CNN: Giant blast hits government buildings in Oslo, Norway; shooter fires at youth camp

[Bang]

Cali, I think you're casting too big a blanket over this by claiming that none of what he's said affected him actually affected him.

I prefer to listen to what he says are his motivations. I think he's probably got a better handle on what drove him to this than anyone outside of him ever will.

If he says that he's influenced by the stuff he's said influenced him, laughing and just saying "no no.. he's only crazy.. none of that matters" is being incredibly ignorant.

He may have done something crazy, but that doesn't mean he's not lucid enough to have reasons.

And he's not being shy about telling anyone what they are.

Why shouldn't we listen to the madman when he tells us what drove him mad?

~Bang

[Koolblue13]

Why shouldn't we listen to the madman when he tells us what drove him mad?

~Bang

Especially when he says that there is an underground group of others, ready to do the same. I got blasted earlier in this thread for saying basically the same thing.

It's easy to just say he was crazy and dismiss it, but I guarantee a lot of AI groups around the World aren't.

[Bang]

Crazy people are crazy, but they're not all raving drooling lunatics who can't think.

Quite the opposite in many of them, in fact.

~Bang

[DRSmith]

What is also sick is another right wing nut is comparing the kids shot to the HItler youth

"As the thing started to unfold and there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. Who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing," Beck said on his program Monday morning.

http://www.wltx.com/news/national/article/144852/142/Glenn-Beck-Compares-Norwegian-Victims-to-Hitler-Youth

[twa]

Why shouldn't we listen to the madman when he tells us what drove him mad?

~Bang

?

we should listen....accepting it as reality might not be the best default position though.

the jump from Geller and co rhetoric to targeting his own people needs to be addressed.

I've read most of them and it is not a endorsed avenue(and yes,I read quite of bit of extremist writings from ALL points of view)

[PCS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43891225/ns/world_news-europe/

Norway gunman's lawyer: Anders Behring Breivik is 'insane'

Shooter thought he would be stopped earlier, defense lawyer says

OSLO, Norway — The defense lawyer for Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man who killed at least 76 people in a bombing and shooting spree, said in a press conference Tuesday that his client appeared to be insane.

"This whole case has indicated he's insane," Geir Lippestat told a room full of journalists.

He also said his client was surprised he wasn't stopped earlier in the shooting on Utoeya island or killed on the way to court on Monday.

"He is sorry he had to do this but it was necessary to start a start revolution in [the] Western world," Lippestat said, adding that he shows hate to anyone who's not an extremist.

Click Link For More

[oisn1]

In any case, though, immediately after my "one" example somebody posted this:

So I guess it's more than one, right?

But you picked just picked one sentence from my entire post to strawman my argument. I said

I definitely agree with this. If you read Free Republic, they were ready to kill all Muslims when the reports were saying he was a Muslim. But then he turns out to be a right-wing guy and all of the sudden, they started saying this was a false-flag operation and such. Now, they are saying that the kids deserved it because they were "Marxists" and let Muslims into the country. It's sickening to see people condone murder and terrorism because their "side" might have been responsible. To me, that is worse than the NavyDave defense where he tries to steer the conversation to bad things liberals have done. At least he understands that there is no excuse or justification for killing close to a hundred people.

I just want to say that your post really highlights the language that gets bandied about in the media. It's no longer about the differences between the two parties, it's about the fact that one side needs to fight to destroy the other side.

Maybe I read Baculus' post wrong and I hate having to parse my post again, but I guess I need to. I specifically referred to a site like Free Republic that is a fringe right-wing website. After the attack, they immediately wanted to destroy Muslims. But when he turned out to be a right-wing extremist, the site was filled with "false-flag operation by liberals to let more Muslims in." Then it went to victim blaming, Islamophobia screeds, and "No True Scotsman" attacks. Finally, I talked about agreeing with Baculus' post that the language that the media bandies about and how ideologies are no longer different, they are enemies and that one side must destroy another to save the country. The same thing happens in Europe, just like in the US. I think you misread my post.

That's not really the point, though, in my mind. As I later clarified, I am more rejecting the idea that we can place material culpability for violence on purveyors of even very extreme rhetoric, if said purveyors do not call for (or imply the call for) violence.

As I already noted, there are some very drastic claims being made in the environmentalist movement about coal power, for example, but I wouldn't blame them if somebody took those warnings to heart and bombed a coal plant, even if that person quoted extensively those environmentalists, and I don't buy the idea that if one presents the situation as dire enough, that this is an implicit call for violence.

And yes, I'd suggest that some people inconsistently apply this standard. If the perpetrator in this case had been a Muslim, we'd be getting the standard "...but it's a religion of peace" drivel from some of the same people now claiming that right wing ideology cannot be blamed for this, just as we would be hearing that Islam cannot be blamed for the actions of radicals from some of the same people who now want to blame the right wing for priming the pump in this case.

This is not to suggest that being inconsistent makes one wrong, just that I find it rather ironic.

I think, though, that my initial impression that it's too soon to be doing anything other than grieving was correct, so I'm stepping back.

But would you put some blame on the radical imam that preaches hateful rhetoric? There is a specific difference between putting some blame on purveyors of hate that directly influence a person. When the killer writes a (heavily cribbed) manifesto that specifically details how he arrived at his thought process by reading the ideas of certain people, shouldn't we analyze the content and effect that the person's writings could have?

Breivik was not a lone killer; he was not locked in his house solely working on this project. He was part of a secret underground "Knights Templar" group that wanted to take back Europe. He was part of the extremely racist English Defense League. While the groups are quick to point out that they don't condone violence, they also make inflammatory speeches about the inherent evil of "Marxist multiculturalism" and Islam. They talk about how those people will destroy Europe. No one is saying that the groups should be put on trial for murder, but we are saying that those people are responsible for how someone may interpret their sayings. It's standard practice in the engineering world to understand ethics and how your product will change the world. If you create the ability to split the atom, you are at least morally culpable for understanding that the science may be used to create a weapon. It's not a hard concept to understand.

So yeah, you and Califan can continue to wave away the effect that people can (directly and indirectly) have on others, but no man is an island. We live in a community where our perception of the world is often shaped by the community around us. Quite frankly, Breivik was clearly unstable and was drawn towards the hate-filled speech of these fringe people and groups. He, and only he, made the choice to kill people. It doesn't mean that every person in the world is absolved of ethical responsibility for fostering an environment that would lead to his actions. It's a fact of being part of a community.

[jpyaks3]

?

we should listen....accepting it as reality might not be the best default position though.

the jump from Geller and co rhetoric to targeting his own people needs to be addressed.

I've read most of them and it is not a endorsed avenue(and yes,I read quite of bit of extremist writings from ALL points of view)

While Geller and company may not specifically advocate violence, their rhetoric and their messages lead people down a path where it is okay to hate another group of person, and they spread fear of Muslims taking over the world with the Left and for some people they think that the only way to fight back is violence.

I am not sure if I am getting this across correctly but I guess my point is it should be unacceptable to fear monger any group, to spread hate, and thinly veil violent speech in society. It shouldn't be illegal because free speech is important but people like Pipes, Spencer, and Geller should be called out for the dangerous hate mongers they are, their should be no ****footing around these issues. They should be called out on their bigotry instead of quoted by congressmen, in a civil society their bigotry should be called out on what it is bigotry. We shouldn't be having people like the WSJ and Jpost editorial using these attacks as a springboard to attack Muslim immigration and multiculturalism, no one should be saying well.... what he did was wrong but he was right ya'know. If you want to continue the argument against immigration or against multiculturalism fine but its disgusting to use this tragedy as a soap box to spread that message.

[twa]

So Geller and co are like the Muslim Brotherhood w/o the violent history?

[jpyaks3]

So Geller and co are like the Muslim Brotherhood w/o the violent history?

Not even close, what does Geller do other then preach hate? Not even a close comparison. Care to substantiate this at all?

[oisn1]

So Geller and co are like the Muslim Brotherhood w/o the violent history?

Here's a better question; What is the point of that assertion?

[Baculus]

But NOT to the point that it plays any role whatsoever in the act of violence like this.

Rubbish. You don't know that. In fact, evidence, points to the contrary.

And let's look at YOUR statement lol...

Dude, quit prefacing your argument with a "lol." This is not laughing matter, and I have little interest in debating someone who finds this to be an amusing topic.

1) I didn't say "kills"...I said "mindless slaughter". significant difference. Claiming one who does this could be in the military alludes to collateral damage...which is not the "mindless slaughter" I am speaking of. And you should know this.

Perhaps you don't realize this, but people in the military have "mindlessly slaughtered" civilians. The murders at Haditha is an example.

2) Suicide bombers RARELY act on an individual basis. They are part of a larger network, in which far, FAR more than words are playing a role in their decision making and world views.

You don't know much about the suicide operations and the recruiting process in Palestine (though most have subsided there, for now) and in Pakistan, do you? Conduct some research. Suicide bombers are recruited, indoctrinated for martyrdom, and given the explosives.

During the Iran-Iraq war, scores of Iranians were indoctrinated into suicide brigades, filling the minds of these men with rhetoric about Heaven, 72 virgins, the whole Islamic Heaven deal, to be thrown against the Iraq lines (often to open up holes in mind fields).

You have a Westernized view, where you believe people operate solely on a person-by-person basis. In a collective society, such as the Middle East, they don't.

The ones that DO act on an individual basis, you will find were damn near almost always nutso before any of the words they may have read or heard came into the scene lol...these individuals latch onto ANYTHING to help fuel their inner demons and warped viewpoints, it doesn't matter what it is...so removing the hateful rhetoric only means they will latch onto something else and distort the words and meaning to fit their internal agenda.

You just proved my point -- they latch onto an EXTERNAL source to fuel their actions. What is this external source? LITERATURE. Nothing you just said dispels any of my previous assertions.

We remove that new "thing" from the equation, they latch onto something else still.

Maybe. Some people manage their mental instabilities. In your example we're talking about mental diseases here in the West, so we are indeed talking about individuals, and every one behaves differently. But you're assuming that everyone who carries about mass murder is nuts.

Some people are cold, calculating, and quite sane. They may have skewed views, but that's easy to happen when threats are perceived, fears are realized, and decisions are made to create action.

Look at the ongoing right-wing rhetoric, which mirrors that of Breivik. If a person truly believes that they West is on the verge of collapse, and that Marxists are the greatest traitors to that civilization, the violence may be seen as the heroic next step. If this is a delusion, it's a mass delusion shared by many on the Right.

How is this opinion formed? By an externalized ideology which then becomes internalized.

That's why it's asinine to focus on what he read as if it played an important role in his actions.

No, contrary to that, what's asinine is your continued claim that outside forces cannot provide an inciting spark to someone. You have not proven a single thing, while I have provided a specific case to bolster mine.

I can cite one single book which disproves your position: The Bible. Countless people have experienced life changing moments because of this tome. In fact, go back 500 hundred years, and it was essentially the only book available, before printing became more wide spread. If a person could read, and this was the only book they had, in a Christian culture, don't you think it's going to have a profound influence? Of course it will.

Some literature courses may change your view, because literature is inspirational.

Because it did not.

You have not proven your case to make such a declaration.

Reading up on how to build a bomb would have played a HUGELY bigger role in this massacre than reading any anti-Islam blogs on the interwebz.

I disagree. A person first needs to the motivation to build and USE that bomb. When I was in the 8th grade I gave a class presentation on how to build a pipe bomb ( was an early survivalist -- it was the Cold War), but I never made one and blew something up with it. Possessing knowledge doesn't mean it will be utilized unless a person has the reasoning to do so.

I'm talking about individuals who are not part of a larger network...a normal individual can have their reality temporarily warped by a larger network of individuals who have the right structure in place to do so.

I first you were speaking in absolutes, and now you're parsing your argument? Why is that? Were you influenced by outside forces to do so?

An individual without that larger network has to warp his OWN reality...thankfully to him, that warping had probably already been taking place during his developmental years, sometimes even before he's able TO read. Imagine that lol ...

And how does he "warp" his reality? Oh, I know. By reading.

As for this guy claiming that reading anti-Islamic writers helping him form his ideology, two things:

He doesn't just claim, he shows his sources.

1) Ted Bundy claimed that pornography helped him "form" his views on women and them being disposable. Pure rubbish, of course, but that's what he claimed.

Maybe it did. Many serial killers have pornography to reinforce their obsession. But it's a bit presumptuous for you to speak for Bundy.

Too many facts back up the "pure rubbish" part but I'm not gonna go into them now, it would take too long. But here's one clue: almost all of his victims looked alike. That's not due to porn lol...

You have yet to present any "facts." Only opinion and conjecture.

Porn REINFORCES the person's desires, that is what you don't seem to get. Sexuality, lust, murder, are internalized human drives. Pornography, and external influence, pushes these drives, providing that inciting spark I mentioned in another post.

People look at porn to heighten their emotional, sexual state. I bet Bundy had porn of very similar woman, such as those he murdered.

2) "Forming and ideology" is not a logical step to committing mass murder of innocents.

For some people it certainly is. An ideology is a set of beliefs. To those of a militant mindset, who simply aren't insane or serial killers, they form this set of beliefs before the decision to kill. A leads to B resulting in C.

You're behaving as if ideas are just loose collections of thoughts that somehow coalesce in a person without any organizing influences, events, personalities, etc.

How many people have read the same texts, even perhaps formed an ideology around it...but never as much as killed an Islamic fly, nonetheless went on a wholesale slaughter spree?

That's a moot question. No one ever said that every individual or group of people react the same way.

So why this one individual?

Because people are different, and some decide action over inaction. But there are plenty of people who share his views who wish they could follow his steps, but maybe they lack the courage, the conviction or means to do so.

Did he just understand the words better or something? lol...Or could it be that what actually set him off was not contained in the words that MILLIONS of people could have read without it leading to anything...but was contained within himself? Naaaaah.

You obviously have not read about this guy, nor do you seem to understand human motivations.

Millions of people read the Bible, but there is not one unified church.

There has yet to be a case like this one where it was proven and shown that some external factor set things in motion.

Incorrect. I gave you the example of Chapman, and his Catcher in the Rye influence was viewed as an example of his insanity, which is why he was sent to the state mental hospital. Chapman was reading Catcher, he bought a copy before he murdered Lennon, when the police came to arrest him after his act.

The murderous plans are always in motion beforehand, in the person's mind. They relive it and relive it so that it becomes almost their true reality. There have been dozens upon dozens of cases where it was shown that internal factors played 95% of the role in the violence and actions. There have been studies conducted that show the same.

But WHAT sets these plans into motion? Are they just sitting around one day, and out of the blue, a "aha!" moment comes? No. Sometimes they read or see something, and the moment, or the time spent planning it, develops.

Read my last post. Look it up on google if that's not enough. You're not gonna find any valid study done in forensic psychology that goes against what I'm saying.

Sorry, but it is up to you to prove your point and research.

The bottom line, though, will be that the only external experiences that have even a slightly direct line to actions of this magnitude by an individual perpetrator are the types of external experiences that the person has no control over: they are being forced upon him, he is not willingly participating (the exception would be drug use).

I disagree, and you have to prove your point. It's your argument.

But just for you, here's a study you can read up on and gain whatever conclusions from it that you desire:

Psychology of Terrorism

My theory falls under the Cognitive Theory, while yours falls more under the Drive Theory:

Of course it's relating to the drive theory -- that's the inciting motivation. That is what we have been talking about all along. All you did was verify my assertion.

My reading of this: The frustration felt and promoted/encouraged from this guy reading anti-Islamic twaddle would NOT have lead to aggression on his part...the only type of frustration that seems to play a role in aggression is aversive frustration.

The anti-Islamic literature he read worked hand-in-hand with his still-developing philosophies. Breivik, though, mentions several key moments that led, in around 1999, to his solidifying ideology. It came together after he read, observed, and listened to other people, which is typically how a political ideology matures.

Some people read the Communist Manifesto, or the Road to Serfdom for this to happen. Others read Internet sources. I know this from personal experience, because my former 9-11 conspiratorial views came from the Internet and external sources.

You could argue that the readings were "aversive" in that they kept pushing his buttons...but the type of aggressive result described here seems to point to it being directed at the person DOING the aversive act, which would be the blog writer lol. And usually aversive frustration deals with external actions that you don't have control over...reading the anti-islamic rantings wouldn't qualify.

Of COURSE they qualify, because they feed the frustration. They tell the person why they are frustrated and who is frustrating them. That's when the "aha!" moment comes, when they suddenly "understand."

Seriously, man -- so many people, in so many instances, have said that they didn't understand this or that until they read a book and it all came together.

I guess you have never had that moment. When it's a good thing, a positive, it's fantastic. You should read more.

My reading of this: it's the individual's internal subjective and warped perceptions that lead to how they view the world and the violence they choose to act on...and they go about bolstering their delusional perceptions with external things that they experience and remember.

Yes. That is what we have been saying.

It need not be an accurate memory or perception of an event for it to suit their purposes. And the "perpetual hypersensitivity" would indicate that damn near ANYTHING could "set them off", as they are hypersensitive to their external environment. A woman not saying "gesundheit" after he sneezes could set someone like him off...should we spend time discussing the lack of civility in society and it's role in a mass murderer's actions because of it? lol...

That's a bit different -- a specific sort of triggering event. There's a difference between killing someone because they looked at you the wrong way and planning an attack to kill your political enemies. One is rash, the other is planned.

It is extremely difficult to place that type of warped mentality and unrealistic perception inside an individual through written words...so trying to assign ANY level of blame to what he was reading is a fool's errand.

Incorrect and incorrect.

You wanna go look up some more? lol...Be my guest. But there's a start.

Why should I? You have yet to prove anything to support your case. I gave you an example from the mouth of the killer himself, Mark David Chapman, where he explained the profound affect a book had on him. Even more so, you basically agreed with me at one point, and then retreated back to your previous position.

This is getting long, so I am going to <snip> this post.

You later something, though, that should be highlighted. You said, "The whole correlation/causation argument would and should be at play, here." Yes. THAT IS OUR POINT. You act as if there is NO correlation or causation.

I don't think you would make a very good detective, because you would ignore factors which led to a person's actions.

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 04:40 PM ----------

So Geller and co are like the Muslim Brotherhood w/o the violent history?

At least the Muslim Brotherhood provides some social services. Geller is merely a hater.

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 04:41 PM ----------

But you picked just picked one sentence from my entire post to strawman my argument. I said

Maybe I read Baculus' post wrong and I hate having to parse my post again, but I guess I need to. I specifically referred to a site like Free Republic that is a fringe right-wing website. After the attack, they immediately wanted to destroy Muslims. But when he turned out to be a right-wing extremist, the site was filled with "false-flag operation by liberals to let more Muslims in." Then it went to victim blaming, Islamophobia screeds, and "No True Scotsman" attacks. Finally, I talked about agreeing with Baculus' post that the language that the media bandies about and how ideologies are no longer different, they are enemies and that one side must destroy another to save the country. The same thing happens in Europe, just like in the US. I think you misread my post.

But would you put some blame on the radical imam that preaches hateful rhetoric? There is a specific difference between putting some blame on purveyors of hate that directly influence a person. When the killer writes a (heavily cribbed) manifesto that specifically details how he arrived at his thought process by reading the ideas of certain people, shouldn't we analyze the content and effect that the person's writings could have?

Good points, and you understood my post how I intended it to be understood.

[Destino]

So Geller and co are like the Muslim Brotherhood w/o the violent history?

So Muslim Imam that preach hatred for western society are completely unrelated to Islamic terrorism?

[Baculus]

So Muslim Imam that preach hatred for western society are completely unrelated to Islamic terrorism?

You know what's funny/odd? The right-wing will point to obscure people on the Left, such as Sal Alinsky, as being influential and behind a "leftist conspiracy," but their story suddenly changes when it comes to those on the Right and high-profile individuals.

[twa]

Bac ya go lying about my Marines and I'm not going to be nice

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_marines_vs_haditha_smear_m.html

[Destino]

Take a look at some of the pictures on SIOA facebook. (Stop Islamization of America)

This one has adult language:

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/bombing_kaba.jpg

But wait there's more (and more relevant). The terrorist liked Templar imagery...

You people think this is reasonable? Those images are hosted by loonwatch and are screen caps. To see it for yourself go to their facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=110841015612178&v=photos

[twa]

So Muslim Imam that preach hatred for western society are completely unrelated to Islamic terrorism?

there is a difference between 'completely unrelated' and the cause...as you well know

are you claiming all fundamentalist imans advocate terror?

Should we also include any that preach against western morals or influence?

[Destino]

there is a difference between 'completely unrelated' and the cause...as you well know

are you claiming all fundamentalist imans advocate terror?

Should we also include any that preach against western morals or influence?

I've consistently stated that there is a difference between a reasonable opposition and inciting hatred. I stand by that. There is a difference in saying "immigration needs to serve the best interests of a nation" and "Muslims are here to conquer us and destroy our civilization" mixed in with images of war. Especially when you look at the above that is actively celebrating the idea of crusades and bombing mecca.

You bet your ass that applies to Muslim religious leaders that seek to justify terrorist attacks and incite others.

[Baculus]

Bac ya go lying about my Marines and I'm not going to be nice

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_marines_vs_haditha_smear_m.html

Nice going, changing the topic.

I don't care how you want to play, Bucko, especially after you said I was "lying." Dismissal of charges by the military doesn't change the facts on the ground, that 24 civilians were killed.

The U.S. military, at first, claimed that the civilians were killed by an IED. This was not the case, after witnesses were interviewed. Now the story is that the civilians were killed by collateral damage, which is a high number of incidental deaths.

Go tell the survivors of the families that these those deaths were "collateral," and see what they have to say.

Now, back to the topic at hand -- almost 100 young people murdered. Let's hear more of your asinine B.S. defenses of the right-wing.

[twa]

You bring it up and then claim getting called on it is changing the subject?

Mindless slaughter is a lie and defaming them,their families and the military court.

As far as defending the right wing ya are gonna need to narrow that down ...or do you just practice the shotgun approach to blood libel?

[Baculus]

You bring it up and then claim getting called on it is changing the subject?

Mindless slaughter is a lie and defaming them,their families and the military court.

As far as defending the right wing ya are gonna need to narrow that down ...or do you just practice the shotgun approach to blood libel?

My point was simple -- that external sources can influence people in action, and your disagreement on it is noted. But if you want to start a different thread to debate this specific topic, the Haditha killings, then go ahead.

You so frequently defend the right wing, so where would I begin? Which topic? Oh, I dunno, how about the one we're discussing?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

More like 'the terrorist has hurt the cause he espoused'

Rights of women,gays,jew and free speech will suffer because of a murderer,just as rights and freedom suffer from other murdering scum in Islamic countries.

Huh?

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 01:08 PM ----------

For the record, I hate the "This is just a crazy person doing crazy things" excuse. It takes overtly political acts and makes them an "exception" instead of something of a larger narrative. Islamic Terrorism IS a problem. Fanatical right-wingers are a problem with the potential to be a bigger problem.

And Europe - outside of Great Britian to some degree - has never been good at absording new cultures. So, this tension between "natives" and "others" is going to be ongoing for quite some time.

[oisn1]

Huh?

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 01:08 PM ----------

For the record' date=' I hate the "This is just a crazy person doing crazy things" excuse. It takes overtly political acts and makes them an "exception" instead of something of a larger narrative. Islamic Terrorism IS a problem. Fanatical right-wingers are a problem with the potential to be a bigger problem.

And Europe - outside of Great Britian to some degree - has never been good at absording new cultures. So, this tension between "natives" and "others" is going to be ongoing for quite some time.[/quote']

Don't you get it, twa is saying that because of Breivik, those evil Muzzies will continue to be allowed to invade Europe and kill Jews and enslave women. Don't you understand, all Muslims are women-beating animals.

[twa]

Huh?

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 01:08 PM ----------

For the record' date=' I hate the "This is just a crazy person doing crazy things" excuse. It takes overtly political acts and makes them an "exception" instead of something of a larger narrative. Islamic Terrorism IS a problem. Fanatical right-wingers are a problem with the potential to be a bigger problem.

And Europe - outside of Great Britian to some degree - has never been good at absording new cultures. So, this tension between "natives" and "others" is going to be ongoing for quite some time.[/quote']

Terrorism has the effect of loss of freedoms and govt intrusion,it also in many cases results in restricting free speech

I agree simply dismissing them as crazy is a mistake (which no one in the prevention field does)

Europe has certainly had that problem,one that is being overlooked,both in this case by many posters and in the greater realm of absorbing immigrants.

Nice oisn1....careful or ya might be accused of inciting a killer

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/in-response-to-norway-attacks-right-wing-bloggers-suddenly-demand-nuance/2011/03/04/gIQAndgfYI_blog.html

In response to Norway attacks, right-wing bloggers suddenly demand nuance

By Adam Serwer

American anti-Islam bloggers aren’t to blame for the Norway Massacre. But their response to the attacks is nonetheless revealing, in that they are now demanding the kind of nuanced analysis of the Norway shootings that they’ve always failed to offer when implicating jihadism or all Muslims for terror attacks.

As the news of terrorist attacks in Oslo broke on Friday, the conservative media were quick to place the blame on al Qaeda even though the details weren’t fully known. Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin wrote that the attacks were “a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.”

At first, it wasn’t unreasonable to reach that conclusion. Given the way the attacks unfolded — multiple targets being hit within a short time period — it was reasonable to assume that Islamic extremists were responsible, rather than anti-Muslim extremist Anders Behring Breivik.

When the truth became known, Rubin, like many others on the right, tried to downplay the right-wing anti-Muslim ideology driving the alleged shooter. She was suddenly far more generic in how she described Breivik’s motive, referring to it as “undiluted evil.”

What’s notable about the response by conservatives to the attack is that their primary worry was that the anti-Islam cause might be tarnished. Bruce Bawer, writing in the Wall Street Journal, was beside himself that “this murderous madman has become the poster boy for the criticism of Islam.” He then casts Breivik’s concerns, if not his actions, as defensible, describing “the way he moves from a legitimate concern about genuine problems to an unspeakably evil `solution.’”

It would be hard to imagine a conservative showing such empathy for Hamas, concluding that while terrorism is evil, they are nevertheless acting out of legitimate concerns about Palestinian suffering. What’s pathetic is not so much their reasoning, but the knowledge that their arguments would be the same in substance, if more enthusiastic, had Muslim extremists been responsible.

The most telling reaction was from the anti-Muslim bloggers Breivik cited by name in his manifesto.

Pamela Geller, who along with Professional Islamophobe Robert Spencer has been active in opposing the construction of mosques in the U.S., wrote: “This is just a sinister attempt to tar all anti-jihadists with responsibility for this man’s heinous actions.” Spencer, for his part, wrote: “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.”

Most of Geller and Spencer’s blogging consists of attempts to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism. At CPAC last year, Geller and Spencer drew a large crowd for their documentary referring to the proposed community center near Ground Zero as “the second wave of the 9/11 attacks.” Yet they’re now pleading for the world not to do what they’ve spent their careers doing — assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association. What’s clear is that they understand that the principle of collective responsibility is a monstrous wrong in the abstract, or at least when it’s applied to them. They are now begging for the kind of tolerance and understanding they cheerfully refuse to grant to American Muslims.

Click link for rest