Is Anders Breivik winning?

Boulevardier

Anders Breivik described his Oslo Massacre as "atrocious but necessary."

Since then, we have seen a number of people expressing opinions along the lines of "What he did was terrible, but perhaps we do need to discuss Moslems/immigration/multiculturalism to stop this problem from getting worse."

People who express such opinions are of course doing exactly what Brevik is hoping for. They are, in his terms, proving him right about his killings being "atrocious but necessary" because the massacre will have "opened up" such discussion.

In other words, the anti- muslim/immigration/multiculturalism brigade are doing exactly what he wants, and are deliberately benefitting from the killings of those young people.

I predict that if there are answers to this thread, most of them will bear me out.

RichieC

these debates have been raging since 9/11.

Chuck Stone

Used to be witches.

opo

Are you out to prove your own theory in the opening post?

dsmythy

RichieC wrote: »

these debates have been raging since 9/11.

+1

There's plenty out there who have always talked about such things, including those he quoted in his manifesto thingy. Who do you think is talking about it who hasn't talked about it before OP?

The only thing I will note is the fact that certain websites have mentioned the increased traffic they're receiving.

Son Of A Vidic

Any justification Anders Breivika has for his fanatical ideology, will be immediately undermined if he pleads insanity as a defence. So it will be interesting to see what defence strategy he will ultimately use.

I suspect he will not plead insanity, because the temptation for grandstand during the trial will probably be too hard to resist. He has succeeded in raising his profile and exposing his 'crazy manifesto'. But Norway will remain an open, free and tolerant society, so he will undoubtedly lose.

Manach

Which has only a 21 year limit on jail sentences, which is an issue when you need to deal with individuals like Breivika and not the make believe world of an "open, free and tolerant society".

RGDATA!

I was looking for somewhere to post this thought, here seems apt

I haven't seen much TV coverage of this, but I caught TV3's late news Tuesday before the Vincent Browne show

in their update, they showed three of Breivik's self portraits, we've all seen them already, but they had the three stills combined, and a pan-and-zoom effect going on, and I wondered why exactly they were sexed-up like this and full screen for a good five seconds.
TV3 are far from the only culprits probably, theres was the only broadcast on this i really saw. But Breivik is winning in as far as the media are portraying him as he would have hoped and expected, and giving him way too much oxygen.

SeanW

Boulevardier wrote:

In other words, the anti- muslim/immigration/multiculturalism brigade are doing exactly what he wants, and are deliberately benefitting from the killings of those young people.

I was expecting the P.C. multicultural-left to do some serious whataboutery and twisting to try to blame this atrocity on everyone who is skeptical of Islam and Multiculturalism or to try to link this madman to others (who are not associated and/or have condemned his actions), but the OP has taken the biscuit for sheer logic-twisting.

This attack (we think) was carried out exclusively by the Brevhik fellow. Only he has *any* responsibility or bears any blame in relation to it, in any way. End of story.

afrodub

The Muslim community here is small but we are very conscious that little local issues can be exaggerated after what this man has done sadly we are now expecting more hostility.

I think more debate and education is needed to assure the Muslims of Ireland of our future and commitment.

Alopex

I really hate that if anyone says he made some good points in his manifesto they are accused of condoning the attacks.

I don't care if he is "winning" I care about the truth. What he did was categorically wrong, disgusting and ironically will benefit the pro-multicultural PC brigade, but I agree with a lot of the points he made.

Son Of A Vidic

Manach wrote: »

..you need to deal with individuals like Breivika and not the make believe world of an "open, free and tolerant society".

I have been to Norway on many occasions, having friends and family over there will do that of course. So my experience leads me to agree with the consensus, that Norway is a pretty open, free and tolerant society and it has an amazingly low crime rate.There's nothing make believe about it, it's merely a simple fact.

Manach wrote: »

Which has only a 21 year limit on jail sentences, which is an issue when you need to deal with individuals like Breivika.

21 years for murder, which would constitute one criminal charge. He will of course be facing multiple charges. You conveniently seem to have forgotten that life in Ireland is pretty cheap. The average time served for murder in this country is 12 years.

Sure you can't beat our ridiculous system of judicial sentencing. Everyday you read about some bag of scum getting their multiple sentences to run concurrently. Lets roll all into one and make it easy for them, then they're out in no time. What's that they say again about people in glasshouses?........

JustinDee

Alopex wrote: »

I really hate that if anyone says he made some good points in his manifesto they are accused of condoning the attacks.

I don't care if he is "winning" I care about the truth. What he did was categorically wrong, disgusting and ironically will benefit the pro-multicultural PC brigade, but I agree with a lot of the points he made.

The already predicted line from the "but"-Brigade. "He's a bad man but ...". You're against labelling of sympathisers to a hardline point but are happy to pigeon-hole everyone else in a similar vein.

The only change Norway will see will be in constitutional or judicial adaptations for dealing with the extremist movements.
Even that would be tough-going to change however.

Alopex

JustinDee wrote: »

The already predicted line from the "but"-Brigade. "He's a bad man but ...". You're against labelling of sympathisers to a hardline point but are happy to pigeon-hole everyone else in a similar vein.

What are you on about? where have I pigeon-holed anyone?

He is a bad, murderous man full stop.

Does that mean his ideas on immigration by default must be wrong?

wes

Well its pretty clear that he was influenced by various popular far right blogs, which exist soley to generate hatred, and of course those who share his twisted ideology will defend it, but I wouldn't call that winning exactly. I would say there defense of his views will ultimately expose there views for what they are, unreasoning hatred and nothing more.

RandomName2

Boulevardier wrote: »

Anders Breivik described his Oslo Massacre as "atrocious but necessary."

Since then, we have seen a number of people expressing opinions along the lines of "What he did was terrible, but perhaps we do need to discuss Moslems/immigration/multiculturalism to stop this problem from getting worse."

People who express such opinions are of course doing exactly what Brevik is hoping for. They are, in his terms, proving him right about his killings being "atrocious but necessary" because the massacre will have "opened up" such discussion.

In other words, the anti- muslim/immigration/multiculturalism brigade are doing exactly what he wants, and are deliberately benefitting from the killings of those young people.

I predict that if there are answers to this thread, most of them will bear me out.

So you are attempting to use an isolated incident in Norway of a right-wing extremist killing a bunch of Norwegians due to some tangential (and more than slightly loopy) theory concerning a means to change political policy concerning immigration, as a way to stifle free-speech here?

Good luck to you

JustinDee

Alopex wrote: »

What are you on about? where have I pigeon-holed anyone?

In your post with "pro-multicultural PC brigade".

Alopex wrote: »

He is a bad, murderous man full stop.
Does that mean his ideas on immigration by default must be wrong?

Without looking up on the web, what do you know about immigration in the country and in particular, the city, in question?

OhNoYouDidn't

SeanW wrote: »

I was expecting the P.C. multicultural-left to do some serious whataboutery and twisting to try to blame this atrocity on everyone who is skeptical of Islam and Multiculturalism or to try to link this madman to others (who are not associated and/or have condemned his actions), but the OP has taken the biscuit for sheer logic-twisting.

This attack (we think) was carried out exclusively by the Brevhik fellow. Only he has *any* responsibility or bears any blame in relation to it, in any way. End of story.

I'm afraid its not that simple. Like it or not, the anti immigration and anti muslim's amongst us do have to reconcile the fact that this was done by a terrorist fellow traveller in your name. I have no doubt you condemn him totally and with meaning, but there is a hate filled element to the political beliefs you have who will take it further than you. Deal with that and don't start claiming its 'logic twisting'.

Its a common thread on the right - they refuse to take ANY responsibility for the extremists amongst them. From the laughable attempts to label Hitler a commie to kids dying of starvation in their free market, the negatives are never accepted and discussed rationally. Commies deal with Russia. Greens condemn people who attack animal testing labs. The right haven't that political maturity to see the link between their rhetoric and the events in Norway.

OhNoYouDidn't

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you are attempting to use an isolated incident in Norway of a right-wing extremist killing a bunch of Norwegians due to some tangential (and more than slightly loopy) theory concerning a means to change political policy concerning immigration, as a way to stifle free-speech here?

Good luck to you

Its not about stifling free speech. Its that people should realise and accept that some of their political opinions are shared by the most extremist loon balls. That should tell them something and give them pause for thought...

Alopex

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm afraid its not that simple. Like it or not, the anti immigration and anti muslim's amongst us do have to reconcile the fact that this was done by a terrorist fellow traveller in your name. I have no doubt you condemn him totally and with meaning, but there is a hate filled element to the political beliefs you have who will take it further than you. Deal with that and don't start claiming its 'logic twisting'.

Its a common thread on the right - they refuse to take ANY responsibility for the extremists amongst them. From the laughable attempts to label Hitler a commie to kids dying of starvation in their free market, the negatives are never accepted and discussed rationally. Commies deal with Russia. Greens condemn people who attack animal testing labs. The right haven't that political maturity to see the link between their rhetoric and the events in Norway.

Funny I don't see all the republicans and nationalists on this forum accepting any responsibility for the real ira.

I don't think they should, nor should people who pursue anti-islam ideals through democratic means accept any responsibility for this murderer

OhNoYouDidn't

Alopex wrote: »

Funny I don't see all the republicans and nationalists on this forum accepting any responsibility for the real ira.

But they were expected to. Many posters talked about the 'fetishisation' of Irish patriotic dead and how the dissidents derive legitimacy from the same source as they do. That's the point. It was a roubust, to say the least, debate. Yet again, the rules for the right are different..

Every political movement has its nutters. Most political ideologies are mature enough to see this linkage and isolate them. But not the right.

Alopex wrote: »

I don't think they should, nor should people who pursue anti-islam ideals through democratic means accept any responsibility for this murderer

There is the problem. 'Anti'. Its not rocket science to extrapolate that having an ideology that is 'anti' something can lead to hate that can lead to people taking action against that particular group that is being raillied against. Which is what happened.

No-one is saying the 'anti islam' lobby is responsible for these killings. But you are creating a culture where these attacks can happen and refusing to acknowledge that there is space for nutters in your world view.

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm afraid its not that simple. Like it or not, the anti immigration and anti muslim's amongst us do have to reconcile the fact that this was done by a terrorist fellow traveller in your name. I have no doubt you condemn him totally and with meaning, but there is a hate filled element to the political beliefs you have who will take it further than you. Deal with that and don't start claiming its 'logic twisting'.

Its a common thread on the right - they refuse to take ANY responsibility for the extremists amongst them. From the laughable attempts to label Hitler a commie to kids dying of starvation in their free market, the negatives are never accepted and discussed rationally. Commies deal with Russia. Greens condemn people who attack animal testing labs. The right haven't that political maturity to see the link between their rhetoric and the events in Norway.

That's total bollox. Terrorists have warped ideologies but the ideas that they have warped do not automatically become infected.

As said above, the IRA kill 'for Ireland'. Are all Irish to blame?
That psycho who shot congresswoman Gifford had a warped tea party republican ideology. Are all republicans to blame?
Eirigi and RSF protest violently and have leftist ideology. Are all left leaning thinkers to blame?
Islamic terrorists kill in the name of Islam, are you blaming all Muslims?

And know particularly on this last point if someone was to make such an error in logic then you would jump down their throats.

Debating immigration is fine. It was done before this atrocity and shouldnt be discouraged now. Debating almost anything is fine.

<snip>

Alopex

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There is the problem. 'Anti'. Its not rocket science to extrapolate that having an ideology that is 'anti' something can lead to hate that can lead to people taking action against that particular group that is being raillied against. Which is what happened.

No-one is saying the 'anti islam' lobby is responsible for these killings. But you are creating a culture where these attacks can happen and refusing to acknowledge that there is space for nutters in your world view.

I have to say "so what" to the part in bold. I have anti-racist ideals but I'm not going to feel anyway responsible if someone from the BNP is attacked or murdered.

That is not what happened by the way. It is very disingenuous the way you put it there. He would have done it with or without a paceful anti-islam movement

wes

Laminations wrote: »

Eirigi and RSF protest violently and have leftist ideology. Are all left leaning thinkers to blame?
Islamic terrorists kill in the name of Islam, are you blaming all Muslims?

The far right do both of the above all of the time, and while it is wrong to blame them in the same manner, I can't say I feel sorry for them, as they very much created the climate where such accusations can be made, and I doubt that they will ever stop. So seeing as this blame climate already exists, and the far right being one of the main groups responsible for its proliferation, I think it a bit rich that there complaining:

The Right Word: Telling left from right

and

The internet nourished Norway's killer, but censorship would be folly

Personally, its hard to have sympathy for such people, when they do the same thing all of the time, and will never stop doing it.

Also having said that, very few people are blaming as having personal responsibility for the attacks, but the simple fact of the matter, is that the ideology behind the attacks should not be ignored imho, and there is nothing wrong with discussing it as such.

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There is the problem. 'Anti'. Its not rocket science to extrapolate that having an ideology that is 'anti' something can lead to hate that can lead to people taking action against that particular group that is being raillied against. Which is what happened.

No-one is saying the 'anti islam' lobby is responsible for these killings. But you are creating a culture where these attacks can happen and refusing to acknowledge that there is space for nutters in your world view.

So to extend your bizarre logic. Anti abortionists should STFU in case some nutter decides to take their personal feelings on the matter and use it for justification for his violence?
Anti-capitalists should just accept global corporatisation?


You can be against something without inciting hatred.

You are against Islamophobia? So could attacks on Geert Wilders be blamed on you?

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

That's total bollox. Terrorists have warped ideologies but the ideas that they have warped do not automatically become infected.

No, of course they don't. But some introspection is required. Saying 'nothing to do with us' when the man's manifesto could have been lifted off here isn't good enough.

Laminations wrote: »

As said above, the IRA kill 'for Ireland'. Are all Irish to blame?

No. But there was huge debates and academic research done on the link. Revsionist historians have made a career on the debate.

Laminations wrote: »

That psycho who shot congresswoman Gifford had a warped tea party republican ideology. Are all republicans to blame?

No, but they need to look at whether they created him and are they continuing to attract nutters.

Laminations wrote: »

Eirigi and RSF protest violently and have leftist ideology. Are all left leaning thinkers to blame?

No, but the left have been debating violent protesters for years and ask them not to hijack protests

Laminations wrote: »

Islamic terrorists kill in the name of Islam, are you blaming all Muslims?

No, and again, huge debate within and without Islam on the question of religious/political violence.

Key thread through everyone else, they sit down and think about it. You refuse to.

Laminations wrote: »

Debating immigration is fine. It was done before this atrocity and shouldnt be discouraged now. Debating almost anything is fine. Killing to get your point across is not..

Agreed. Who is suggesting otherwise?

<snip>

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

So to extend your bizarre logic. Anti abortionists should STFU invade some nutter decides to take their personal feelings on the matter and use it for justification for his violence?
Anti-capitalists should just accept global corporatisation?


You can be against something without inciting hatred.

You are against Islamophobia? So could attacks on Geert Wilders be blamed on you?

No. This isn't about a political movement attracting terrorists.

Its about the rest of that political movement REACTING to that terrorist with an introspective look at their beliefs and rhetoric.

EVERY other movement that has spawned extremists has done so. Its your turn

Laminations

wes wrote: »

The far right do both of the above all of the time, and while it is wrong to blame them in the same manner, I can't say I feel sorry for them, as they very much created the climate where such accusations can be made, and I doubt that they will ever stop. So seeing as this blame climate already exists, and the far right being one of the main groups responsible for its proliferation, I think it a bit rich that there complaining:

The Right Word: Telling left from right

and

The internet nourished Norway's killer, but censorship would be folly

Personally, its hard to have sympathy for such people, when they do the same thing all of the time, and will never stop doing it.

So you know it's wrong to generalise like that but because you've been victim to it before, you think this is your moment for revenge and that right wingers are due their comeuppance?

Petty, vindictive, hypocritical, disingenuous.

PS I'm not defending the hard right or any right wing ideology, I argue against it enough here. Im defending the right of people to not have their ideals corrupted by a mad man whose twisted interpretation has led him to commit violence.

Alopex

wes wrote: »

The far right do both of the above all of the time, and while it is wrong to blame them in the same manner, I can't say I feel sorry for them, as they very much created the climate where such accusations can be made, and I doubt that they will ever stop. So seeing as this blame climate already exists, and the far right being one of the main groups responsible for its proliferation, I think it a bit rich that there complaining:

So . . . two wrongs make a right?

you're doing the exact same thing to peaceful anti-islam campaigners as bigots do to peaceful Muslims.

jmayo

Boulevardier wrote: »

Anders Breivik described his Oslo Massacre as "atrocious but necessary."

He can describe his acts anyway he likes, but it was and is still wrong, wrong, wrong.
You don't highlight your policies or ideals by going out and butchering innocent people.

He would be "winning" as you put it, if we decide to let him and others like him set the tone.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Since then, we have seen a number of people expressing opinions along the lines of "What he did was terrible, but perhaps we do need to discuss Moslems/immigration/multiculturalism to stop this problem from getting worse."

We do need to discuss those things, becuase burying one's head in the sand and pretending everything is going to be hunky dory just leads to problems down the road.
To use the old quote "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

We either get loop heads like him or we can get disgruntled kids in the next generation who see no option but to divert to violence and worse still ultra fundamentalism.
See UK and France for examples where there are problems not so much with immigrants, but rather with the children of immigrants who often feel isolated unequal in their own country and sadly turn to violence or worse fundamentalism.

Likewise we need to discuss and expose the far right and ultra nationalists who use the above to further their twisted logic and neanderthal racism.

As I argued in another thread related to this, it is no use just denying there are issues, because it will be fundamentalists on both sides that will end up gaining and setting the discussion.

Manach wrote: »

Which has only a 21 year limit on jail sentences, which is an issue when you need to deal with individuals like Breivika and not the make believe world of an "open, free and tolerant society".

That is the problem with so called tolerant society. It usually works in favour of those who are anti society.

Never mind Norway how much would he get here where life usually means 10 odd years.
Hell he would get concurrent sentences and time off for pleading guilty.
I know it is another debate.

SeanW wrote: »

...
This attack (we think) was carried out exclusively by the Brevhik fellow. Only he has *any* responsibility or bears any blame in relation to it, in any way. End of story.

Eh like I argued elsewhere about clamping down on certain religious preachers who preached hatred, I think in this case the guys that influenced brevhik in his views should be clamped down on.
They may not have pulled the trigger, but they sure as hell helped get him in the mood.

wes

Laminations wrote: »

So you know it's wrong to generalise like that but because you've been victim to it before, you think this is your moment for revenge and that right wingers are due their comeuppance?

I never said any such thing actually, just that I don't feel sorry for them, as they are responsible for creating an environment where such accusation can be made. Basically, they brought it on themselves, and I see no reason why I shouldn't say that.

Laminations wrote: »

Petty, vindictive, hypocritical, disingenuous.

No, that would be the right, who are now facing the consquences for the type of political discourse they created. The situation is one of there own creation, and they are very much to blame for creating the environment where blame is now being heaped on them.

Laminations wrote: »

PS I'm not defending the hard right or any right wing ideology, I argue against it enough here. Im defending the right of people to not have their ideals corrupted by a mad man whose twisted interpretation has led him to commit violence.

Yes, and I agree with that, but the right created the environment where such things are done all the time, and now it is back firing. IMHO, they are very much at fault in what is happening to them, and I have no sympathy that there own twisted tactics have backfired, and I see no reason why I should. You can call that petty or what ever else, but I see no reason why I shouldn't point out that the right brought a lot of this on themselves, due to there own tactics back firing.

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Key thread through everyone else, they sit down and think about it. You refuse to.

I'm not a ****ing right winger! What am I refusing to think about? Everyone should be asking how someone like this develops his militant ideas. It shouldn't be down to right wingers (whatever they look like, how does one spot a right winger?) to debate it within their ranks and circles

Laminations

wes wrote: »

I never said any such thing actually, just that I don't feel sorry for them, as they are responsible for creating an environment where such accusation can be made. Basically, they brought it on themselves, and I see no reason why I shouldn't call a spade a spade.

You thanked another poster who is blaming 'the right' lock stock and two smoking barrels. You are also not suggesting people don't generalise, something you would usually do (and quite correctly)

No, that would be the right, who are now facing the consquences for the type of political discourse they created. The situation is one of there own creation, and they are very much to blame for creating the environment where blame is now being heaped on them.

You sound like you are taking pleasure out of an incorrect tarring here. Vindictive comeuppance.

Yes, and I agree with that, but the right created the environment where such things are done all the time, and now it is back firing. IMHO, they are very much at fault in what is happening to them, and I have no sympathy that there own twisted tactics have backfired, and I see no reason why I should. You can call that petty or what ever else, but I see no reason why I shouldn't point out that the right brought a lot of this on themselves.

So you agree with me that everyone is entitled not to have their views hijacked and corrupted....except right wingers, because they deserve it.

So because some people are disrespectful and intolerant of views you'll now do the same. Your principled stance has crumbled.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

I'm not a ****ing right winger! What am I refusing to think about? Everyone should be asking how someone like this develops his militant ideas. It shouldn't be down to right wingers (whatever they look like, how does one spot a right winger?) to debate it within their ranks and circles

This man was a right wing Christian anti immigrant and anti muslim.

Right wing Christian anti immigrant anti muslims will have to explore their belief system and the hate that surrounds it. This isn't a radical suggestion.

Read this for the kind of shíte talk the Christian right are spewing to dodge that narrative.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/28/fox-news-norway

wes

Alopex wrote: »

So . . . two wrongs make a right?

you're doing the exact same thing to peaceful anti-islam campaigners as bigots do to peaceful Muslims.

No of course it doesn't, but to pretend that the right has not brought this on themselves, is imho foolish. There own tactic backfired, and I see no reason why I shouldn't say that.

Also, btw it is the anti-Islam campaigners are the ones who are heaping blame on all Muslims for the most part, and now there getting a bitter taste of there own medicine. That doesn't mean I agree they should be blamed, but at the same time, they brought this crap on themselves, when they decided to legtimise such tactics in political discussions. Also, I doubt that they will stop using the exact same tactic themselves in the future, so again I have no sympathy for them, they brought it on themselves, and they well know it.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

So you agree with me that everyone is entitled not to have their views hijacked and corrupted....except right wingers, because they deserve it.

You are deliberatly missing the point here.

All movements get hijacked and corrupted. All movements then have an internal debate about it and make a stand against the loons.

But not the right. They create the culture that encourages extremism and then step back and go 'nothing to do with us'. See the Guardian link. Fox news guys saying he wasn't a Christian because Christians don't kill. Despite the fact he was a baptised Protestant who stated he was doing it on behalf of Christianity.

Search for the 'Hitler was left wing' threads on here for a closer to home example.

There IS a reponsibility on the people who shared Breivak's beliefs to reassess where they are going like every other political movement who faces this corruption.

oscarBravo

Alopex wrote: »

...peaceful anti-islam campaigners...

Wait, what? You don't agree with the freedom to practice the religion of your choice?

Boulevardier

Can't resist putting up another Guardian, link to this sensible article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/29/internet-norway-killer-censorship-folly

Nevertheless, I still make the point that insofar as these killings serve to "open up discussion" about immigration, etc, Breivik is getting what he wanted when he started his killings.

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

Debating immigration is fine. It was done before this atrocity and shouldnt be discouraged now. Debating almost anything is fine. Killing to get your point across is not.
.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Agreed. Who is suggesting otherwise?

eh, you?

The anti-immigration right killed 76 people. There will be a debate about them. Grow up and get on with it.

wes

Laminations wrote: »

You thanked another poster who is blaming 'the right' lock stock and two smoking barrels. You are also not suggesting people don't generalise, something you would usually do (and quite correctly)

I very much got a different impression from that post, than you did.

Laminations wrote: »

You sound like you are taking pleasure out of an incorrect tarring here. Vindictive comeuppance.

No I am not, just that they brought it upon themselves, and that they are as much to blame for creating this kind of discourse in the first place, and nothing more.

There is no pleasure to be gained in this, as the right will turn around and do the same thing when this is over, and it will continue the same kind of political discourse. The continuation of this kind of discourse is good for no one, but I refuse to pretend that the right has not brought this on themselves.

Laminations wrote: »

So you agree with me that everyone is entitled not to have their views hijacked and corrupted....except right wingers, because they deserve it.

No, I never said they deserve, just that they can hardly claim to be innocent in this kind of discourse, when the right has done a lot of legitimise it.

Laminations wrote: »

So because some people are disrespectful and intolerant of views you'll now do the same. Your principled stance has crumbled.

Except I said no such thing............

As for principled stands, well I could say the same of you.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

eh, you?

So I tried to stifle a debate by saying we should have a debate?

...right....

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

This man was a right wing Christian anti immigrant and anti muslim.

Right wing Christian anti immigrant anti muslims will have to explore their belief system and the hate that surrounds it. This isn't a radical suggestion.

Read this for the kind of shíte talk the Christian right are spewing to dodge that narrative.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/28/fox-news-norway

Are you saying you can't be right wing Christian without being anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim?

And you can't be anti-immigrant or anti-muslim without being hate filled?

(abd I think it's anti-Islam as opponents are against some tenets of the religion rather than it's followers)


is your point that people who are hate filled need to reflect? Or just hate filled right wing Christians? And other hate filled bigots need to wait their turn until someone kills usung their beliefs to reflect

sirromo

Maybe the right-wingers can now better understand what it feels like being a muslim.

Extremist right-wing and extremist muslim terrorists deserve to be isolated and ostracised by the people in whose name they claim to act. If right-wingers are unwilling to do that in the case of Anders Breivik then they can't continue to condemn muslims who behave in the same way towards the terrorist extremists in their midsts.

Laminations

sirromo wrote: »

Maybe the right-wingers can now better understand what it feels like being a muslim.

Extremist right-wing and extremist muslim terrorists deserve to be isolated and ostracised by the people in whose name they claim to act. If right-wingers are unwilling to do that in the case of Anders Breivik then they can't continue to condemn muslims who behave in the same way towards the terrorist extremists in their midsts.

But right wingers like Muslims are not one big homologue with a single representative voice.

Yes I agree any right wing person (or any person) who fails to condemn this and reassess how beliefs can manifest into violent hate through some kind of indoctrination deserves to be tarred by this and ridiculed.

Now if you point me to the official statement from the right wing brigade I'll tar them all too

Alopex

Laminations wrote: »

But right wingers like Muslims are not one big homologue with a single representative voice.

Yes I agree any right wing person (or any person) who fails to condemn this and reassess how beliefs can manifest into violent hate through some kind of indoctrination deserves to be tarred by this and ridiculed.

Now if you point me to the official statement from the right wing brigade I'll tar them all too

I am yet to see a single person fail to condemn this.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wait, what? You don't agree with the freedom to practice the religion of your choice?

I'd like an answer on this.

Laminations

To answer the OP, no he is not winning. He killed a bunch of people and will spend his life incarcerated and reviled. A spotlight has rightly been put on domestic terrorism and Christian fundamentalism and the threat levels have increased in many countries. There is a renewed effort to weed out fanaticals and hopefully a stronger intelligence network with greater cooperation and information sharing.

The worst thing I've seen from this, excluding the loss of life etc, is the use of this massacre by some to make political hay and use it as a stick with which to beat political opponents. Using the murder of 76 to play a game of oneupmanship is maybe the lowest point of some commentators characters.

Breivik is not winning. Anyone who is agreeing with his attack would've had warped views prior to this, and I don't really see people praising his massacre - I'm sure I could if I frequented extremist sites, but I'd expect to find that there anyway.

twinQuins

No one is agreeing with his attack, sure but they are saying "well hold on, this guy was on to something"; there are certainly people saying we need to examine immigration policies because if we don't this is what's going to happen.
Wouldn't it be fairer to say they're the ones capitalising on the massacre?

Laminations

twinQuins wrote: »

No one is agreeing with his attack, sure but they are saying "well hold on, this guy was on to something"; there are certainly people saying we need to examine immigration policies because if we don't this is what's going to happen.

Who is saying this? Who specifically is saying this that wasn't already calling for debate on immigration, stricter border policies etc? I haven't seen it on boards and if I did I would challenge it.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say they're the ones capitalising on the massacre?

Of course. There are 'individuals' trying to. If you could supply quotations from some examples I'll decide if they represent and speak for all right wing thinkers that justifies them being taken as mouthpieces for an ideology.

I'm not in disagreement with you that people who say this is an expected outcome of liberal immigration policies should be challenged. Any talk like that is somewhat justifying this.

But you are disagreeing with me that people who tar an entire ideology because some adherents have zany ideas are wrong and should be challenged.

opinion guy

Can I just say one thing that bothers me.

This guys name is everywhere. In part he did this because he wanted fame. He's getting it. It bothers me to see his name and his picture on every website and paper.

Seems to me one part of his punishment should be a good old fashioned shunning. We should all just agree never to use his name again. His name should be banned from publication and he should just be referred to as a murderer.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

Who is saying this? Who specifically is saying this that wasn't already calling for debate on immigration, stricter border policies etc?



Of course. There are 'individuals' trying to. If you could supply quotations from some examples I'll decide if they represent and speak for all right wing thinkers that justifies them being taken as mouthpieces for an ideology.

The Fox news link I posted.

The Sun editorial.