Oslo bombed

Sir Oxman · 25-07-2011 08:14PM

Jaafa wrote: »

ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Has anyone else noticed that since it emerged that the killings where by a single Norwegian 'christian', the media have stopped calling the events terrorist attacks? They called them horrific,terrible,murders but not terrorist. Why?

Is what this man has done not the very definition of terror? Causing people as far as our little Island to fear similar events happening here?

What constitutes a terrorist attack these days?

Does it have to come from a group previously labelled as terrorist?
Does it have to come from abroad?
Does it have have a religious bases?
Or does it simply have to be a Muslim who carries out the attack?

Or have the media altered the definition of the word to only refer to specific events caused by a specific set of people?

What if the bombing had been carried out by a Muslim man who wanted to kill the PM for say his economic policy? Is it terrorist now?

It is very telling - I've read a few posts on here intimating the same, that this is not terrorism.
In a lot of quarters these days, terrorism can only be committed by Islamist extremists.
That's the dominant narrative and it's being played out on a tv and paper near you!

Mance Rayder · 25-07-2011 08:17PM

gambiaman wrote: »

It is very telling - I've read a few posts on here intimating the same, that this is not terrorism.
In a lot of quarters these days, terrorism can only be committed by Islamist extremists.
That's the dominant narrative and it's being played out on a tv and paper near you!

IRA are referred to as terrorists quite regularly in the mainstream media.

I think the confusion here is between organised terror commited by a political/religious group and single acts of terror commited by psycho's.The latter can be referred to as Mass Murder and the like.

George Bush Era propaganda has a lot to do with the Islam=Terror ideology.
However the sheer amount of Terror attacks in the name of Islam doesn't help Islams public relations.

wild_cat · 25-07-2011 08:17PM

gambiaman wrote: »

FPO in Austria.
Vlaams Blok in Belgium.
DPP in Denmark.
Progress Party in Norway.
SVP in Switzerland.
Freedom Party in Netherlands.
True Finns in Finland.
Sweden democrats in Sweden.

Quite a collection with noticeable electoral support.

It's very surprising to me that the UK (specifically Britain) doesn't have a large, electorally successful political far-right party.

I just had a look at the Irish defence leagues face book page.... Its being spammed to high heavens at the moment by the left/anti-fa. There seems to be three main posters on it... One female and two males - (the rest are anti-fa type posts).

Jaafa · 25-07-2011 08:19PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

IRA are referred to as terrorists quite regularly.

Would you consider what this man did terrorist?

stone roses · 25-07-2011 08:23PM

"satans best achivment, convince the world he is fake"!! this evil bastards aim was clear "KILL AS MANY KIDS AS HE COULD"!!! HE is a demon of hate and pure evil his eyes are dark and hollow you can see he has no feeling or fear on his face only a smile he has done his duty , he is one of the devils childeren and he will have support and be protected buy his followers , he will be regarded as a hero like hitler is today buy many evil people!! he will have followers to continue were he left off , the world is heading in the wrong direction god help us!! r.i.p to all the souls who fell on the 22/7 in norway

peace

Mance Rayder · 25-07-2011 08:24PM

Jaafa wrote: »

Would you consider what this man did terrorist?

Yes most definitely.

Jaafa · 25-07-2011 08:44PM

CiscoStudent wrote: »

Yes most definitely.

OK. Why do you think the media have not acknowledged this terrorism?

shadowninty · 25-07-2011 08:47PM

Jaafa wrote: »

ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
–noun
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Has anyone else noticed that since it emerged that the killings where by a single Norwegian 'christian', the media have stopped calling the events terrorist attacks? They called them horrific,terrible,murders but not terrorist. Why?

Is what this man has done not the very definition of terror? Causing people as far as our little Island to fear similar events happening here?

What constitutes a terrorist attack these days?

Does it have to come from a group previously labelled as terrorist?
Does it have to come from abroad?
Does it have have a religious bases?
Or does it simply have to be a Muslim who carries out the attack?

Or have the media altered the definition of the word to only refer to specific events caused by a specific set of people?

What if the bombing had been carried out by a Muslim man who wanted to kill the PM for say his economic policy? Is it terrorist now?

I noticed that Channel 4 explicitly called him a terrorists a few times alright, they are always great for news, shame they dont have a news channel tbh

Blueboyd · 25-07-2011 08:53PM

stone roses wrote: »

"satans best achivment, convince the world he is fake"!! this evil bastards aim was clear "KILL AS MANY KIDS AS HE COULD"!!! HE is a demon of hate and pure evil his eyes are dark and hollow you can see he has no feeling or fear on his face only a smile he has done his duty , he is one of the devils childeren and he will have support and be protected buy his followers , he will be regarded as a hero like hitler is today buy many evil people!! he will have followers to continue were he left off , the world is heading in the wrong direction god help us!! r.i.p to all the souls who fell on the 22/7 in norway

peace

First I thought you wrote about the pedophiles of Vatican but then I noticed the date.

You could be right
but I'd still bet he is smiling because
a) he is a narcist 30 %
b) he is high on anabolic stereoids 70 %

jill_valentine · 25-07-2011 08:55PM

shadowninty wrote: »

I noticed that Channel 4 explicitly called him a terrorists a few times alright, they are always great for news, shame they dont have a news channel tbh

Jon Snow is a legend.

Jaafa · 25-07-2011 08:56PM

shadowninty wrote: »

I noticed that Channel 4 explicitly called him a terrorists a few times alright, they are always great for news, shame they dont have a news channel tbh

Yep there are a few alright. But I personally have found that many of the headlines in newspapers etc have omitted this.

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 08:59PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Because from an evolutionary perspective those who lived the longest are those who stuck with their tribe and were suspicious of other tribes. It's not an intelligent decision to prejudice against others who look or dress differently, it's an instinctive one.

Even nowadays our immediate assumptions of others based on their appearance can be beneficial depending on the context, although the vast majority of the times they're misplaced and we have to consciously try to avoid passing judgments based on trivial observations.

sure, but we no longer live in tribes. And whilst the way someone is dressed may give a clue as to the level of danger to you (you'd think twice before talking to people in hoodies or gangsters), skin colour really does not.

Seachmall · 25-07-2011 09:02PM

Blueboyd wrote: »

but I'd still bet he is smiling because
a) he is a narcissist and loves the attention 70%
b) he thinks he will be considered a martyr [fueling his narcissism] 30%

^^My opinion.

Moomoo1 wrote:

skin colour really does not.

But it did, and current societies grew too fast for our snap-judgements to respond to. It's not an intelligent decision we make, it's an instinctive one.

philologos · 25-07-2011 09:02PM

Jaafa: How hasn't the media recognised him as a terrorist? In all coverage I've read they have regarded him as a terrorist. This is a stark reminder that a distinct minority of terrorist attacks in Europe are from Islamic extremists.

Cianos · 25-07-2011 09:02PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwdCxV10FwQ

This coverage from Fox News is a disgrace. Essentially telling the Norwegians they only had themselves to blame for not safe guarding themselves against Islamic terrorist attacks.

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 09:03PM

Sgt. Sensible wrote: »

Worst political analysis ever ffs. It's a huge kick in the balls for far right groups. Nobody in their right mind wants to be associated in any way with a pathetic prat who just murdered a load of teenagers. Even the vast majority of the st*rmfr*nt bedsitgruppen appear to be disgusted by it.

that's probably because the guy was a Zionist and on that forum it is de rigeur to believe in ZOG

philologos · 25-07-2011 09:04PM

Cianos: Not much worse than The Sun or Sky News really.

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 09:04PM

philologos wrote: »

Jaafa: How hasn't the media recognised him as a terrorist? In all coverage I've read they have regarded him as a terrorist. This is a stark reminder that a distinct minority of terrorist attacks in Europe are from Islamic extremists.

the word 'terrorist' I did not see used nearly as often as it would be when Muslims did it

Turtwig · 25-07-2011 09:07PM

ROFLMAO @ Norway neutral in the war on terrorism. What. A. Fail

Jaafa · 25-07-2011 09:09PM

philologos wrote: »

Jaafa: How hasn't the media recognised him as a terrorist? In all coverage I've read they have regarded him as a terrorist. This is a stark reminder that a distinct minority of terrorist attacks in Europe are from Islamic extremists.

Perhaps but again it is not in the headlines, it is not repeated and repeated like with Muslim terrorists. For explain many news outlets simply call these events, 'attacks' not 'terrorist attacks'

The only time I see the word terrorist in regards to him is when they mention one of his charges is terrorism.

Like I said he is being considered a terrorist by some,and in some news outlets but it is not nearly as widespread as it would be if he was a Muslim IMO.

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 09:15PM

philologos wrote: »

Brevik talked about a revolution that needed to happen across Europe and he clearly did his homework. Although his perspective is on the far right, I have talked with people on the far-left who believe that if the revolution in the Marxist sense of the word happened with violence that may be a necessary step.

yeah. Difference is, in a left-wing revolution the violence would be against the people at the top - who let's face it probably deserve it. In a right-wing revolution the violence would be against people who are not responsible for the state this country is in.

dsmythy · 25-07-2011 09:16PM

Moomoo1 wrote: »

yeah. Difference is, in a left-wing revolution the violence would be against the people at the top - who let's face it probably deserve it. In a right-wing revolution the violence would be against people who are not responsible for the state this country is in.

Who would deserve getting shot or blown up?

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 09:17PM

Latchy wrote: »

There' lot of anger and frustration out there now in society and Ireland has more than it fair share of it as you rightly say ,lot of worry and stress with personall finance and the windy ecomomy blowing hot and cold, but mainly cold .

So yes, even prior to this Massacre in Oslo there was ( and is ) the potential for somebody to go off on one for all kinds of reasons but tomorrow, next week or ten years from now is anybodys guess .

the question is, why do they always go off against kids, or foreigners, or other sorts of minorities?

why not go after the people in charge of our mess?

Blueboyd · 25-07-2011 09:19PM

Seachmall wrote: »

^^My opinion.

but I'd still bet he is smiling because
a) he is a narcissist and loves the attention 70%
b) he thinks he will be considered a martyr [fueling his narcissism] 30%one.

Maybe you are right but I would not underestimate how cookoo "overuse" of anabolics can make you.

I remember how in the 80's a olympic javelin thrower up here drove into a police radar something like 200 km/h and tried to escape. Finally when they caught him - he insisted he had God's permission to drive that fast.

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 09:21PM

dsmythy wrote: »

Who would deserve getting shot or blown up?

people who started wars in Iraq/Afganistan for example?

yeah.

opinion guy · 25-07-2011 09:22PM

Cianos wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwdCxV10FwQ

This coverage from Fox News is a disgrace. Essentially telling the Norwegians they only had themselves to blame for not safe guarding themselves against Islamic terrorist attacks.

What.
The.
****.

What alternate reality do these guys exist in ? Its a tirade about **** that didn't happen

dsmythy · 25-07-2011 09:30PM

Moomoo1 wrote: »

people who started wars in Iraq/Afganistan for example?

yeah.

So every politician who supported it, British Labour Party and Conservatives and American Democrats and Republicans, deserve to be shot and blown up?

sock puppet · 25-07-2011 09:35PM

Moomoo1 wrote: »

yeah. Difference is, in a left-wing revolution the violence would be against the people at the top - who let's face it probably deserve it. In a right-wing revolution the violence would be against people who are not responsible for the state this country is in.

FFS. A man has just killed dozens of people because he thought they deserved to die. You've just made the same distinction he did. Unbelievable.

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 09:40PM

sock puppet wrote: »

FFS. A man has just killed dozens of people because he thought they deserved to die. You've just made the same distinction he did. Unbelievable.

he killed innocent kids, not politicians who knew what they were doing

in any case, I believe in peaceful change whenever possible. I was just making a comparison between a violent left-wing revolution and a right-wing one: as horrible it is to kill even thoroughly guilty people, it is not nearly a bad as killing innocent ones.

Moomoo1 · 25-07-2011 09:42PM

dsmythy wrote: »

So every politician who supported it, British Labour Party and Conservatives and American Democrats and Republicans, deserve to be shot and blown up?

I wouldn't do it to them if it were in my power, no, but I wouldn't shed too many tears if they were.

Oslo bombed

Comments