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

[Bang]

Slappity slap slap.

Time to grow up, people.

~Bang

[SkinsHokieFan]

Far-right leader in Europe speaks of growing anger against Muslims

Last Updated: 12:32 PM, July 26, 2011

Posted: 12:28 PM, July 26, 2011

LUTON, England — The leader of a British far-right group to which Anders Behring Breivik claims links called the attacks a sign of "growing anger" in Europe against Muslim immigrants, while a politician in a party in Italy's governing coalition called some of the gunman's ideas "great."

Following a wave of near universal revulsion against the attacks, the comments were among the first public statements that appeared to defend the extremist views that drove the Norwegian gunman to carry out the massacre.

'TERRORIST'S' LAWYER CALLS HIM LIKELY INSANE

Stephen Lennon, leader of the English Defense League, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he does not condone Breivik's rampage but "the fact that so many people are scared — people have to listen to that."

"People should look at what happened in Oslo and understand that there is growing anger in Europe," said Lennon, 28. "You suppress people's rights you suppress people's voices and people will just continue to go underground — but that doesn't make the problem go away."

Backtracking on earlier denials of any link to Breivik, Lennon said he is in touch with regional EDL leaders to find out whether the gunman had contact with members of the group as he claims in his sprawling manifesto.

Breivik has also posted admiring comments about the EDL online and expressed a wish to attend its rallies.

"It could turn out that one of our members met with him but at this point we're not turning anything up," Lennon said.

Meanwhile, Mario Borghezio, a European parliamentarian who belongs to Italy's rightwing Northern League party, told a mainstream Italian radio station that he sympathized with some of Breivik's ideas.

"Some of the ideas he expressed are good, barring the violence, some of them are great," he told Il Sole-24 Ore radio station.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/far_right_leader_muslims_europe_2XU548B4wzfYNP1OaWaQcJ#ixzz1TF4OpVlS

[greenspandan]

haha. when they jumped to the conclusion that this was perpetrated by muslims, the right wingers were howling about the evils of that religion, and the failure of multiculturalism. now that it turns out it was one of their own, it has nothing to do with politics or religion. gotta hand it to them -- they are some stubborn SOBs.

[twa]

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/26/in-defense-of-robert-spencer/2/

The complete absence of quotes in which Robert Spencer calls for anyone to commit acts of terrorism reveals just how empty the media’s case against him is. Instead, the New York Times props up its argument by citing the infamous “64 quotes,” many of them from the same document, others quoted secondhand and none of them calling for violence against Muslims.

And even this is irrelevant because Breivik did not carry out violence against Muslims. Instead, like the Columbine shooters, his main target was a facility with children.

If Breivik was motivated by Islamophobia, then why did he not attempt to kill Muslims? Why did he not open fire inside a mosque?

Breivik was driven by fantasies of seizing power, combined with steroid abuse and escapism. He used quotes from researchers into terrorism to pad out his schizophrenic worldview, combined with fantasies of multiple terrorist cells and an eventual rise to power.

This is not so different from lunatics who picked up a copy of “Catcher in the Rye” and then set off to kill a celebrity. A not uncommon event, for which J.D. Salinger bears no responsibility whatsoever.

Not only did Breivik not target Muslims, but he considered collaborating with Muslim terrorists.

“An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties,” Breivik wrote. “We both share one common goal.”

Breivik dreamed of obtaining WMDs from jihadi terrorist groups for use against European targets. And emphasized that, “Knights Templar do not intend to persecute devout Muslims or enslave them under puppet leaders in their own Islamic countries like today’s EU/US leaders are doing.”

Rather than being driven by Islamophobia, Breivik was fantasizing about collaborating in mass murder with the same Salafi terrorist groups that researchers like Robert Spencer have worked so hard to expose.

Had Breivik succeeded in contacting jihadist groups and arranging for a transfer of WMDs, then the very people that the media is now damning might have proved vital in exposing the threat.

This is why the attacks on Spencer and other jihad researchers are so shortsighted and dangerously counterproductive. As Breivik understood, terrorists have more in common with each other than with those who seek to stop them. And silencing researchers of terrorism is a victory for terrorists.

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/26/in-defense-of-robert-spencer/2/

The "defense" of Spencer

.

Sorry, this is some serious whining and I think you are better then that TWA to attempt to defend such a pathetic human like Spencer. Bigoted, completely wrong, uses incredibly out of context quotes, is not a scholar are better ways to describe him and his ilk.

The man is not being silenced. Jihadwatch is still running, he is still free to publish books. But the civilized world has every right to point him out as a hate monger who clearly had influence on the killer in Norway.

If Spencer didn't sit around arguing that Muslims are evil, Islam is evil, there is a huge "creeping Sharia" threat that must be responded to, I'd give him some benefit of the doubt. But he has been doing this for a decade and is a major fuel to the Islamaphobic fire

[oisn1]

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/26/in-defense-of-robert-spencer/2/

The complete absence of quotes in which Robert Spencer calls for anyone to commit acts of terrorism reveals just how empty the media’s case against him is. Instead, the New York Times props up its argument by citing the infamous “64 quotes,” many of them from the same document, others quoted secondhand and none of them calling for violence against Muslims.

And even this is irrelevant because Breivik did not carry out violence against Muslims. Instead, like the Columbine shooters, his main target was a facility with children.

If Breivik was motivated by Islamophobia, then why did he not attempt to kill Muslims? Why did he not open fire inside a mosque?

Breivik was driven by fantasies of seizing power, combined with steroid abuse and escapism.

Yeah he didn't kill Muslims, he killed people that he thought were enabling Muslims. He explicitly states that "Marxist multiculturalists" were responsible for allowing Muslims to pollute European countries. Thus, he had to kill the real puppet master to start a revolution against multiculturalism. He considered Marxists to be the greater evil. I mean it's all in his manifesto and his own words.

[twa]

Has he advocated violence?...No,in fact he warns against it(aside from against terrorists,which I'm sure you share)

Is he a fan of Sharia and political Islam?...hell no ,that does not mean he hates Muslims

Would you assign the same concern to those that cry out about fundamentalist christians influencing politics?

[Bang]

Has he advocated violence?...No,in fact he warns against it(aside from against terrorists,which I'm sure you share)

Is he a fan of Sharia and political Islam?...hell no ,that does not mean he hates Muslims

Would you assign the same concern to those that cry out about fundamentalist christians influencing politics?

You're over the deep end.

Damn shame.

~Bang

[twa]

You're over the deep end.

I'm suddenly feeling persecuted :pfft:

[Boss_Hogg]

Glenn Beck: Norway camp smacks of 'Hitler Youth'

(CNN) -- In the wake of last week's massacre in Norway, U.S. conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Monday compared the summer camp where most of the 76 victims died to the Hitler Youth organization of Nazi Germany.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/25/beck.norway/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[Predicto]

I can't even tell if some people are trolling anymore.

[Koala]

Just because the terrorist killed other Norwegians, doesnt mean that xenophobia/islamophobia were not the primary culprits behind the act. It could well be that he was so disgusted by his own people's leniency towards muslims that he felt it was time to either punish his own society for their traitorous tolerance of muslims, or do something big to draw attention to his cause. Thats not just possible, in fact it looks probable.

So called Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do this all the time. It is quite frequent that they kill other muslims in mass terror attakcs, because they have decided that the people are growing too lenient about american troop presence or too pro-western in general.

It is amusing that many people who can instantly comprehend the link between Al-Qaeda terrorist ideology and its seemingly paradoxical attacks on muslims, and yet are somehow incapable of accepting that there may still be a link between the Norwegian terrorist's hatred of muslims, and his seemingly paradoxical choice of target. I say amusing, becuase this feigned ignorance isnt fooling anyone, but it is telling that they would rather play retarded, rather than simply admit to being wrong. What an ironic consequence of arrogance.

[thehogs]

Just because the terrorist killed other Norwegians, doesnt mean that xenophobia/islamophobia were not the primary culprits behind the act. It could well be that he was so disgusted by his own people's leniency towards muslims that he felt it was time to either punish his own society for their traitorous tolerance of muslims, or do something big to draw attention to his cause. Thats not just possible, in fact it looks probable.

So called Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do this all the time. It is quite frequent that they kill other muslims in mass terror attakcs, because they have decided that the people are growing too lenient about american troop presence or too pro-western in general.

It is amusing that many people who can instantly comprehend the link between Al-Qaeda terrorist ideology and its seemingly paradoxical attacks on muslims, and yet are somehow incapable of accepting that there may still be a link between the Norwegian terrorist's hatred of muslims, and his seemingly paradoxical choice of target. I say amusing, becuase this feigned ignorance isnt fooling anyone, but it is telling that they would rather play retarded, rather than simply admit to being wrong. What an ironic consequence of arrogance.

agreed. I have said for some time that if you look at the horrendous body count of AlQ and any associated group they spend a hell of a lot of time killing Muslims, not Christians, and basically for the reasons you say: considered pro-western, not religious enough and so on. This guy has basically done the same. No one is innocent to him, they were all part of the problem and deserved what was coming.

[twa]

Cute commentary

Now care to demonstrate why his doing so was provoked by the anti-jihadi crowd like Spencer/Geller?

Is that a tactic they endorse?...isn't it in fact one they warn against?

Do we take your linkage to mean any that oppose western influence or immigration support terrorism?

Geir Lippestad said it was not clear if the lone gunman was mad, but: "The whole case has indicated that he is insane."

He added: "He says he is sorry, he had to do this but it is necessary.

"He hates all the Western ideas and the values of democracy. He expects that this is the start of a war that will last 60 years.

"He looks upon himself as a warrior. He starts this war and takes some kind of pride in that."

It also emerged today that Breivik has been put on suicide watch amid fears he may take his own life — his lawyer has revealed he had not expected to survive the massacre.

Mr Lippestad said he had confessed to "atrocious but necessary" actions but denies he is a criminal. It was too early to say if he would plead insanity, he said, particularly as Breivik feels only he "understands the truth".

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3714620/Norway-murderer-Anders-Breivik-was-on-drugs.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News#ixzz1TFwv7k8E

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 06:44 PM ----------

a bit different look

http://www.frumforum.com/is-breivick-an-anarchist#more-99484

Is Breivick an Anarchist?

[MrSilverMaC]

Yep :yes:

Not in the way this guy did, no...

Not the part in the red, no. At least not completely (environment during the developmental stage can indeed play a role) I've stated that it is internal...I showed from a study that individuals like this nutcase might be hypersensitive to the perceived "aggressions" that exist in reality, or a whole bunch of internal issues too numerous to mention. It's not limited to 2-3 basic categories...but the inability to view the world in a realistic, objective way points to an internal cause.

For lack of a better way of putting it, yes. It's like the difference between your own parents constantly telling you in a multitude of ways that Islam is an evil religion and all members of it deserve to die...and reading a pamphlet someone hands you on the street saying the same thing.

Can't think of any right now...but obviously if I think you (or anyone) gets my posts wrong, I'll point it out lol ...

Seriously, though...if I hear/read one more person claim that I'm saying words don't affect people I'm gonna rip apart their keyboard and shove the Space bar up their left nostril.

If this Norway shooter/bomber were a recipe, he would probably look like this:

2 cups of inner demons

1 1/2 cups of inabilities to cope with realities in a healthy way

1/2 cup of abuse, drug or childhood

1/4 cup of possible biological abnormalities

1 cup of environmental issues in his home or neighborhood

1/4 cup of frustration and self esteem issues

1 Tbs of reading hateful political rhetoric* (optional)

* Economic duress, employment hardship, car problems, still in love with ex-girlfriend, and squeaky shoes can all be substituted for Hateful Political Rhetoric

Cook slowly at 325 degrees, stirring occasionally, for 10 years and serve

Ok, I feel like I have a better grasp of what you are saying. I don't necessarily agree but I understand and I think that perhaps you assumed that your previous posts conveyed information that they didn't.

I am curious as to what you define as inner demons and what the cause of them is specifically as I think most of us would associate the rest of your list with what would cause them but your listing of them suggests you think they are separate and said demons have a different cause.

One of the things I think maybe that you are over looking in your belief is that guys like this are many times not some lone nut with ties to nothing but their delusions. If you take this instance for example, while Breivik was a lone bomber/shooter in terms of the act he is claiming, and his claims are disturbing if true, that he is part of a larger organization. To me that suggests that something led him to them as he is claiming it to be a greater european organization and not a local or Norwegian specific group. I understand how you would attribute it to your stance on what causes these people to go off, but to me there is an evident pattern that suggests that rhetoric and propaganda lead people like him to do things like this. In my opinion as I stated before there is certainly a predisposition of one kind or another that would make them more susceptible to the rhetoric and propaganda they were exposed to either repeatedly or at the wrong moment. I think the fact that guys like this gravitate at some point in their lives to one political/religious/ideological extreme or another isn't a coincidence but proof that the words and ideas groups/people like this spew influence people who are in a weaker state of mind to do things like this. I doubt you'd find many instances of people who committed crimes like this that were fanatical "My LIttle Pony" followers while on the other hand you'd have no problem listing people like Breivik who had ties to far left/right or religious fundamentalist groups who regularly espouse ideas similar to the beliefs of the average terrorist suggesting that people don't just take anything and use it to justify their actions. Any people who you could list in the former group would fall into a group of people like John Wayne Gacy, Dhamer, Son of Sam and their ilk which I would say is a different animal altogether and be more prone to lean towards your opinion in terms of what caused them to go off.

I am sure someone will jump on this example and call it stupid, but to me broadcasting hateful rhetoric and ideas is similar to knowingly leaving a loaded gun on a table in a house with a suicidal person. If the person decides to take the opportunity they are still responsible for their actions but so is the person who presented the opportunity. The metaphor doesn't fit exactly but its close enough to maybe clarify how I see it. If you recklessly spread hate filled propaganda and allude to committing violent actions someone in a weak state of mind is going to pick that gun up and use it. And the chance that happens multiplies exponentially with how wide the message is spread.

[China]

Norway mass murder suspect is insane, police say

(CNN) -- The man accused of killing 77 people in a terrorist rampage that shook Norway last summer is insane and cannot be sentenced to prison or preventive detention, but can be confined to a mental hospital for the rest of his life, police said Tuesday.

Anders Behring Breivik suffers "grandiose delusions" and "believes he is chosen to decide who is to live and who is to die," Prosecutor Svein Holden announced.

Police said psychiatrists had determined that the 32-year-old man was psychotic at the time of the attacks and during 13 interviews experts conducted with him afterward. The doctors also found him to be paranoid and schizophrenic, police said.

The experts reached their conclusions after 36 hours of interviews with Breivik, police said.

Click on the link for the full article

[thebluefood]

Well of course he's insane. No one shoots at a bunch of kids unless they're insane.

I hope Norway is making the right decision here by not putting him in the slammer.

[No_Pressure]

Has there really ever been a sane mass murderer?

[Destino]

Well of course he's insane. No one shoots at a bunch of kids unless they're insane.

I hope Norway is making the right decision here by not putting him in the slammer.

I don't agree with that. There have been politically motivated killings for as long as there have been politics to kill over and they certainly haven't all been the result of insanity. I will say this, for an insane person he is pretty damn functional. I wonder if his freemason brothers would agree that he was insane and if they saw any signs of it.

All in all good for Norway on responding to this act of terrorism by staying strong in their ideals.

[twa]

Norway doesn't have a slammer,they have extended stay facilities

[techboy]

He might not be insane by the U.S. definition of criminally insane (actually, I very much doubt he is... this was too premeditated), but it's probably the best option, as it allows them to detain him for life, something that might not happen with their regular sentencing laws.

This happens in the U.S. often as well. Some complain about people getting off light when they are incarcerated in a mental institution, but frequently, they end up serving longer than they would if they were sentenced to jail.

[Bang]

I think the key words in there are "confined for the rest of his life".

I don't exactly recall, but isn't the max amount of time he can serve in one of their prisons less than that?

~Bang

[Prosperity]

I think the key words in there are "confined for the rest of his life".

I don't exactly recall, but isn't the max amount of time he can serve in one of their prisons less than that?

~Bang

first offense murder was something like 22 years

at least now he won't get out

[sacase]

Until he gets a lawyer to argue that he is not insane anymore.

[skinfan133]

Has there really ever been a sane mass murderer?

Of course. Killing other humans is just a part of our evolutionary makeup, as controversial it is to say that. Just because it is sane and part of who were are as a species doesn't make it rational or justifiable.