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.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
