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

[Destino]

Breivik has admitted he perpetrated the atrocity but denied criminal responsibility as it emerged he left a 1,500 page manifesto of Right-wing ranting.

Police said that Breivik, 32, acted alone after some witness accounts said a second gunman had taken part in a mass shooting.

The internet document, posted online just hours before the attack, shows his rampage had been planned for at least two years.

It is part diary, part bomb-making manual and part political rant in which Anders Behring Breivik details his Islamophobia, attacks on Marxism and his initiation as a Knight Templar.

The document describes a secret meeting in London, in April 2002, to reconstitute the "Knights Templar", a Crusader military order

He wrote that he had come into contact with Serbian cultural conservatives on the internet and then with other key individuals across Europe.

He wrote: "I met with them for the first time in London... the founding session in London, 2002. I was the youngest one there, 23 years old at the time.

"One of the key founders instructed the rest of the group about several topics related to the goal of the organisation. I believe I scribbled down more than 50 full pages of notes regarding all possible related topics.

"Much of these notes are forwarded in the book 2083. It was basically a detailed long term plan on how to seize power in Western Europe."

His "martyrdom operation" diary, titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence", shows he had been preparing the operation since at least autumn 2009.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8657141/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breiviks-plan-to-seize-power-in-Europe-after-London-visit.html

Think these other people actually exist? Tracking down "Templar" isn't going to be easy being that they are a popular chapter in history with a lot of fans and spin off groups.

[Koala]

I was deliberately exaggerating to make the point that fanatics use religion to serve their own personal crusade. It is worthless gobbly gook.

1) Exactly, fanatics serve their own personal crusade, the truly righteous use religion to serve GOD.

2) Most people use religion to improve themselves, the lives of people around them, and to serve God by serving their fellow humans. To write off religion as worthless gobbly gook means you are unappreciative of the massive amounts of good that religion has inspired people to do. This is not totally unsurprising, the media tends not to focus on the good acts of the religious, and the religious themselves tend to prefer to avoid taking public credit for thier acts lest people confuse their intention.

3) I hate to agree with NavyDave, but the Godless and those driven by primarily secular ideals have probably killed more people in the last century alone than religion has killed since the beginning of time. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, MAo, Saddam, the Bolsheviks,the USSR, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cambodia, Rwanda, Vietnam -- all of those were driven by non-religious ideals. Nationalism is a sickness that has killed way more people than religion ever did, so I fail to see how the true problems of this world are the people who actually that all people will eventually be held accountable for their actions.

[jpyaks3]

3) I hate to agree with NavyDave, but the Godless and those driven by primarily secular ideals have probably killed more people in the last century alone than religion has killed since the beginning of time. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, MAo, Saddam, the Bolsheviks,the USSR, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cambodia, Rwanda, Vietnam -- all of those were driven by non-religious ideals. Nationalism is a sickness that has killed way more people than religion ever did, so I fail to see how the true problems of this world are the people who actually that all people will eventually be held accountable for their actions.

Wait a minute here....the godless? Yes some of those wars and actions weren't committed in religions name but you can't blame the non-religious for that. That is ridiculous, there is no point counting up body counts but to lay all those things at the feet of the "godless" is frankly absurd.

[Koala]

Wait a minute here....the godless? Yes some of those wars and actions weren't committed in religions name but you can't blame the non-religious for that. That is ridiculous, there is no point counting up body counts but to lay all those things at the feet of the "godless" is frankly absurd.

Calm down, learn some basic reading skillos. There was an AND in that sentence. I said the Godless AND those driven by primarily secvula/non-religious ideals. Because those driven by primarlily non-religious ideals are not necessarily Godless or atheist. Which means they are seperate groups who together I am saying have killed more than the religious wackos. I would count Hitler as more in the non-religious group (i.e. driven primarily by something other than religion, such as nationalism/racism/fascism), while the Stalins and Mao's of the world are clearly in the atheist/Godless category.

Of course you dont want to do a body count, the body count proves my point.

Im not "blaming" anybody, Im simply sick to death of the retarded opinion that religion is to blame for most of the world's violence historically, when it is actually far from the truth as non-relgious wackos have killed waaaaay more people than religious wackos have. Wackos either way, with neither religion nor secular ideals to blame as much as the wacko themself, of crouse is the mature viewpoint but I just kinda snapped after hearing too many idiots blame everything on religion and decided to use their own idiotic logic against them.

Edit: On closer inspection, Im guessing your viewpoint is that its absurd to blame any system of beliefs, religious or non-religious, for the evils of the world and the actions of the evil/psychotic men of the world Which I suppose is a good point, so forgive me for the unnecessarily grouchy response. I just hope that you see that it is just as ridiculous, if not more ridiculous, to lay everything at the feet of religion as it its to lay everything at the feet of the "godless".

[Koolblue13]

I'm an idiot because I said that religion has caused violence throughout the years, huh? umkay.....

But what do I know, I'm just a godless idiot pacifist, who donates and volunteers at the Philly SPCA. I don't know how I went so wrong, without a big dose of religion to guide me.

[jpyaks3]

Calm down, learn some basic reading skillos. There was an AND in that sentence. I said the Godless AND those driven by primarily secvula/non-religious ideals. Because those driven by primarlily non-religious ideals are not necessarily Godless or atheist. Which means they are seperate groups who together I am saying have killed more than the religious wackos. I would count Hitler as more in the non-religious group (i.e. driven primarily by something other than religion, such as nationalism/racism/fascism), while the Stalins and Mao's of the world are clearly in the atheist/Godless category.

Of course you dont want to do a body count, the body count proves my point.

Im not "blaming" anybody, Im simply sick to death of the retarded opinion that religion is to blame for most of the world's violence historically, when it is actually far from the truth as non-relgious wackos have killed waaaaay more people than religious wackos have. Wackos either way, with neither religion nor secular ideals to blame as much as the wacko themself, of crouse is the mature viewpoint but I just kinda snapped after hearing too many idiots blame everything on religion and decided to use their own idiotic logic against them.

No I don't want to do a body count because its stupid, almost no one kills in the name of atheism or agnosticism. In the past many people have been killed in the name of religion, to simply throw in other reasons like nationalism (which can be driven by religion) and stuff like that into the "godless" category is once again absurd. If you said religion wasn't the primary motivation in a lot of the wars and killings in the 20th century I would tend to agree but the problem is you say people like Stalin and Mao and they weren't killing because they didn't believe in God, they had other motivations, so why are they in the godless/atheist category? If you want to say reasons other then religion were the primary factor driving most of those wars fine, but you can't simply throw in godless/atheist/agnostic/secular and act like its all the same thing.

EDIT: Religion can be used to drive hate just like pretty much anything that can make someone else an "other". However I think if the people looked at the perverting the true meaning of the religion. I am not trying to blame religion for these things I just have a problem when stuff like what Navy Dave says where they attribute these atrocities to the people being non-religious or not of the correct religion.

[Koala]

I'm an idiot because I said that religion has caused violence throughout the years, huh? umkay.....

But what do I know, I'm just a godless idiot pacifist, who donates and volunteers at the Philly SPCA. I don't know how I went so wrong, without a big dose of religion to guide me.

I never addressed you, or anything you said. I was addressing those who say that religion has caused MOST of the violence historically. THe ones who say relgiion is the cause of MOST of the world's problems. Is that what you said? Didnt think so, so why are you getting offended?

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/07/201172316756663534.html

Norway attacks suspect admits responsibility

The man suspected of a gun and bomb attack in Norway has called his deeds atrocious yet necessary, his defence lawyer said.

"He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary," defence lawyer Geir Lippestad told TV2 news on Saturday.

Lippestad said his client had said he was willing to explain himself in a court hearing on Monday. The court will decide at the hearing whether to keep the suspect in detention pending trial.

Earlier on Saturday, officials in Norway had charged a 32-year-old Norwegian man with killing at least 92 people in a gun and bomb attack described as the worst act of violence in the country since World War II.

Police confirmed to Al Jazeera on Saturday that the suspect had been named as Anders Behring Breivik.

Breivik, who confessed to firing weapons during questioning on Saturday, belonged to right-wing political groups. But officials said they are not jumping to conclusions about his motives.

Reports suggest he belonged to an anti-immigration party, wrote blogs attacking multi-culturalism and was a member of a neo-Nazi online forum.

But Norwegian authorities said Breivik, detained by police after 85 people were gunned down at a youth camp and another 7 killed in an Oslo bomb attack on Friday, was previously unknown to them and his internet activity traced so far included no calls to violence.

Beyond comprehension'

Breivik bought six tonnes of fertiliser before the massacre, a supplier said on Saturday, as police investigated witness accounts of a second shooter in the attack on Utoya.

If convicted on terrorism charges, he would face a maximum of 21 years in jail, police have said.

Norway's royal family and prime minister led the nation in mourning, visiting grieving relatives of the scores of youth gunned down at an island retreat, as the shell-shocked Nordic nation was gripped by reports that the gunman may not have acted alone.

The shooting spree began just hours after a massive explosion that ripped through an Oslo high-rise building housing the prime minister's office.

"This is beyond comprehension. It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare for those who have been killed, for their mothers and fathers, family and friends," Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Saturday.

Though the prime minister cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the gunman's motives, both attacks were in areas connected to the left-leaning Labour Party, which leads a coalition government.

The youth camp, about 35km northwest of Oslo, is organised by the party's youth wing, and the prime minister had been scheduled to speak there on Saturday.

'Christian fundamentalist' views

The blond-haired Behring Breivik described himself on his Facebook page as "conservative", "Christian", and interested in hunting and computer games like World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, reports say.

On his Twitter account, he posted only one message, dated July 17, in English based on a quote from British philosopher John Stuart Mill: "One person with a belief is equal to a force of 100,000 who have only interests".

The suspect was reportedly also a member of a Swedish neo-Nazi internet forum, a group monitoring far-right activity said on Saturday.

Click link for rest

[Koala]

If you said religion wasn't the primary motivation in a lot of the wars and killings in the 20th century I would tend to agree but the problem is you say people like Stalin and Mao and they weren't killing because they didn't believe in God, they had other motivations, so why are they in the godless/atheist category? If you want to say reasons other then religion were the primary factor driving most of those wars fine, but you can't simply throw in godless/atheist/agnostic/secular and act like its all the same thing.

I didnt say Stalin/etc. were killing becuase they didnt believe in God. Show me where I said that. I said, that religion was not the primary motivation of most ot wars/killings throughout history. In response to the idea that religion is the primary cause of the world's problems. I didnt intend to say that atheists/non-religious were automartically more evil simply becuase they were non-religious. I was saying, if you're gonna divide things into the category of those driven by religion and those driven by things other than religion, the latter category has cause dmuch more problems.

I put Stalin/Mao in the atheist category because they were atheists, as far as I know. I put Hitler in the non-religious category because he might have been religious but that wasnt his motivation. I put both all of them in the same category of thos not driven primarily by religion. I dunno why you are splitting hairs. Stalin was as evil as Hitler, perhaps I shouldnt have even bothered making a distinction because it is obviously confusing you. My point is Stalin./Hitler are both in the same cateogry of "not driven primarily by religion", as opposed to the category of "driven primarily by religion", and my point is that it is insane to say that religion is the cause of most of the world's problems if you choose to actually divide the world based on that paradigm. Clear now?

[Koolblue13]

I never addressed you, or anything you said. I was addressing those who say that religion has caused MOST of the violence historically. THe ones who say relgiion is the cause of MOST of the world's problems. Is that what you said? Didnt think so, so why are you getting offended?

I did and I do.

Now I'll go back into ATL and see what the guy saying that God didn't build this nation for gays to ruin it, with their sinful marriages.

[jpyaks3]

I think this attack does highlight a very real problem in Europe, the rise of the far right, as more comes out about this guys beliefs and connections to other groups like the EDL we need to start looking at how to deal with this growing problem or ultra nationalism and the far right. I fear that the media will try and explain it as one lone wacko without looking at the root of the ideology and the far right network that exists in Europe.

[SkinsHokieFan]

This guy was clearly a follower of Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Geeret Wieders, and that whole cabal. He is the result of the hate they have tossed around the internet the last decade

[jpyaks3]

I didnt say Stalin/etc. were killing becuase they didnt believe in God. Show me where I said that. I said, that religion was not the primary motivation of most ot wars/killings throughout history. In response to the idea that religion is the primary cause of the world's problems. I didnt intend to say that atheists/non-religious were automartically more evil simply becuase they were non-religious. I was saying, if you're gonna divide things into the category of those driven by religion and those driven by things other than religion, the latter category has cause dmuch more problems.

Okay definitely agree with that statement.

[Koolblue13]

I knew it was the internets fault!

[Koala]

I did and I do.

Now I'll go back into ATL and see what the guy saying that God didn't build this nation for gays to ruin it, with their sinful marriages.

You do believe religion has caused most of the world's problems? So you have absolutely no idea of history, or no math skills. Show me all the wars/killings caused by PRIMARILY by religion, and then count all the wars/killings that were NOT caused PRIMARILY by relgion. Go ahead, Id do it for you, but you apparently need to do some basic self-education on history

[twa]

I think this attack does highlight a very real problem in Europe, the rise of the far right, as more comes out about this guys beliefs and connections to other groups like the EDL we need to start looking at how to deal with this growing problem or ultra nationalism and the far right. I fear that the media will try and explain it as one lone wacko without looking at the root of the ideology and the far right network that exists in Europe.

We and they have been looking at it for a long while,nothing new......even he recognized that in his preparations.

Controls and intrusion can of course be tightened,to the howls of persecution and abuse

[techboy]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/07/201172316756663534.html

and interested in hunting and computer games like World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2

Clearly it was the video games that did it...

[jpyaks3]

We and they have been looking at it for a long while,nothing new......even he recognized that in his preparations.

Controls and intrusion can of course be tightened,to the howls of persecution and abuse

I know that they have been keeping an eye on the problem, but I am talking more about the root of the problem. We need to do a better job of countering the voices of the Pam Gellars and Geert Wilders and groups like the EDL and BNP. Those who "other" people in societies and push ultra nationalist speech to the limits. Just like with parts of the Islamic community there needed to be efforts to bring in moderating forces the same approach should be taken with these right wing groups.

[techboy]

You do believe religion has caused most of the world's problems?

This is one of those arguments where even if you somehow manage to win, you lose. "Hooray! My group has killed slightly fewer people than that other group!"

Go ahead, Id do it for you, but you apparently need to do some basic self-education on history

Especially if you're going to be a jerk about it.

Both sides of this argument are far too simplistic.

[Destino]

A lot of people have been harmed by religious groups seeking to eliminate other beliefs and non-religious seeking to eliminate religion. In every case people of the same religious belief of the aggressive faction disown it and claim "they aren't one of us" or "they didn't do it because of that belief". You can see the hostility of the non-religious and religious politically in the US. Atheists want a secular public with no mention of religious speech arguing that it imposes in them. Meanwhile the dominant Christians want the state recognized as a "Christian nation".

All groups will have extreme and moderate members. Opposition turns to hatred and people get hurt. This is a human condition that can't be avoided. Some people will always find a cause and a subset of those will want to turn to violence to advance that cause.

The key Is understanding that hate is not something that can be controlled. You can't hate something rationally forever. It grows And spreads like a disease until it finds a host it dominates. Oppose without hate. Make sure the goal is a better tomorrow and not simply the destruction of some other idea. Reject hate or you could be the next to do something stupid and end up wondering how your life got away from you. The moment you hate someone because of an association recognize you have a problem and put that fire out.

[Koala]

This is one of those arguments where even if you somehow manage to win, you lose. "Hooray! My group has killed slightly fewer people than that other group!"

Especially if you're going to be a jerk about it.

Both sides of this argument are far too simplistic.

I dont think its that complex. The statement is that religion has caused most of the world's problems. I disagree, I dont think there is any evidence of that historically, and in fact, the evidence suggests that most of world's problems were not caused primarily by religion. Whats too simplistic about that? Granted any problem has a host of underlying factors, which religion may or may not play a role in, which is why I used the word "primarily".

[Baculus]

The events in Norway is saddening and troubling on so many levels, from the car bomb in downtown Oslo to the young people people being helpless butchered by a gunman, followed by a peaceful nation shattered by these attacks. Make no mistake about it: these acts were political in motivation.

At first, when conservatives believed Muslims were involved, they were suddenly, "A terrible blow from Islamist terrorists!" Now, when it turns out that the attacker was a European, killing young members of a leftist Labour party, their tune has changed, widly, veering from one direction to another. Some conservatives deny that Anders Breivik is even a conservative, though he outlined a conservative agenda in his manifesto. (Regarding his religion, I personally think he is probably more anti-Islamic than Christian.) Victim-blaming, either on Norway, "socialism," or even the kids themselves, usually criticizing the youngsters idealism or naivete, is another response from some on the Right. While others claim that Breivik is a fake, a plant, a Zionist agent, or any number of other conspiracies that are being produced. Most of the outlandish conservative theories, though, basically arrive at this conclusion: The Left, who are the truly hateful people, are happy this happened, of they allowed/planned for this to happen, so they can crack down on conservatives and increase leftist power.

It's particularly sickening to think that, somehow, liberals and leftists are delighted these attacks happen.

But the worst responses I have read from right-wingers are the expressions of agreement or happiness over Breivik's actions, reading comments from various websites around the web. I knew conservatives hated the Left, of course, but I didn't realize it was so deeply rooted until now.

Anders Breivik isn't simply a madman -- these were long-calculated attacks, striking at the "Marxist multiculturalists" he sees as a threat to the West. Does that language sound familiar? It should, because it mirrors the same language we hear from American right-wingers, who also attack "Marxist multiculturalism" while proclaiming the Left as the gravest threat to the West, above and beyond anything else.

What if a right-winger decides that the "Marxist multiculturalist" Peace Corp members, which have been characterized as "Obama's thugs," need to be attacked at one of their camps? We've already had attacks or planned attacks against liberals or leftists here in the U.S., but the threat of copy-cat attacks on this magnitude is a bit frightening, especially one which would follow the single largest single gunman massacre in modern history and after I've read random online comments saying that Breivik is a hero and the revolution is "coming soon."

I don't know of this division between the Left and the Right can ever be truly healed or bridged, and I really do fear that, at this rate, with a feverish belief from some conservatives that an apocalypse or clash of civilizations, ideologies is coming, this is not going to end well at all. Over and over again, for years, I've heard the Right say that the various ideologies of the Left have to be "defeated" -- well, I see the final extension of these sentiments in the attack on the Labour party and Utoeya island.

[Koala]

A lot of people have been harmed by religious groups seeking to eliminate other beliefs and non-religious seeking to eliminate religion. In every case people of the same religious belief of the aggressive faction disown it and claim "they aren't one of us" or "they didn't do it because of that belief". You can see the hostility of the non-religious and religious politically in the US. Atheists want a forced secular government with no mention of religious speech arguing that it imposes in them. Meanwhile the dominant Christians want the state recognized as a "Christian nation".

All groups will have extreme and moderate members. Opposition turns to hatred and people get hurt. This is a human condition that can't be avoided. Some people will always find a cause and a subset of those will want to turn to violence to advance that cause.

The key Is understanding that hate is not something that can be controlled. You can't hate something rationally forever. It grows And spreads like a disease until it finds a host it dominates. Oppose without hate. Make sure the goal is a better tomorrow and not simply the destruction of some other idea. Reject hate or you could be the next to do something stupid and end up wondering how your life got away from you.

I cant argue with this. Good post.

[techboy]

Whats too simplistic about that?

You accept the flawed premise that we can simply count bodies without examining underlying motivations, and give it credence by using the same method. Even if successful, it's a self-defeating exercise.

[Koolblue13]

This is one of those arguments where even if you somehow manage to win, you lose. "Hooray! My group has killed slightly fewer people than that other group!"

Especially if you're going to be a jerk about it.

Both sides of this argument are far too simplistic.

Agreed on all points. Also, I'm not going to derail this thread again and am dropping it.