogy. 1. Beliefs Loughner had frankly weird political beliefs. From what I've read the assertion that he is liberal is because he had Marx in his list of favorite reads, and a former school classmate tweeted that he was liberal. I gather this former school classmate also acknowledged not having seen him for 3 years, and subsequently qualified the Loughner-as-liberal claim, as being more libertarian than liberal. Also on his booklist was Rand and Hitler. When registered to vote, Loughner was registered as an independent. He also had strange beliefs about the government trying to control people through words.
2. Mental health Loughner seemed genuinely unable to function in society. There are a number of stories that seem to exhibit his [lack of] mental health.
I have not heard similar stories about Breivik. The only symptom so far is that he killed all the people.
3. Apparent reason for attack Loughner was apparently unhappy with how Giffords answered a question in a previous meeting.
Breivik meticulously, over the course of 9 years, planned this attack. He targeted people entirely because of their politics. I have not heard that he had any previous interaction with any of his targets.
Point being, this does not seem an apples for apples comparison. Loughner seems like a crazy person while Breivik is perhaps crazy but clearly acting in accordance with his ideology. A more natural comparison might be between Breivik and Nidal Malik Hasan.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks to the folks (Samprimary, Jon Boy, Jebus) who pointed out what I couldn't. I appreciate it, because my silence wasn't restraint on my part. Made me feel less frustrated.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree that the comparison between the two appears, so far, to be premature.
I think most people would agree that someone with Loughner's views, they'd be called pretty erratic, bizarre, or even crazy-the views, that is.
I think if he'd never killed anyone, and published an outline of his manifesto, not many would've called him crazy for his politics, merely far right and reactionary. But still understandable, coherent, etc.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think if he'd never killed anyone, and published an outline of his manifesto, not many would've called him crazy for his politics, merely far right and reactionary. But still understandable, coherent, etc.
The "he" here is Breivik right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup, sorry.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I agree but still do not understand why you believe Loughner's liberal political beliefs do not carry as much weight as Breivick's "right-wing" beliefs. Both of these guys are sick.
Loughner was mentally ill to the point where he was found mentally incompetent to stand trial. He has been examined by medical doctors which have confirmed that he is schizophrenic, and suffers from paranoia and delusions to the extent that he is unable to assist in his own defense, and literally had no capacity to rationally understand his own hearings.
We have no such mental health analysis on the table in the case of Breivik. Breivik is probably not delusional. You will likely not get a similarity in the case of their mental states that allows for this equivocation.
I'd be right on board making the same example of Loughner vis a vis the American left wing, but Loughner was flat-out delusional and schizophrenic. Breivik's manifesto and his war against multiculturalism is pretty directly associable with his right wing influences; Loughner's political beliefs are hard to associate with anything, and you can't find a hint of support for his whole 'they're mind controlling us with grammar' that is chronicled in Loughner's rather tragic and escalating complete loss of sanity.
To make this simpler for all involved: as much as it would be convenient for conservatives rankled by the association of a right-wing terrorist with being right-wing, Loughner is not an analogue to Breivik. We can't point to the two and make that equation reliant on the equivalence of their mental states just because they share the trait of having killed a bunch of people.
If Breivik gets ruled completely loony as well, though, that can reignite this debate rather fairly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, I didn't even recall loughner being called a terrorist or a left-wing radical even. It was immediately and explicitely clear that he was completely unhinged. Breivik may be a twisted and evil individual, but he has yet to be shown to be insane. You don't have to be insane to kill.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Right-wing =/= conservative.
Left-wing =/= liberal.
There's a wide range of ideologies that fit under each wing. Calling him a right-wing terrorist does not associate him with you or your personal political ideology, Geraine.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
My intention in bringing up Loughner wasn't really to make a direct comparison (although I appreciate the points natural_mystic made regarding the differences between the two cases).
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there seems to me to be some evidence Breivik was disturbed first, and political second. That the primary cause of his actions was personal, but that he found justification for them in a political ideology. He seems to be wholly unaffiliated with any political group; he financed the project himself (through credit card debt); he had what seem to me to be delusions of grandeur, imagining himself as a Knight Templar for the new millenium, prophesying the date of failure of the "third jihad"; he claims the moniker of "Christian soldier" without being particularly Christian (in terms of practicing with or belonging to a Christian group).
There are just a lot of things about his background which seem, to me, to indicate a closer affinity to the periodic deadly rampages of lone gunmen than the more pure forms of political terrorism (like those perpetrated by al-Qaida). FWIW, I think I'd probably also put Nadal Hassan and perhaps Timothy McVeigh in a similarly ambiguous category.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: He seems to be wholly unaffiliated with any political group
Not anymore, but he was previously, from Wiki
quote:Breivik was previously a member of the anti-immigrant Progress Party (FrP), which promotes libertarian, conservative and right-wing populist viewpoints[119][120][121] and its youth wing FpU from 1997 to 2007, acting as deputy chairman for one of the local Oslo chapters.[122] According to current FpU leader Ove Vanebo, Breivik was active early in the 2000s, but left the party in 2007 as his viewpoints became more extreme.
quote:... without being particularly Christian (in terms of practicing with or belonging to a Christian group).
Well, he's not an American fundamentalist Christian, but he's fairly typical European Christian in the sense that he does (but not frequently) pray to God and attends religious services such as mass.
One of the striking things about his background is that by most informed accounts, he's not a religious extremist, but a fairly typical religious "moderate."
[ July 29, 2011, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What Mucus said is right. The Christianity of Europe is not the same as the Christianity of America. America is much more committed and Christianity is much more overt in the US political system than it would be in even the deeply historically Christian countries of Europe.
In the same way, the racist Anti-Immigrant groups wouldn't necessarily be hitched to religion. In my experience, it's possible for people to be firmly Christian without being signed up to a church the same way it's possible to consistantly vote Republican without being registered as one.
This was a political attack-- clearly. There is an angry core in Europe who oppose immigration both from white and non-white countries. In the area I live in, which contains a lot of first and second generation immigrants (that is to say, people who arrived and people who were born here but whose parents arrived newly to the country), there are racist slogans that pop up on the backs of fences in quiet areas. People still quietly use slang that makes my ears turn green-- in Canada it would be entirely unacceptable.
Usually this anger stems from fear, and it's not limited to Islam or groups from Asia and Africa. Polish people face racism in parts of the UK, as immigrant or migrant workers. There was even an opinion article published on the BBC about how American language (!) was eroding good British words and phraseology. It's all based on fear.
I'm not at all surprised that this underlying fear and anger has erupted into extremism and unbelieveable violence and cruelty in one disaffected young man.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Calling FrP 'libertarian' is a bit like calling, say, Unitarian Universalists "nonreligious". They are a mainstream political party in Norway, which is to say that they support the welfare state; their closest approach to libertarianism is wanting more means-testing than currently exists. They also advocate lower taxes and making up the lost revenue from the oil money. But actually reducing the size of the government, no.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
*
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I knew it was something...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)