«

»

Oslo Thoughts

I just wanted to move above the fold with this. More information is coming out about the murderous Anders Behring Breivik, including a presumed manifesto raging against Marxists and Muslims. This is, as expected, provoking a few smug reactions from the Left. Apparently, the Right Wing — from the most moderate center-right to the most whacked out loon — are one all one big lump. Right wing terror, no matter what it’s motivation or where it happens, reflects on the entirety of the Right Wing (although I’d don’t recall the Left taking responsibility for Shining Path and the Cultural Revolution).

It’s nonsense. Politics is more complicated that Right Wing or Left Wing. All of the writers for this site are in the Right Wing but, if you peruse the comments, we often have profound disagreements about war, terrorism, law enforcement, taxation, etc. We’re united by certain principles but often disagree on how to apply them. But even in the wide range of beliefs and opinions that comprises the “Right Wing”, you would still have to go along way before you’d find anyone who would say, “Yeah, let’s get those dirty Muslims by … shooting a bunch of innocent white kids.” I’m sorry, but “we should stay in Afghanistan” is not even in the same solar system as that.

Then there’s this, from Glenn Greenwald. After excoriating the media for rushing to proclaim this an Islamic incident (a not unreasonable conclusion given recent events and AQ’s preference for car bombs and simultaneous attacks), he says this:

In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know — by definition — that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant — also by definition — that it was an act of Terrorism.

What it says is what we’ve seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target.

Bullshit. Nobody ever had problems calling the IRA terrorists. No one has any problems calling the Basque ETA — who are responsible for 90% of Europe’s terror attacks — terrorists (In fact, many jumped to the conclusion that they, not AQ, were responsible for the Madrid attack, an erroneous conclusion that had huge consequences in the subsequent election). No one has problems calling ecoterrorists what they are. No one hesitated to call Eric Rudolph a terrorist. Or Scott Roeder. Or Timothy McVeigh.

Conversely, no one said that Arab military attacks on Israel were terrorism (until they started shooting civilians) or that the horrific oppressive violence in Syria and Egypt were terrorism. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we didn’t call it terrorism. It was only when he fired missiles into civilian areas of a neutral country (Israel) or paid the families of suicide bombers to blow up innocent civilians (Israel again) that we called it terrorism.

Terrorism is pretty easy to define. It is violence directed against the innocent with the goal of causing political change through fear and terror. When the US military kills innocent people, it is by accident, not design. Even the “collateral murder” incident took place in a combat zone. If we acted like terrorists in regard to Iraq, we would carpet bomb Baghdad every time one of soldiers was killed. But we don’t; we attempt to minimize loss of life. That this is not always successful is the danger of war. If you don’t like it, don’t start wars.

Was the Norway killing an act of terror? I don’t see any reasonable conclusion but that it was. This guy killed a bunch of innocent kids hoping to start an anti-Islam revolution in Europe. He was a psycho; his views are far from the mainstream Right Wing. But he was a terrorist.

However, that leads me to another line of nonsense from Twitter:

The right wing bastion of reaction on #Oslo: “he’s just a nut job!” Yeah, if he was Muslim he’d be example of “growing Muslim terror threat”

Here’s the thing. There are Islamic government that embrace, protect and fund terrorists. There are Islamic religious leaders out there who embrace, protect and fund terrorists. When the Twin Towers came down, Palestinians dances in the streets (notably, Iranians mourned). There is no question but that there is a large and global group of people who think that murdering innocents in the name of Islam is not only acceptable but holy. We can debate how strong they are — I think they are far weaker than they were ten years ago. We can debate how much they represent the Muslim mainstream — I think they’re outside the mainstream in places like Indonesia, less so in Africa or the Middle East. But we can’t deny that such a movement exists.

Where is the movement for Right Wing terrorism? Where are the leaders of nations and holy men proclaiming the horrific killing in Norway to be justified or understandable? Where are the smug Right Wingers declaring that the West caused this violence through their policies? Even the anti-Islam groups are denouncing this.

And in what coherent ideology does shooting over 80 terrified Norwegian children play a role in stopping Islamic hegemony?

Yes, the Right Wing rushed to judgement in proclaiming this an Islamic attack. But the Left Wing is rushing over the Cliffs of Insanity in trying to proclaim some kind of hypocrisy in how we are responding. This was terrorism; but it was a terrorism reflective of a small group of lunatics — maybe … hopefully … a group of one.

153 comments

No ping yet

  1. Poosh says:

    Actually, I have to say, “terrorism” is largely a defunct word. When “eco-terrorists” dig up a body of a dead mother of a scientist I have trouble thinking they are terrorists…

    With Islamist, 9/11 et al, it’s not really terrorism. We may call it that due to the problems with the English language. When the goal of the Islamist terrorist is essentially Sharia, and has multiple demands, most of which are impossible (I ignore shabby, stupid claims, that islamists just want us “out of Iraq” etc, it’s too juvenile to deal with).

    The IRA, as evil as they were, had political aims that were somewhat possible. In fact, they often called the targets of their bombing before hand, to get people out of there, which is suggestive that killing was not their main concern – the ‘terror’ quality was. With Islamists their prime concern is killing infidels – the death of those who are not Islamic enough. If it were anything else, if it were truly political, they would target political targets, as the Norway terrorist did.

    The targets of the Norway attack were not innocent civilians – even the children. Well, they were innocent, of course they were, but they were both political targets. Yes children, but in a political camp. It was not a random school, or a summer camp for all, it was a political camp for the youth wing. Again the english language is failing here. Instead of innocent, I should maybe say they were not “apolitical”, as it were. Obviously this is not a justification, but it is a distinction that exists.

    Islamist “terrorism” may well be using the methods of past terrorists but it is more clearly a military campaign, from an international ideology and power, that has the goal of woldwide domination – through all means necessary. This is stated countless times by Jihadists themselves, though often overlooked. This is why innocent apolitical civilians are targeted – they live in sin and are fair game. The drive is to kill: terror is a byproduct of their attacks. This is why clubs/discos have been targeted: the sinners must be punished. A (very) loose analogy can be made to the Spanish Inquisition, I guess, with the emphasis on “but this time, it is not state sanctioned”.

    Of course, a “joker” style terrorist, such as in Dark Knight, is likewise driven to kill, but he is, as this post discusses, not of an ideology that is religious and international, or one that is the same as other governments.

    We are actually looking at three types of terrorism. Political terrorism which is completely linked to a very specific demand, where once that single goal was redeemed, the terrorism would end. The goal is to cause fear and terror to force a party to ‘give into demands’. This sort of terrorism is committed by a GROUP or PEOPLE, such as a group wanting to leave a nationstate or a minority oppressed by the majority.

    The second would be “Joker” style terrorists, serial killers with insane goals and no support outside themselves. The Loughan (whatever his name was) shooter would be one of these. The Norway terrorist would be one of these. No support network. His goal is unintelligible. He might as well have been demanding everyone drink tea from now on or reality-TV be taken off the air.

    The third is specific and new. Islamo-terrorism you might call it. However it is merely terrorist methods used to fight what is a very real war. An existential war in fact. To free the world from non-islam. Remember in Islam, countries not ruled by Sharia are in the House of War. This sort of terrorism is hard to describe as it is a war waged by maybe a large number of Islamist terrorist groups/networks. All united by an ideology of world-domination as their religion demands – but also conflicting in some ways, with different priorities. A stateless – often stateless – legion (but sometimes supported and funded by Islamic states, Iran for example), bent on striking and murdering those who are different, including fellow Muslims. The sheer glory of killing an ‘infidel’ is justification enough for a kill – excuses come afterwards. Nor is this insanity, as the reasoning is theological and agreed on by millions. It is Historical but also distinct from its history due to the changes that come with globalization.

    Of course they can overlap sometimes. The english language is very poor and sometimes holds us down. Were we speaking Latin or something we’d have quite distinct words, no doubt, for everything.

    Just by two cents… which is an american phrase!
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  2. CM says:

    Apparently, the Right Wing — from the most moderate center-right to the most whacked out loon — are one all one big lump. Right wing terror, no matter what it’s motivation or where it happens, reflects on the entirety of the Right Wing

    Totally agree Hal. Likewise, not all liberals are insane retards just because some are. Liberals disagree amongst themselves just as conservatives do. There are people vulnerable to the extremes of any political persuasian.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. AlexInCT says:

    Likewise, not all liberals are insane retards just because some are

    Most of the most public and practically all in the leadership, are.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  4. CM says:

    You really are a poster-boy for pure ideological nonsense.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  5. balthazar says:

    Says the pot to the kettle…

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  6. CM says:

    Nonsense, I’ve never made even remotely the same stupid claim. Which is why I said ‘Totally agree Hal”. Have you given up even trying?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  7. Kimpost says:

    At least you’ve finally recognized Alex as a kettle.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. CM says:

    ’cause he’s smoking too much pot.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  9. Section8 says:

    Yet in the other thread you posted this.

    I think the concern is how many share his ideas about the need to take radical action against the ‘threat’ of Islam? There is plenty of reckless talk about how Islam is trying to take over everything.

    – and from your article.

    In Britain, his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment ideas are easily found in a far-right scene that has become fragmented and chaotic.

    Most lone wolves operate beyond the borders of conventional party politics.

    Breivik was anything but an irrational far right loner, he travelled through the political mainstream and appeared well connected to far right circles.

    (emphasis mine)

    So on one hand you agree with Hal and then proceed to take talking points to suggest the right is full of potential terrorists.

    You’re a real fucking putz you know that?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  10. CM says:

    There are certainly lots of mentally ill people spurred on by anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-government propaganda, and the risk is that they will act out violently as ‘good’ soliders in a ‘good’ war.

    We can’t afford to ignore this issue – that is the point of the piece I posted. We’re all obssessed with Muslim terrorists, but we can’t afford take our eyes off those who continually get their fucked-up narratives constantly confirmed by anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment rhetoric. That’s the issue I was raising.

    So I’m not (even remotely) suggesting that right-wing terror reflects on the entire right-wing, and/or all individuals that are right wing. That would be ridiculous, as Hal points out.

    Section8, what do you make of Alex’s contention that “all” “of the most public and practically all in the leadership, are” insane retards? Would you agree?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  11. Kimpost says:

    I mostly agree with Hal’s take on the issue. I find it sickening to see people politicizing issues like this. Breiviks massacre tells us nothing about conservatism or Christianity, just like 9/11 told us nothing about Islam. Or for that matter how Mao/Pol Pot and Stalin tells us nothing about liberalism (the US term).

    Nothing!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    Yep, well said.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. HARLEY says:

    Maybe i have missed it, but, did this freak ever in his ramblings cite his religious faith, as the motivator in his actions?
    From what i gather, he seems to have a hodgepodge of beliefs, scattered all over the spectrum.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  14. AlexInCT says:

    Yeah sure CM. Considering the source, I got me some serious laughing out of that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. AlexInCT says:

    Maybe you and CM need a room? This public display off affection – thats nice for you two must be sucking each other off – is starting to give me the heebee jeebees.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  16. Kimpost says:

    Not directly as far as I’ve been able to see. However his manifesto speaks of the important role of Christianity both in the struggle (against marxism, multi-culturism and Islam) and as a fundament in a future cleansed western world.

    Most of it is not his own words (he only claims to have written half the content), but he says that he agrees with everything in it so…

    He is all over. The manifesto covers everything from the History of the World, to a diary where we get to follow Breivik himself in the process of making bombs.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Kimpost says:

    I’ll be honest and admit that you’re paranoia is starting to piss me off. You seem to be able to find a conspiracy theory in just about everything you decide to voice your opinion on.

    If it’s not AGW, then it’s salt, or a tragic mass murder in Oslo, or Fast & Furious, or the News Of The World, or rigged polls by CNN, or liberal school indoctrination, or the SOP of lefty media, or… the list just goes on covering nearly every topic you stumble over – all the time. Those were examples from just the two last pages of the blog…

    And then there’s the idiotic obsession with terms like “demcorats”, and your general way of getting personal. Like now, when I’m supposedly sucking CM’s cock, presumably because faggots aren’t quite as manly as you are…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  18. balthazar says:

    Blind to your own rampant baises again are you?
    Let me read you last “justification” post…

    Yep. Thanks for the confirmation.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  19. Poosh says:

    Sounds like AlexinCT knows his stuff, and isn’t some spaz who can’t connect the dots.

    If you don’t think the leftwing/liberal media is delibs inflating and misleading people over the News of the World scandal to increase their already strong hegemony, then you’re a naive fool who can’t be helped.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Poosh says:

    I can’t find anything “strongly christian” anywhere. At one point he says religion is for weak people but admits is weak sometimes himself. He constantly says SCIENCE AND LOGIC COME first. He says Christianity is a useful tool to unite Europe against the “Muslims threat”.

    Whereas most right-wingers and some decent liberals talk about the threat of Islam, we are talking about its theology and the millions that abide by the negative interpretation of the Koran etc. – When this guy talks about the ‘threat of islam’ he seems to be more geared to towards a sort of racism – i.e keep whites and coloured people separated. Some of his hatred for Islam stems from this. The rest of his hatred for Islam was justified no doubt. He was also a sort of “anti-racist” in that he possibly did not believe in killing people over the colour of their skin or hating them because of it, he rejected the racist British National Party, for example. But he does believe in the separation of races. It’s quite a confusing, conflicting picture. Some suggest he was perfectly normal if a bit misguided for most of his life, but then became radicalized in the past 2 years. Others have said that he planed this attack for over 10 years – which would predate pretty much all of the “anti-jihadist movement”, predate when conservatives etc started reading the Koran on mass to understand Islam, etc.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  21. Poosh says:

    Here, more info about the murderers racism, or strange form of racism, well, read it for your self.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. hist_ed says:

    Breiviks massacre tells us nothing about conservatism or Christianity, just like 9/11 told us nothing about Islam.

    Lone whack job gunmen tell us little or nothing. You haven’t seen and will not see any right wingers celebrating this. Suicide bombings are celebrated by a huge number of Muslims. Osama Bin Ladin was held up as a hero by millions. Mainstream Mulsim clerics throughout the world justify and promote jihad (including suicide bombings). Perhaps 9/11 can tells us a teensy litttle bit about the cultures that celebrated it and its prepetrators.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  23. hist_ed says:

    There are certainly lots of mentally ill people spurred on by anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-government propaganda, and the risk is that they will act out violently as ‘good’ soliders in a ‘good’ war.

    We can’t afford to ignore this issue – that is the point of the piece I posted. We’re all obssessed with Muslim terrorists, but we can’t afford take our eyes off those who continually get their fucked-up narratives constantly confirmed by anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment rhetoric. That’s the issue I was raising.

    So what would you suggest? “Not ignoring” this issue could be construed in many ways. We could all says together that mass slaughters are bad. We could all agree that just because some people think that Muslim mass immigration is a bad idea that people shouldn;t go aournd shooting lots of people. Or we could say that freedom of speech doesn’t include speaach that is critical of Islam and any such hate speech should result in lengthy prisono term. Where do you fall on this spectrum?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. hist_ed says:

    Here is my general question for the crowd: A blond, Norwegian Christian conservative murders a bunch of blond Norwegian Christian liberals. Just before doing so, he posts a long rambling manifesto describing his hatred of multi-culturalism, the political left, immigration, Jews (thanks Poosh), Muslims, technology, the rapid advance of modern ommunications, and industrialism. His act of murder then is explained almost exclusively as an act of anti-Muslim violence. Why? If that was his primary motivation why didn’t he kill any Muslims? Seems to me what we have here is an act of anti-liberal poltical violence. Accepting Muslim immigration is one plank of Norway’s liberal politics, but there are many others. Now, I haven’t read his manifesto and have little interest in doing so, so I admit that I may be wrong here-it might be 90% anti-Muslim and 10% anti-everything else-but why the hyper focus on on group when the guy really spread the hate around pretty liberally?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  25. AlexInCT says:

    I’ll be honest and admit that you’re paranoia is starting to piss me off. You seem to be able to find a conspiracy theory in just about everything you decide to voice your opinion on.

    Well, you might want to rethnk your position. Guess what? That manifesto they claim makes this guy right wing? Well, seems he ripped off the Unabomber, which last I remember was a environmental retard with a huge problem with humanity.

    DENVER (AP) — Parts of the manifesto written by the suspect in Norway’s terrorist attack were taken almost word for word from the writings of “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski.

    The passages copied by Anders Behring Breivik appear in the first few pages of Kaczynski’s manifesto. Breivik changed a Kaczynski screed on leftism and what he considered to be leftists’ “feelings of inferiority” — mainly by substituting the words “multiculturalism” or “cultural Marxism” for “leftism.”

    This guy was not right wing, he was insane. But the LSM sure as hell went out of its fucking way to pretend that’s the case. I am willing to bet that a week or so from now this story will be completely gone, just like the Laughner story, once it comes out this guy was just an insane asshole.

    If it’s not AGW,

    So AGW, based on shoddy science isn’t pushed by a world government collectivist cult whose sole solution is for people to abdicate their freedoms and access to energy, while making the people pushing it – like Al Gore – stinking rich, but my imagination of a conspiracy? Fuck, all that fake/shoddy science and the constant push for the “social justice” solution must just be a coincidence. CM please ignore this so I don’t have to hear from Jim that I again set you off on a rant to piss everyone else off.

    then it’s salt,

    Yeah, then it is salt. Cause hey, I am the only one that pointed out that we suspected this was bullshit decades ago. After all, we all know salt is EBIL!

    or a tragic mass murder in Oslo,

    I never disputed the tragedy. My concern was with the left’s elation and claim this guy was a right wing Christian, which I pointed out was likely to turn out to be bullshit, as this link above already shows. I stand by that. What’s the problem with that?

    or Fast & Furious,

    I am still waiting on your response to clarify the motive for carrying out this operation when it was clear and obvious that they could not track these weapons nor prevent them from being used to kill people. I am sure you can provide a good reason other than just dismissing me by saying it was just shoddy. Because this would be beyond shoddy and outright criminal. Especially with the DOJ involved.

    or the News Of The World,

    Speaking of that. You do know that we had something similar here in the US a while back right? Only the “target” then wasn’t right wing corporation that owned a news agency critical of Obama, the victims weren’t government employees that where caught lying, and the people that did this never faced any problem their fellow travelers in the media. Check it out.

    or rigged polls by CNN,

    Ah because pointing out that using skewed samples, and then not only not reporting what the poll result are but saying the opposite, when you talk about the poll, are just conspiratorial as hell.

    or liberal school indoctrination,

    Leave it to a liberal jackass not to even be aware of this.

    or the SOP of lefty media,

    What about it? You have problems with reality? Why is pointing out that the lefty media is full of crap conspiratorial? Because you don’t like me to say so?

    or…

    Or what?

    the list just goes on covering nearly every topic you stumble over – all the time.

    I think you have a problem distinguishing between conspiracy theories and facts, Kimpost, but then again, coming from you, the reason is obvious.

    Those were examples from just the two last pages of the blog…

    If you don’t like it don’t read it. I am not putting a gun to your head.

    And then there’s the idiotic obsession with terms like “demcorats”, and your general way of getting personal. Like now, when I’m supposedly sucking CM’s cock, presumably because faggots aren’t quite as manly as you are…

    I called it as I saw it. Can’t help if you seem to have a problem with facts.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  26. Poosh says:

    Breiviks massacre tells us nothing about conservatism or Christianity, just like 9/11 told us nothing about Islam.

    Who said that? What an extraordinary and stupid statement! I am lost for words!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Poosh says:

    Because one of the first small pieces of information that came out about him was the facebook (possible fraud) that he was “Christian” and “Conservative” .. he always played World of Warcraft…

    Also he was apparently a Free Mason… though last time I checked their prime directive was to get drunk as much as possible.

    But then for others it suited their political agenda and mentality to try to stamp “conservative” and “christian” to the murderer, ever when it’s disproved. He seems to be more of a humanist/secularist who is willing to use christianity as a sort of ‘glue’ for his maddened Aryan project. He clearly states religion is not as important as science and logic. Not very “fundamentalist” is it?

    I think I know his sort now. What we will find is, a lot of what he says, is actually true, accurate and factual. But he’ll go too far with the truth he has, and allow a few lies to slip into his otherwise reasonable claims. As Star Wars shows us, even the truth can be used to create evil (Darth Sidious told no lie when he said the Jedi Council were going to take control of the Republic). What he is though, is an advanced, cultured Neo-Nazi type – an aryan supremacist. His understanding of Christianity will be crude and his attachment to it is more cultural than religious. He will see the world in black and white – thus whilst he will rightly condemn liberals he will fail to even fathom that some liberals are actually good guys with honest intentions. Usually this sort of mentality stems from degenerates who use their neo-nazism to fill in the gap of their own failings. However, the Norway shooter, does not appear to have the usual failings, maybe he’s impotent, who knows. He has his premises correct but some of his conclusions are false (some are truth) – and you will find that what he chooses to do with these conclusions, turns our stomachs.

    “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” [page 1404].

    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Kimpost says:

    Almost all of it actually is anti-Muslim. He likes radical Jewish right wing groups, mostly because they too are anti-Islam. He didn’t attack Muslims, since he thinks that it’s more effective to attack the responsible politicians instead.

    In his manifesto he attacks neo-Nazi’s for their irrational hatred of Jews. And for their anti-social behaviour. Plus, he doesn’t like their music (seriously).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. AlexInCT says:

    Because one of the first small pieces of information that came out about him was the facebook (possible fraud) that he was “Christian” and “Conservative” .. he always played World of Warcraft…

    WOW is for loser. The majority of people playing WOW are without jobs, live in momma’s basement, and have a lot of time to waste. I know. It’s why I quit WOW in like a month. It’s a game designed for people that are impressed with flashy graphics and little substance. Skill is not important. These kinds of people don’t tend to be conservative, and pretending they are says more to me about the ones making that accusation than the accusation itself.

    As I already pointed out: this guy ripped off/plagiarized Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Ted wasn’t a conservative for sure. The problem here, as I started off saying and got attacked for saying so, is the media’s fixation with painting him as a conservative/Christian. You can pull a Kimpost and pretend the media doesn’t do this every fucking time one of these lunatics pops up, claiming that pointing out the pattern is akin to basic lunatic conspiracy theorization, but the pattern is there. And it is already unraveling.

    Next the story will die without them ever correcting the lies they perpetrated at the start. Anyone unable to do basic research will keep thinking this guy was a fundie Christian douchbag rightwing conservative, when what we are dealing with is an insane and evil asshole. And as I understand Norwegian law, he’s only going to get a measly 21 years in prison for murdering 93 people. That pisses me off too.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  30. AlexInCT says:

    So is the pattern showing this guys isn’t either too cogent or sane yet, and that you aren’t dealing with an angry Christian right-winger yet, Kimpost? Think the LSM will correct the last few days of saying that he was?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. Kimpost says:

    He describes himself as a Christian, and as a (cultural) conservative, but the religion is not important, in my opinion, and his conservative label requires the word cultural before it. Cultural Conservative pretty much means, “leave our beautiful European culture alone”. In other words; anti-Islam and anti-multiculturalism..

    I don’t think that the LSM has jumped on the Christian right-winger bandwagon that much, has it?. I’ve seen little of that, thankfully. That’s mostly been limited to a couple of editorials and blogs hasn’t it?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  32. CM says:

    Cultural Conservative pretty much means, “leave our beautiful European culture alone”.

    Ah, so a “real” Norwegian.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  33. hist_ed says:

    Almost all of it actually is anti-Muslim. He likes radical Jewish right wing groups, mostly because they too are anti-Islam. He didn’t attack Muslims, since he thinks that it’s more effective to attack the responsible politicians instead.

    In his manifesto he attacks neo-Nazi’s for their irrational hatred of Jews. And for their anti-social behaviour. Plus, he doesn’t like their music (seriously).

    So Kimpost, have you read the manifesto? If not, where are you coming up with this information? If so, Dude, you need a life.

    I am not quite out in Alex’s end of the pond when it comes to media stuff, but neither am I just going to take their word when they say “Trust us, it was mostly about the Muslims.”

    In his manifesto he attacks neo-Nazi’s for their irrational hatred of Jews.

    Can you provide a quote or a reference please? Poosh’s link aobve seems to indicate someone who is pretty anti-Semetic, just not as anti-Semetic as Hitler.

    He has also been described as a white supremacist. He really is a Nordic supremacists, right? He seems to view northern Europeans as the right kind of people which I suppose leaves Italians, Irish, Spanish, Greeks and more out of the occasion. This is pretty close to Hitler’s ideas. One wonders what he thinks of Americans? Hitler talked about us being race mongrels, does Breivik agree? Again, Poosh;s reference shows that Breivik is against inter-racial marriage and procreation-the US is probably the reigning champ for those things.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  34. AlexInCT says:

    The media here in the US however isn’t calling him a “cultural conservative” or saying that he describes himself as a Christian but is anything but, nor explaining either as you just did.

    They are calling him a conservative, and implying he is an exemplar of American conservatives, i.e. the small government types they have told us are all racists Obama haters (I hate the fact he is a red, not that he is black, BTW) and a Christian religious fanatic by inderection, because they want people to think anyone that doesn’t treat religion as a hobby, like they do, and/or is conservative, is evil/dangerous. And that’s not out of ignorance, but on purpose. You may not see it, but the pattern is very clear to us here in the US and has shown itself every god damned time some evil, insane idiot pulls a stunt like this.

    I am also not sure I can be with CM on that Norweigan thing. Most Europeans are ashamed of their cultures these days, often for no good reason.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. Kimpost says:

    I downloaded it and never intended to read it. And frankly mostly I haven’t. But last night I started to read an “interview” with himself (in the manifesto), and I found him so twisted that I ended up reading most of what I gathered was about him personally. There was something about him that kept me going. He gets quite personal at times, like when he’s describing his normal, (un-knowing and un-hateful) friends who he genuinely seems to like, and you can also read a massive inferiority complex between the lines, in all his self bloviating.

    I’ll get back to you with some references, but I can confirm that Poosh’s link also had it right. It’s not all that consistent, but I would still contend that he personally has nothing against Jews. He just doesn’t see them as cultural threat I guess. Israel isn’t Iran after all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose “sharia laws” and that “there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called ‘peaceful’ or ‘moderate’ Muslims.” He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by “Fjordman”—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller’s site—which argued that “radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies” and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    Sounds like AlexinCT knows his stuff, and isn’t some spaz who can’t connect the dots.

    Says a guy who also loves connecting dots…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  38. CM says:

    So you’ve got nothing of substance then?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  39. CM says:

    I’m talking mainly about government agencies and keeping close tabs on the sort of hate groups that this guy has been part of (I posted that link before it even came to light that he’d spent time mixing with similar types in the UK).

    I think it also means that people should act responsibly and not abuse ‘freedom of speech’ by exaggerating threats and encouraging hate to push their agenda. That’s not to say (at all) that people can’t be critical of Islam. But people should at least try and be reasonable (and accurate).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Yeah sure CM. Considering the source, I got me some serious laughing out of that.

    That makes no sense.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. Poosh says:

    Why are you posting from Slate?

    All those blogs are excellent blogs, I suggest you read them. Far better than the shit and lies that Slate spews.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. CM says:

    CM please ignore this so I don’t have to hear from Jim that I again set you off on a rant to piss everyone else off.

    Yeah, no worries, I’m finally becoming accustomed to the absurd double-standards at play here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. Poosh says:

    Kimpost is right I think, actually. Yes it seems he was a sort of anti-semite, but – and it’s hard to speak about him – but it seems he didn’t “hate” Jews in the same way, say, many Muslims, hate them. He is big on racial purity, not the ‘sins’ of the Jews. He would rather deport them all. America has a Jewish problem because Jews have power there.

    I believe he suggested the BNP, British National Party, were racist and thus was bad. He did make some anti-racist statements. Here is some suggestions he is anti-racist. It might be the case that he merely dismisses the BNP (who themselves are big on ethnic purity despite being made up of lower-class peasantry of poor genetic stock) due to the racism which will lower their chances of being elected. Another trouble is some of what we are going on, apart from the manifesto, are translations for another language.

    It is fascinating stuff and, if he is unstable or crazed, we should not be expecting him to be consistent and free of contradiction.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  44. Poosh says:

    DRUMWASTER WHERE ART THOU?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  45. Poosh says:

    My god, this blog detected that I accidently posted the same comment twice!

    Skynet?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  46. CM says:

    I have tried reading them but they’re just too ridiculous. They could almost be satire.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. Manwhore says:

    Drum waster quit blogging I believe due to his fibromygalia pain. I can clarify with what little I know(I have been following this story all weekend–due mostly to the fact that I lived in Sweden and can read it).

    First, trying to make sense of a madman will only drive you nuts. He acted on his own and linking him to websites by association is ridiculous. If his manifesto wasn’t faked (it seems it might be) who he linked to, for the most part were fjord mans essays. Vicariously they mentioned many right wing blogs from l g f to Gellar, to r s.

    He appears (again it’s too early to tell how much is true and undoctored) to have given approving nods to a “pure” European ideology and blamed the european left for spreading what he calls “fascism” after the end of ww2.

    He’s all over the map on who to blame, but at the center of the angst appears to believe that European nationalism is under attack by what he termed “multiculturalists”.

    I find it curious that for his screeds against Islam that he chose not to attack Muslims, but his own people. Only thing I am sure about at this point is he is a monster devoid of human compassion, and should not be taken seriously, politically or intellectually beyond the idea that he is a murderous lunatic.

    Scoring political points at the expense of the children he murdered is a punch in the balls of intellectual debate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. CM says:

    Mr. Breivik’s lawyer said on Sunday that his client is a member of an international network. The manifesto was first sent Friday morning to the True Finns, an extreme-right party that holds nearly 20 per cent of the seats in Finland’s parliament.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/gunmans-manifesto-calls-for-war-against-muslims/article2107826/page1/

    True Finns? Are they like ‘real Swedes’?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  49. HARLEY says:

    As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” [page 1404].

    AH so hes one of those poll Christians, there are people that never go to church, never really think about their “faith” until they are asked for a poll or a form and they automatically go to Christian, since they cant think of anything else to note.
    From the sounds of it, hes another Jared Lee Loughner., with Ted Kaczynski thrown in.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  50. Manwhore says:

    You know, that has to be the douchiest stretch I’ve ever seen. You know what richtaylor365 meant when he wrote it. It is truly deplorable for you to make a “guilt by association” link to a FUCKING STRAW MAN statement, that you well know otherwise.

    Politicizing this event is sickening.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. CM says:

    Politicizing this event is sickening.

    I agree.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  52. Poosh says:

    Ah, I think it might be a little different, from the fragments I have read, he seems to understand that religion is “for the weak” but said something along the lines of “because I am not a hypocrite, I admit I am Christian” or something to that affect. Quite a sophisticated admittance. As if he had a hand in killing God, but from time to time draws strength from memories of when God was alive.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  53. Manwhore says:

    Shoot, I should clarify that as of today he alleges accomplices. Don’t know if he alleges they were involved in the act or just a part of his network.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  54. Kimpost says:

    From the manifesto introduction. As you’ll see the main purpose of it is to highlight and meet the threats of Islam.

    The compendium, – “2083 – A European Declaration of Independence” – documents through more than 1000 pages that the fear of Islamisation is all but irrational.

    It covers the following main topics:

    1. The rise of cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe
    2. Why the Islamic colonization and Islamisation of Western Europe began
    3. The current state of the Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)
    4. Solutions for Western Europe and how we, the resistance, should move forward in the coming decades
    5. + Covering all, highly relevant topics including solutions and strategies for all of the 8 different political fronts

    Since I’m kind of weird I have made a PDF where I’ve removed all the fluff and saved his log and interview. It’s still 132 pages, but you can easily skip questions of no interest, and some of the log entries if you want too.

    A couple of Jew related quotes.

    Pro-Israel (pro-Zionism/Israeli nationalism, supports the deportation of Muslims from the West Bank and the Gaza strip)

    But I am well aware that 20-30% of them [Nazi's] really hates Jews and support most aspects of national-socialism. This shouldn’t be tolerated and we shouldn’t sympathise with them whatsoever. Driven by their Jew hate, these Nazis are willing to take side with Muslims in order to accomplish their goals. They are absolutely blinded by this hate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. AlexInCT says:

    Insane people have no problem being both for and against something Poosh, when it is convenient either way, and that’s what I see here. The bar for qualifying as a Christian seems pretty low on the left stream media, when the guy can be used to badmouth religion, and the same just happens to be the standard for who’s a conservative.

    This guy was looking for attention. If he really meant any of the crazy shit they atribute to him – I use that construct because it still is very unclear to me what comes from him and what is coming from a media with an agenda – he would have gone down shooting. That he let himself be captured, then wanted the media in court since he was admitting to it all immediately, makes it obvious that this guy wanted the spot light. Pitty that he killed 93 people ro do that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  56. AlexInCT says:

    It has been self aware for a while. I am worried it will soon see all of us as it’s enemy…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  57. Poosh says:

    I enjoyed how his ‘Free-Mason connection” has been downplayed, in the media.

    Think we all know why haha.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  58. Kimpost says:

    And as I understand Norwegian law, he’s only going to get a measly 21 years in prison for murdering 93 people. That pisses me off too.

    He’ll likely get 21 years containment, which is different from a 21 year prison sentence, since it’s not actually limited to 21 years. It’s a sentence that gets reviewed after 14 years, and then again every five years after that.

    The review tries to answer the question; is he dangerous?. If he is, he stays in jail. That’s a process that can go on forever.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  59. Kimpost says:

    If he really meant any of the crazy shit they atribute to him – I use that construct because it still is very unclear to me what comes from him and what is coming from a media with an agenda – he would have gone down shooting. That he let himself be captured, then wanted the media in court since he was admitting to it all immediately, makes it obvious that this guy wanted the spot light.

    Surviving to keep the struggle alive was part of the plan, at least according to the manifesto.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  60. Kimpost says:

    I enjoyed how his ‘Free-Mason connection” has been downplayed, in the media.

    Think we all know why haha.

    From the Norwegian Order of Freemason’s web site.

    The Norwegian Order of Freemasons expressing compassion and care

    - I am appalled by the horrible atrocity that was committed in the government district and at the Utøya island, says the Sovereign Grand Master of the Norwegian Order of Freemasons, Ivar A. Skar.

    We are filled with mourning and compassion for those who have been affected and their relatives.

    It has appeared in the media that the accused has been a member of the Norwegian Order of Freemasons.

    He has now been excluded – the exclusion immediately effective.

    The exclusion reflects that the acts he is accused of having carried out, and the values that appear to have motivated them, are completely incompatible with what we stand for as an Order.

    We build our activity on Christian and humanistic values and want our members to contribute to the promotion of charity, peace and goodness among all people.

    The police will of course get all the help and information we can give to contribute to the investigation.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  61. Section8 says:

    Section8, what do you make of Alex’s contention that “all” “of the most public and practically all in the leadership, are” insane retards? Would you agree?

    What about his comment? I disagree with it. I’m going to assume your point should be that I should go after him as well? Basically he he was straight up with his comment rather than your usual say one thing and then contradict with another method.

    I’m talking mainly about government agencies and keeping close tabs on the sort of hate groups that this guy has been part of (I posted that link before it even came to light that he’d spent time mixing with similar types in the UK).

    What constitutes a “hate” group? You mean like the EDL? Granted I don’t know much about them, so perhaps they are, but according to wikipedia they were formed after Muslims decided to protest soldiers coming home. Link. Maybe if more “monitoring” was done of that group and their “hate” of the people that risk their lives for GB, then the EDL would have never come to be in the first place. We can play the game all day with that one. Although I have better things to do.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  62. hist_ed says:

    Scoring political points at the expense of the children he murdered is a punch in the balls of intellectual debate.

    Best thing said about this whole thing so far.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  63. balthazar says:

    The substance was in the pointing out of your rampant biases and inability to have an honest discussion on ANYTHING.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  64. balthazar says:

    I wish the editors of the NYT agreed with you, sadly they think its all because of the conservative bloggers in the US…fucktards

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

    The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber.

    So conservatives are the unabomber!!!! And the NYT wonmders why the public has been continually rejecting their “news” reporting.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  65. Kimpost says:

    Why are you posting from Slate?

    All those blogs are excellent blogs, I suggest you read them. Far better than the shit and lies that Slate spews.

    I’m curious.

    1. Do you really think that Atlas Shrugs, Islam-Watch and Jihad Watch are excellent blogs?
    2. And would you say that they sit well with main stream American Conservatives?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  66. Kimpost says:

    Honestly. No, that’s not what the article (not an op-ed, btw) says. What many are saying, though, is that political violence (even in its most extreme forms), aren’t exempt from the political climate of it resides. That’s true for radical Islamic acts, and it’s true for radical “right wing” acts. By tolerating hate, we move the boundaries for what’s popularly acceptable, which in essence leads to a larger pool of nut jobs.

    Does anyone really believe that the Mohammed Atta we know, would have existed if he hadn’t been fed by a significant anti-US sentiment in the Arab world? Likewise, Breiviks politically (and emotionally) disturbed mind was not formed out of a void.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  67. Rann says:

    That… seems terrible.

    I’ve spoken before about how efforts to institute something similar in America are a far worse threat to the spirit of our country than half-drowning some bad guys. If you think someone is enough of a threat or has done something wrong enough that they should spend the rest of their life in prison, then they should be tried and sentenced that way. The concept of basically saying “Well it’s only 21 years, but don’t worry, we’ll never really let him out” makes it a sort of… kangaroo parole hearing.

    Such thoughts remind me of things in fiction, where superheroes or supposed pacifists or whatnot will take someone who’s done something terrible and, say, cryogenically freeze them. They never intend to let this person out again, but somehow this is an acceptable alternative to killing them because even though it’s effectively a death sentence (with the side effect that the person could hypothetically escape), it’s somehow better because they’re technically still alive.

    If you want someone to go to prison for life, you should sentence them to prison for life.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  68. Rann says:

    By tolerating hate, we move the boundaries for what’s popularly acceptable, which in essence leads to a larger pool of nut jobs.

    Erm…

    I…

    … So wait, I… I think you’re trying to say we shouldn’t tolerate anti-Muslim hate speech… though I’m curious as to what you’d prefer we did about it…

    But, um… what about Muslim hate speech?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  69. Kimpost says:

    I don’t like it either. Sweden had a similar sentence, but abolished in the late seventies or early eighties. We have life, but no absolute life without parole.

    Like much of the western world we’ve used the last few decades to getting tougher on crime. Life means way longer actual time than it did let’s say 1980.

    Norway has new legislation in the works. They had it before this incident. It was said that their 21 year maximum would be replaced with a 30 year maximum. We’ll have to see if this event changes anything. Might hear a public outcry for life without parole, or at least for even longer times.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  70. Kimpost says:

    I’m not advocating censorship. People should just stop being paranoid a-holes, out of free will, and possibly because of peer pressure from a rational majority. That would naturally include Muslims. As I said. Mohammed Atta didn’t emerge out of thin air.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  71. Rann says:

    But if the rational majority spends all of its time chastising every tiny extremist group, then there is little time left over for anything else. Too, the problem comes in when people, in the case of anti-Muslim extremists, tend to either ignore that the majority does condemn them or files anything critical of Muslims under “extremism”, and in the case of Muslim extremists, tend to ignore that the majority is remarkably quiet at best when it comes to condemning them.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  72. Kimpost says:

    I’m not talking about condemning the actions of radicals, even if that certainly is appropriate sometimes. I’m talking about what’s supposed to be passed as mainstream.

    Is fearing the rise of a European Islamic Caliphate rational? If (otherwise) seemingly rational people voice such fears, then it should not be terribly surprising to find how crazy people sometimes act on those fears.

    The same is relevant for the Muslim world, only to an even larger extent. But they are more difficult to influence, since many of the countries in question are theocracies, where many of the leaders actually live because of the hatred.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  73. sahrab says:

    He fully know this, his continuing antics with the “Real” meme just goes to show his real intentions for participating on this site.

    CM displays the typical MO of a board Troll. He doesnt enter a discussion or debate because he wants to hear what other perspectives think/believe/feel, he wants to get his hits in and flee.

    When he does stay in a discussion, long enough, his responses boil down to artificial “I dont understand your point” which is only a screen to get someone to respond 10 different ways to the same original topic. This way he can play “Gotcha” when the fatigue sets in and the poster gives up.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  74. hist_ed says:

    I’m not advocating censorship. People should just stop being paranoid a-holes, out of free will, and possibly because of peer pressure from a rational majority. That would naturally include Muslims. As I said. Mohammed Atta didn’t emerge out of thin air.

    But wait, what happens when a crazy strats kiling conservative bloggers? That person won’t have emerged out of thin air, right? Then we would need to peer pressure those that are peer pressuring those that are being “paranoid a-holes”*. Then someone might go shoot them too. It’s all so complicated. Maybe a free exchange of ideas might work better.

    *I may be going out on a limb here, but I think almost everyone on this site is ok with seeing the word “ass”-except for the fucktard, cuntish, shit head, cocksuckers.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  75. sahrab says:

    *I may be going out on a limb here, but I think almost everyone on this site is ok with seeing the word “ass”-except for the fucktard, cuntish, shit head, cocksuckers.

    Dont mind Ass, but will need to seek therapy now that you said Fucktard

    wait i just said Fucktard

    Fuck now i’ve said Fucktard numerous times

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  76. hist_ed says:

    Is fearing the rise of a European Islamic Caliphate rational? If (otherwise) seemingly rational people voice such fears, then it should not be terribly surprising to find how crazy people sometimes act on those fears.

    I asked you once before about Sweden’s birth rates and demographics. I don’t know the information for Sweden specifically. I do know that for most of Western Europe, native birth rates are below replacement rate (some, like Spain, are far below). I also know that birth rates for Arab immigrants are much higher. Add to those birthrates more immigration and, absent any change, it is almsot certain that Arab Muslims will be a majority in most countires in Western Europe at some time during this century. A large percentage of Muslims are non-assimilationist-this trend seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. So what happens to democracies when sharia favoring citizens become a majority of the population? Given all this, is it really irrational to fear a possible “European Islamic Caliphate”? And never mind about when Muslims are a bare majority, what happens 30 or 40 years later when thay are, say, 75% of a countries’ population?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  77. Kimpost says:

    With generous estimates Arab immigrants have a birthrate of 2.3-2.5 while “native European women” have a birthrate of 1.3-1.5. Add to that the immigrants birthrates drops with assimilation (however broken it may be). Topple that with Fortress EU and I would say that this happening from now to 2099 is outright impossible.

    I’ve seen the numbers of 2049 or similar floating around on the Internets, but I call them BS. I saw a study the other day, that estimated a Muslim population short of 8% in 2030. And besides. How many of them would realistically be fundamentalist advocates for theocracies? 1%? 2%? I mean, come on – there’s often a reason for why they are here. They didn’t particularly like the theocracy they left.

    I don’t even think that you’d find a serious majority for theocracy in the actual Arab world. I believe that Iranians would like to have democracy. As do Syrians, Egyptians, as do most. The Middle East theocracies will ALL fall during this century. At least I find that scenario much more likely than the rise of a Caliphate in Europe.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  78. Poosh says:

    Yes I would. Why wouldn’t I? If you find them evil or absurd then that is you with problem. They report and back up their statements. Sometimes, Atlas Shrugs in particular, gets it wrong, sometimes she is stupid. That does not detract from the majority of quality stories she posts that MOST are too afraid or stupid to mention, for fear of being labeled some sort of ‘islamophobe.’ These types of blogs allowed me to see through the lies and bullshit and see Islam for what it is. And believe me it is hard, I studied Islam at university (undergrad), and came across nothing of what Atlas Shrugs etc say < yet the truth-quality of what Atlas Shrugs say is undeniable – you can read the Koran for yoruself.

    I don't know what Islam-Watch is, nor have I heard of it so i can't speak for that site.

    The commentors in Atlas Shrugs – a small number of them – are clearly bigots or racists, or both, but that is irrelevant. They do seem to ruin the blogs, it must be said.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  79. Poosh says:

    Does anyone really believe that the Mohammed Atta we know, would have existed if he hadn’t been fed by a significant anti-US sentiment in the Arab world

    It has a lot – more – in fact to do with Islam as a religion and its theology. Islam is not a religion, remember, it is just as much a political project (thus Muslim countries, duh).

    However that’s a good point. But merely because a madmen speaks some words of truth (his comments about Norway’s left and cultural marxism are at the very least party true), does not mean those who say the same things agree with what he did with that true, or the conclusions he drew. On the other hand, “anti-US sentiment” in the arab world already had the built in conclusions of murder etc. So we are talking about two different eh narratives (or whatever word would fit best there).

    It may turn out that those he killed were actually reprehensible individuals, as might be the case if what is to believed about what went on, on that island, turns out to be true. That doesn’t mean that those who find those victims repulsive or even evil, think it right or moral to kill them or even harm them in any manner.

    If a political vegetarian did this attack, would we be pointing the finger at “vegetarian discourse” ?
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  80. Kimpost says:

    It may turn out that those he killed were actually reprehensible individuals, as might be the case if what is to believed about what went on, on that island, turns out to be true. That doesn’t mean that those who find those victims repulsive or even evil, think it right or moral to kill them or even harm them in any manner.

    Christ. What the fuck is the (or your), blogosphere suggesting now?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  81. Poosh says:

    es. How many of them would realistically be fundamentalist advocates for theocracies? 1%? 2%? I mean, come on – there’s often a reason for why they are here. They didn’t particularly like the theocracy they left.

    There are plenty of stats to show immigration populations are making up most of the birthrate in the UK, that is not in dispute. As for the sharia thing:

    Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers’ motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were “right”.

    There are other polls of UK Muslims, with similar findings. You’ll forgive me if I am concerned.

    You are very naive about muslim countries also. For example, in Islamic Egypt some 97% of women suffered genital mutilation (this is widespread in islamic countries). Most of those women, dare I say, would be of the belief that the mutilation was “good” for them. They don’t always want democracy, real democracy.

    The goal of an Islamic Caliphate is stated in many a terrorist and preacher, and immigration is one of the methods for this. It is the true goal behind the war on terror. It is not unlikely when you look at pure demographics.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  82. Poosh says:

    They’re not really suggesting anything. I don’t know how true or false this is, as their is little info – it could all be bollocks, but there does seem to be a heavy anti-semitic agenda within the government of Norway.

    A link!

    Another Link!

    Another!

    As you can see, it’s a bit sketchy. Hard to know what was going on. If it was a pro-Palestine meeting, encouraging a flood of arms and approving of ‘yes’ to terrorist attacks on Israel (a BIG IF, dare I say) then they all got a taste of what they were trying to inflict on Israel. Doesn’t make what the killer did right, of course – murder is murder, every life is precious and can be redeemed.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  83. Poosh says:

    Hmmmm.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  84. Poosh says:

    think of the fucking children!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  85. Kimpost says:

    Pathetic links, all three of them.

    I know the organisation pretty well, and I know of some of the participants, and of several of the attending speakers. And there was nothing sketchy. This speculation, however, is fucking evil.

    These were perfectly normal kids, not on the fringe of anything. This weren’t militant anti-fascists. These kids were on a mainstream political youth camp, organized by the largest party in Norway, and has absolutely nothing to do with Hitlerjugend (are you listening Glenn Beck?), but more to do with young people engaging with society. And in honesty very much about young people getting together having fun.

    Would there have been a pro-Palestinian sentiment there? I’m absolutely sure there would have. Wouldn’t even surprise me if the majority position was to support the Palestinian pending UN effort to call for a state recognition. Which by the way, is a mainstream position here. That doesn’t man than anyone here, or anyone at Utoya for that matter, would ever want Israel to be wiped off the map.

    The sentiment that Norway would be one of the most anti-Semitic countries out there is absolutely absurd. Retarded!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  86. Poosh says:

    I wasn’t too convinced with the content of those links as you can see above. I can’t listen to Glen Beck as I’m British.

    But I am very aware that people that fall on the palestinian side are often anti-semites, covering their own racism with “i just have problems with Israel, not Jews”.

    If those students were, as a single (photoshopped?) pic of them playing the floatia game showed, and they were all for allowing terrorist shipments into Gaza, knowing they would be used to target Israel – then they got a taste of what they were wishing on the Israelis.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  87. CM says:

    As do Syrians, Egyptians, as do most. The Middle East theocracies will ALL fall during this century.

    And as it that happens, there won’t be so many wishing to live elsewhere.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  88. Kimpost says:

    There are plenty of stats to show immigration populations are making up most of the birthrate in the UK, that is not in dispute.

    There’s plenty of dispute concerning birthrates, and particularly of its impacts. Pakistani women in the UK don’t have 10 children each like they did four decades ago. They have two or three. In another decade or two they are expected to match the general UK population. UK is estimated to have 2.8 million Muslims. Most of them are naturally not fundamentalists. 2.8 / 62.3 = 4.5%.

    Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers’ motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were “right”.

    Before that we need to define Sharia. There’s no chance in hell that 40% of UK Muslim’s wish to implement Sharia law as it’s defined by Pam Geller.

    Forget polls about Sharia or about Jihad. Both terms mean different things to different Muslims. Even subscribers to pacifist Sufism, use the terms, but give them absolute non-violent meanings.

    Ask instead: “Do you want to see UK turned into a Muslim theocracy?” If such polls would show 40% I would be very surprised.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  89. CM says:

    I can’t listen to Glen Beck as I’m British.

    This is what Kimpost is referring to.

    But I am very aware that people that fall on the palestinian side are often anti-semites, covering their own racism with “i just have problems with Israel, not Jews”.

    Horseshit.

    They “got a taste”? Wow, that’s real classy Poosh.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  90. CM says:

    But wait, what happens when a crazy strats kiling conservative bloggers?

    Is these a crazy paranoid narrative being pushed (including by those with power who should be acting more responsibly) that might lead to the killing of a conservative blogger? Have any conservative blogger, or conservatives in general, been killed or maimed recently?

    Kimpost is completely right –

    …political violence (even in its most extreme forms), aren’t exempt from the political climate of it resides. That’s true for radical Islamic acts, and it’s true for radical “right wing” acts. By tolerating hate, we move the boundaries for what’s popularly acceptable, which in essence leads to a larger pool of nut jobs.

    It’s somewhat of a demand and supply issue. There are plenty of mentally ill people who constantly demand justification and rationalisations for their imagined world and the revolutions they believe they should start. And there appear to be plenty of people willing to supply what they need.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  91. Kimpost says:

    You seriously need to stop visiting strange Internet sites. Glenn Beck isn’t here either, but Internet is. Even regular media has reported on his Hitler-youth comparison.

    Nobody, except maybe for actual anti-Semites wants to allow terrorist shipments into Gaza. The blockade, however, in its current form, needs to go. They are not just stopping weaponry, but everything that can be used to stop weaponry, like concrete, timber, tools, steel. You name it. And on top of that they are also stopping all kinds of harmless stuff, for unclear reasons. Gaza, in spite of what Netanyahu says, is a hell hole, according to humanitarian aid organisations. Not the worst hell hole on the planet, but still a hell hole in need of humanitarian aid. The current blockade hinders that.

    I have no idea if the pictures are real or fake, but it doesn’t matter. They certainly didn’t have things coming. Suggesting they did is disgusting…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  92. sahrab says:

    Had to move it out of the Threaded Post

    Kimpost is completely right –

    …political violence (even in its most extreme forms), aren’t exempt from the political climate of it resides. That’s true for radical Islamic acts, and it’s true for radical “right wing” acts. By tolerating hate, we move the boundaries for what’s popularly acceptable, which in essence leads to a larger pool of nut jobs.

    It’s somewhat of a demand and supply issue. There are plenty of mentally ill people who constantly demand justification and rationalisations for their imagined world and the revolutions they believe they should start. And there appear to be plenty of people willing to supply what they need.

    No KimPost and yourself are both completely wrong!. Blaming Gellar (as your link tried) for the maniac in Norway is no different than blaming the Beatles song Helter Skelter for Charles Manson.

    Its interesting you use the tactic, Michael Moore tried the same bullshit with Bowling For Columbine (the entire reason i found this site, many years ago). Both your link (and assumed agreement wtih it, and Michael Moores reasoning behind the cause of Columbine are idiotic. And both belittle the underlying cause and are end up as nothing more than a lame excuse to blame everyone responsible EXCEPT the fucker(s) that commit the act.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  93. CM says:

    Try actually understanding what we’re saying rather than just assuming. It’s clear you don’t.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  94. sahrab says:

    From CM

    In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims. He wrote that all Muslims sought to impose “sharia laws” and that “there are no important theological differences between jihadists and so-called ‘peaceful’ or ‘moderate’ Muslims.” He reprinted, as part of the manifesto, a 2006 essay by “Fjordman”—a blogger whose work appears frequently on Geller’s site—which argued that “radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies” and that because Islam teaches deception, no Muslim who claims to be moderate can be trusted.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/

    What were you saying about understanding again, pot?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  95. CM says:

    You still clearly don’t understand. That quote partly describes the current climate. That’s what we are talking about. I didn’t blame Geller. Neither did Kimpost. Ultimately the responsibility lies with the person who pulled the trigger. Of course it does. That’s inarguable. But, to me (and obviously I’m not alone) it’s reasonable to consider the context/climate. I think the climate created by others behaving irresponsibly cannot and shouldn’t be ignored. As Kimpost said, these things don’t occur in a total vacuum.

    To suggest we’re “blaming everyone responsible EXCEPT the fucker(s) that commit the act” is just lazy and weak.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  96. balthazar says:

    Dont worry Sahrab, CM will either drop it now, or say, “What do you mean?” ad NAUSEA…:P

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  97. CM says:

    Gonna just hump my leg all day Balt?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  98. hist_ed says:

    I think the climate created by others behaving irresponsibly cannot and shouldn’t be ignored.

    Can you provide a few specific examples of “others behaving irresponsibly”?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  99. CM says:

    People who spew anti-Muslim rhetoric. People who use their pulpit to exaggerate to try and increase hatred of all-things Muslim. There are examples everywhere, including from those people/websites he quotes in the manifesto.
    They all help to create a climate which can help give mentally ill people all the validation they need to act.

    And before anyone starts, it’s got nothing to do with freedom of speech. It’s about the responsibility of using that freedom of speech.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  100. Miguelito says:

    Such thoughts remind me of things in fiction, where superheroes or supposed pacifists or whatnot will take someone who’s done something terrible and, say, cryogenically freeze them.

    Ah.. Demolition Man. :)

    Some levity in an otherwise super-heavy thread.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  101. CM says:

    In its first report published last spring, the EU’s Europol (European Police Office) identified the region’s biggest terrorist threat as radical Islam. But the criminal intelligence agency also lists several attacks committed over the past few years by far-right activists.

    In Hungary, three bomb attacks were foiled in 2009, after the murder of several Gypsies in 2008. In France, six people were arrested for activities linked to far-right extremism in Germany. The police also intervened in Great Britain, the Czech Republic and Germany. Elsewhere, police found “enemies lists,” as well as explosives, propaganda material and computer data.

    This same report also mentions “investigations by the British police who underlined the fact that today, individuals who are motivated by far-right opinions and who act alone are a bigger threat than the current groups or networks that belong to this circle of influence.” This circle of influence has access to the Internet and social networks and “is getting more and more professional,” says Michel Quillé, Europol’s deputy director.

    http://www.worldcrunch.com/after-norway-signs-far-right-threat-light-across-europes-radars/3506

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  102. Rann says:

    Demolition Man is definitely one of the biggest examples, but it’s pretty common across the board with anything where the heroes have a “thou shalt not kill” rule and access to advanced technology and/or magic.

    Superman, for example. God and the nerds on wikipedia know how many people he’s stuck in the Phantom Zone, which is basically a living, eternal hell… but he sure didn’t kill ‘em!

    But I like Demolition Man a lot for its surprisingly relevant social commentary, and I’ve got the ball-balls to admit it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  103. CM says:

    We have ‘preventative detention’ here. It’s an indeterminate, life-long sentence, which is imposed on the highest-risk offenders and which means they need never be released from jail if they are still considered a risk to the community. Those who are released can be recalled at any point for the rest of their lives. It is only imposed on serious, repeat offenders. I support it. Although I think it’s important to make it known at the time of sentencing that they’ll be there for a bloody long time (it’s always accompanied by a minimum prison term, e.g. 20 years), I can see the sense in linking the length of imprisonment to how much of the risk to the community there are. And I like the ability to recall them.

    Of course with Breivik it’s tempting to say that he should never get out, no matter what.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  104. hist_ed says:

    Again can you provide specific examples?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  105. Miguelito says:

    These kids were on a mainstream political youth camp, organized by the largest party in Norway,

    \
    Honest question… What exactly is a “political youth camp?” Or more to the point, what’s the point of said camp?

    From what little I’ve seen/read, it essentially sounds like a way to wedge political indoctrination into what is otherwise a generic summer camp.

    That bothers me as much as those “jesus camp” ones do.

    If they’re completely non-partisan and only try to get younger people involved in politics, then I can see it. But it sure sounds like they’re partisan ones run by different parties.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  106. HARLEY says:

    so, what you say, can and will influence others to act, and that is YOUR responsibility?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  107. HARLEY says:

    We have ‘preventative detention’ here. It’s an indeterminate, life-long sentence, which is imposed on the highest-risk offenders and which means they need never be released from jail if they are still considered a risk to the community.

    So these people have not committed a crime,… yet?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  108. AlexInCT says:

    Surviving to keep the struggle alive was part of the plan, at least according to the manifesto.

    What fucking struggle is that? The one to get attention? This guys is a douche and he didn’t even have the decency to spare us all his bullshit by illing himself after he caused so much pain.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  109. CM says:

    Rather than ask what the hell you are on about I’ll just advise you to fuck off if you don’t like it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  110. CM says:

    I’m going to assume your point should be that I should go after him as well? Basically he he was straight up with his comment rather than your usual say one thing and then contradict with another method.

    So if I spouted nonsense that was ‘straight up’ then I’d avoid all the bitching and my legs wouldn’t be continually humped. Yeah right. Good one.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  111. CM says:

    ‘Preventative detention’ is part of the sentence. They’ve been found guilty of some serious crime (e.g. rape and murder).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  112. CM says:

    What fucking struggle is that?

    In his imagination the Christian west is being over-run by Muslims, intent on taking over the ruling everything. The struggle is against the liberals of the West who are enabling it by promoting ‘multiculturalism’ and tolerance. He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity.
    It’s much the same struggle as outlined by those people and websites he mentions in his rantings (e.g. Gellar, Gates of Vienna, JihadWatch). He was clearly influenced by that small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam.
    In his mind his actions should being a revolution of such actions, which will force the West to change their policies with respect to Muslims.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  113. richtaylor365 says:

    Late to the party on this, sorry, other things going on.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/

    That Breivik is Fjordman nonsense was debunked the very first day. On Geller’s site she advised that she had talked to Fjordman, after Breivik was arrested, they are not the same, the Guardian also proved this as nonsense. Honestly, why do you keep reading Slate, they should know better.

    People who spew anti-Muslim rhetoric

    You will have to flesh that out for me because it sounds very much like you are blaming those who criticize anything for the actions pf those that have no impulse control.

    They all help to create a climate which can help give mentally ill people all the validation they need to act.

    So those who voice genuine concerns about legitimate problems are responsible for those that extrapolate these concerns into totally off the chart evil and violent solutions?

    The other day there was an op ed in the WSJ written by Bruce Bawer who wrote “While Europe slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within”, btw, is he one of those “People who spew anti-Muslim rhetoric”? In the book he writes about the immigration problems in both Norway and Sweden, and yes he is a real Norwegian. In case you do not understand, he is not an American or some other nationality writing about something he does not know about or see with his own eyes, he lives in Norway and is of Norwegian heritage, that is what “real” means. In the article he mentions the fact that Breivik had read his book (does this make Bawer an accessory to you?) and mentioned Bawer in his manifesto 22 times. Bawer was shocked that he could take a legitimate problem, then come up with a crazy insane solution, see, what you are advocating is unrealistic, that speakers of criticisms must somehow wash their speech through a filter of “will what I say somehow feed into the mind of a psychopath”.

    By your own definition, any one that criticizes Obama, the Democrats or liberals in general is spewing hate rhetoric because some wacko out there could use legitimate criticisms about what he is doing to the country and instead of coming up with a reasonable solution like “we need to do everything we can to vote him out of office”, he will come up with an unreasonable totally hysterical and insane solution like “I must act in whatever manner necessary to stop him”.

    And before anyone starts, it’s got nothing to do with freedom of speech.

    I think it has everything to do with free speech. We already have that ridiculous concept of “hate speech”, what you are advocating is much worse. Geller used the example of Helter Skelter/Charles Manson, it is unreasonable to label “A” as hate speech or dangerous rhetoric if a lunatic uses that as provocation for violence. There are many reasonable and rational people out there that see European/Muslim immigration as a big problem, a subject certainly worthy of debate, but don’t brand all those folks as dangerous fear mongorers fomenting hate and destruction, becasue at that point the debate ends and reasonableness goes right out the window.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  114. CM says:

    These types of blogs allowed me to see through the lies and bullshit and see Islam for what it is. And believe me it is hard, I studied Islam at university (undergrad), and came across nothing of what Atlas Shrugs etc say < yet the truth-quality of what Atlas Shrugs say is undeniable – you can read the Koran for yoruself.

    I’m sure you’d agree that, as with all religious texts, reading them and understanding them are quite often two different things. I’ve seen plenty of claims about what the Koran says, and responses from Muslims which explain how that is just wrong.
    How would a Christian react to a Muslim telling them they’re not interpreting their own religious texts correctly?

    Personally a political blog would be about the last place I’d go to learn about a religion. Or science. Blogs certainly have their place (great for putting across opinions, or for entertainment), but they have no obligation to adhere to any journalistic or any other standards.

    Can I ask – where did you go to objectively test these ‘eye opening’ findings about Islam?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  115. CM says:

    I’m more than happy to have a polite and interesting discussion. I spent years at MW forums doing just that with a variety of conservative and libertarian posters. However on this forum these never seem to get far before someone likes you starts being abusive, or crying because I dare to question the prevailing holier-than-thou conservative ‘truth’. There are plenty of example of posters telling me they don’t understand my point. I don’t throw my toys out of the cot and stamp my feet and screech about tactics and trolls. Sahrab, if you don’t like it, then fuck off. Otherwise, grow up and stop whining like a little girl.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  116. CM says:

    Yeah, that pretty much sums up what I was thinking too. Weird.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  117. CM says:

    That Breivik is Fjordman nonsense was debunked the very first day. On Geller’s site she advised that she had talked to Fjordman, after Breivik was arrested, they are not the same, the Guardian also proved this as nonsense. Honestly, why do you keep reading Slate, they should know better.

    But the Slate piece (which I quoted a small part of, but that doesn’t mean I completely agree with all of it) doesn’t infer that Breivik is Fjordman. It makes it clear that Fjordman was simply another who clearly influenced Breivik.

    You will have to flesh that out for me because it sounds very much like you are blaming those who criticize anything for the actions pf those that have no impulse control.

    You mean “please explain”? Isn’t that what I get mocked mercilessly for? Ye gods…
    (Actually I have no problem with people asking me to explain myself, I’d much rather people do that then misinterpret or misrepresent, so I’m kidding)

    I keep repeating that I’m talking about the climate/context of the times. As I said, ultimately he is the one who carried out the acts, so only he is responsble. But he isn’t operating in a vacuum.

    So those who voice genuine concerns about legitimate problems are responsible for those that extrapolate these concerns into totally off the chart evil and violent solutions?

    NO. Not at all. Those who voice genuine concerns about legitimate problems aren’t a problem at all. Where I live that doesn’t equate to spewing rhetoric. However promoting paranoid conspriacies which provide food for unstable or mentally ill people, or just politicial extremists, is irresponsible.

    Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. officer and a consultant on terrorism, said it would be unfair to attribute Mr. Breivik’s violence to the writers who helped shape his world view. But at the same time, he said the counterjihad writers do argue that the fundamentalist Salafi branch of Islam “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged. Well, they and their writings are the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.”

    “This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22

    I don’t see how you can separate these things out. To me it’s artificial to do so.

    I’m running out of time today but I’ll read the Bawer piece (and do some additional research on him and his work). Thanks for the link.
    Thanks for the clarification of ‘real’. I’m still not entirely sure how that definition works but as it’s now obviously a sensitive issue I won’t push it any further.
    Obviously I can’t respond to the next part until I do the reading.

    I think it has everything to do with free speech. We already have that ridiculous concept of “hate speech”, what you are advocating is much worse.

    But I’m not advocating any restrictions on speech, so how can it be worse? I’m saying that some people (usually the ones who preach responsibility) need to start acting responsibility themselves. People can choose to be honest and take the high road and argue their case accurately and moderately. That may well be what this Bawer guy did, I don’t know (yet).

    but don’t brand all those folks as dangerous fear mongorers fomenting hate and destruction

    I dont; and won’t.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  118. richtaylor365 says:

    You mean “please explain”? Isn’t that what I get mocked mercilessly for?

    Here is the difference, when you make an open ended sweeping statement with no real qualifiers, people want to know what you mean. On the flip side, when you ask for an explanation and someone (me) gives it to you, twice, in simple terms and plain English so that everyone (but you apparently) get it, then you come back with ,”I still don’t understand”, what am I suppose to do with that?

    But he isn’t operating in a vacuum.

    That whole vacuum excuse is really lame and lazy, it infers causation where none exists, it insinuates that if Bill O’Reily says ,”Obama is spending us into the poor house, his spending is adding 4.1 billion dollars to the debt every single day, we can not continue on this path”, then when a lunatic decides to take matters into his own hands (not a proper solution to a very real problem) people like you will bring up this whole vacuum theory as some how bringing O’Reily culpability. You guys should quit with that vacuum analogy, it does not work and brings nothing of substance to the debate.

    However promoting paranoid conspriacies which provide food for unstable or mentally ill people, or just politicial extremists, is irresponsible.

    But here is the problem, who decides what is “paranoid conspiracies”? Saying that the Islamazation of Europe is turning into a problem, saying that America is going bankrupt because of the mounting debt, saying that Obama is hurting this country, saying that the entitlement programs are out of control and an impediment to fiscal responsibility, saying that that there a large percentage of Muslims in the world that would prefer a Sharia compliant planet, saying that if Muslims had their way, all homosexuals would be killed, are any ( or all) of these statements “paranoid conspiracies”?

    “This rhetoric,” he added, “is not cost-free.”

    But a small price to pay for the luxury of unfettered free speech, and giving up the ability and right to voice an opinion just because some nutjob may hear the opinion and run with to Insanityville, now that would be much to high a price to pay.

    But I’m not advocating any restrictions on speech, so how can it be worse?

    It’s worse because you are assessing blame and causality where none exists, from that point it’s only logical to then label it as hateful rhetoric, and from there we can make laws outlawing and punishing this type of hate speech because, after all, it’s hateful and nobody likes people who hate, right?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  119. CM says:

    Here is the difference, when you make an open ended sweeping statement with no real qualifiers, people want to know what you mean. On the flip side, when you ask for an explanation and someone (me) gives it to you, twice, in simple terms and plain English so that everyone (but you apparently) get it, then you come back with ,”I still don’t understand”, what am I suppose to do with that?

    Well I still don’t quite understand the meaning (and I think determining whether people are ‘real’ anything is fraught with danger because it’s largely based on a subjective criteria), but I realise I’m alone, and it doesn’t look like we can discuss it further, so….whatever. I’ll have to just shrugmy shoulders and move on (and no doubt someone will find some fault with that).
    But there are plenty of other examples where I’ve legitimately asked for clarification (like you did) only to be mocked and abused for it. Some people should consider for a second that that not everyone thinks like they do, and considers their opinion on something to be a self-evident truth.

    That whole vacuum excuse is really lame and lazy, it infers causation where none exists, it insinuates that if Bill O’Reily says ,”Obama is spending us into the poor house, his spending is adding 4.1 billion dollars to the debt every single day, we can not continue on this path”, then when a lunatic decides to take matters into his own hands (not a proper solution to a very real problem) people like you will bring up this whole vacuum theory as some how bringing O’Reily culpability. You guys should quit with that vacuum analogy, it does not work and brings nothing of substance to the debate.

    And I consider that ignoring it and sweeping it under the carpet is artificial and is ignoring an important part of the debate. The issue is deeply complex but there is a certain section of society that can only seem to operate at a supercial binary level where every discussion is a collection of mindless vague talking points, full of inaccuracies that through repetition have become ‘truths’.

    But here is the problem, who decides what is “paranoid conspiracies”? Saying that the Islamazation of Europe is turning into a problem, saying that America is going bankrupt because of the mounting debt, saying that Obama is hurting this country, saying that the entitlement programs are out of control and an impediment to fiscal responsibility, saying that that there a large percentage of Muslims in the world that would prefer a Sharia compliant planet, saying that if Muslims had their way, all homosexuals would be killed, are any ( or all) of these statements “paranoid conspiracies”?

    Of course it’s possible to have rational discussions about all those issues. But many people simply cannot do so because they are so blinded by bias that they simply refuse to see that they’re not accurately portraying the situation. They’ve got their position and by god they’ll argue it to the death, even if it means sacrificing reality. Which is a real shame, because these are discussions that we SHOULD all be having if we’re going to get anywhere with them.
    But in summary, I’d say that paranoid conspiracies are those narratives that are spun together by connecting cherry-picked dots in a way that supports an already-held opinion but which completely ignores (or misrepresents) all the contrary evidence. And the narratives usually always favour an extreme conclusion being inevitable, and usually involve some sort of ‘slippery slope’. There is always a fair degree of exaggeration, and usually it requires some fancy footwork in terms of definitions and interpretation of what public figures have said.

    But a small price to pay for the luxury of unfettered free speech, and giving up the ability and right to voice an opinion just because some nutjob may hear the opinion and run with to Insanityville, now that would be much to high a price to pay.

    So you agree that rhetoric is not cost-free?
    Anyway, I agree, it’s worth it. Which is why it should never lead to the curtailment of freedom of speech (crying fire in a crowded theatre notwithstanding).

    It’s worse because you are assessing blame and causality where none exists, from that point it’s only logical to then label it as hateful rhetoric, and from there we can make laws outlawing and punishing this type of hate speech because, after all, it’s hateful and nobody likes people who hate, right?

    I’m not putting any direct blame on anyone directly. And I’m not suggesting that laws should be changed (I don’t know why you’re inferring again that I would agree to that?). So it’s can’t be worse.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  120. Section8 says:

    What constitutes a “hate” group in your opinion? I’ve seen some references to American blogs further down, who should all be monitored? And see that’s the fucking problem, because with the left it never stops. Shit, the Tea Party was basically considered a hate group recently, protesting taxes is hate, protesting health care reform is hate, and on and on.

    So if I spouted nonsense that was ‘straight up’ then I’d avoid all the bitching and my legs wouldn’t be continually humped. Yeah right. Good one.

    As far Alex, Alex, shut the fuck up about all liberals being nuts. CM feels he needs my help stating that since he’s too much of a pussy apparently to do it on his own.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  121. CM says:

    What constitutes a “hate” group in your opinion? I’ve seen some references to American blogs further down, who should all be monitored? And see that’s the fucking problem, because with the left it never stops. Shit, the Tea Party was basically considered a hate group recently, protesting taxes is hate, protesting health care reform is hate, and on and on.

    I think it’s incredibly difficult. When I have some more time I’ll try to answer this.

    As far Alex, Alex, shut the fuck up about all liberals being nuts. CM feels he needs my help stating that since he’s too much of a pussy apparently to do it on his own.

    I’ve done it plenty of times. Doesn’t seem to make any difference. His rigid ideological mind is impervious to requests for moderation and logic. He’s enabled though, no doubt.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  122. Section8 says:

    I think it’s incredibly difficult. When I have some more time I’ll try to answer this.

    It is? Out of this list which would you consider hate groups and why? Those who are in the Tea Party, those who protest taxes, those who protested Obamacare, or anyone who had bad words for Obama (if it comes from a right leaning person of course). Perhaps you say some or none just curious.

    As far as it being a difficult question to answer, then how does the government go about monitoring such groups? I mean if there is nothing clear cut about it, then anyone could be considered hateful if they don’t believe in what I believe in, or don’t believe in the ideology you believe in right? What about those who attacked Glen Beck a couple of months ago were they hateful? I remember you thought it was completely out of line what they did right before you posted two paragraphs justifying it, so I was kind of left confused on that one :)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  123. richtaylor365 says:

    But there are plenty of other examples where I’ve legitimately asked for clarification (like you did) only to be mocked and abused for it.

    Here is the protocol I recommend (you don’t have to use it but it would solve the problem), when clarification is needed, ask for it, when unsure about someone’s meaning, ask for further explanation. But when that explanation is given to you in an honest manner with the obvious intent to help, not smarmy or condescending but honest, then go with that. If you are still unsure, just accept the fact that sometimes an impasse in reached with no fault on either party, and don’t belabor the point.

    The issue is deeply complex but there is a certain section of society that can only seem to operate at a supercial binary level where every discussion is a collection of mindless vague talking points, full of inaccuracies that through repetition have become ‘truths’.

    And in a free society where people can say and believe any dumb idiotic thing they want, rational people can discern for themselves what is nonsense and what has merit. we don’t need the thought police of the hate police censoring folks, let them decide what is worthy of their attention.

    But in summary, I’d say that paranoid conspiracies are those narratives that are spun together by connecting cherry-picked dots in a way that supports an already-held opinion but which completely ignores (or misrepresents) all the contrary evidence

    Good definition, that is something I can sink my teeth in. I agree that such rhetoric does nothing to reveal truth or make folks more aware, but where I think we disagree is that I want folks to be able to spew nonsense if they want and allow those within ear shot to make their own judgements. People have a right to be dopes and fools, to believe the most asinine things imaginable, the stupidest conspiracy theories, the most ridiculous notions a empty brain can conceive, that is all part and parcel of a free society, that can’t be messed with.

    So you agree that rhetoric is not cost-free?

    Sure, the cost is that I have to suffer fools sometimes, I don’t mean you, I mean that sometimes I have to hear stuff said by people that is so outrageous and dumb that it literally hurts my ears. But that is a small price to pay for the luxury of free speech.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  124. Kimpost says:

    This camp at Utoya was partisan, but it wasn’t for children. It was for youth between fifteen, sixteen up to the early twenties. People who in our version of high school got interested in politics, often because they want to change the world. Hence the interest in Israel-Palestine, democracy, the environment, free speech, human rights, free trade, Africa, the death penalty, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the UN. And education of course.

    The right has similar organisations (in fact all political parties in Sweden have them, I would imagine that to be the same in Norway), covering the same stuff but with sometimes different takes on them. It’s rarely about marginal tax rate reform, in those ages.

    Having said that, I would say that most “kids” stay away from politics. Sports, mopeds, Jerseylicious, music and girls/boys are much more interesting, according to the majority. Political youth camp kids, are probably less than 10%. Anyway they are very mainstream in general, as most of our political spectra is.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  125. Kimpost says:

    The other day there was an op ed in the WSJ written by Bruce Bawer who wrote “While Europe slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within”, btw, is he one of those “People who spew anti-Muslim rhetoric”?

    Yes, he would be one of them.

    In the book he writes about the immigration problems in both Norway and Sweden, and yes he is a real Norwegian.

    He’s not Norwegian, he’s American. But yes, he lives in Oslo.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  126. CM says:

    Those who have influence in particular have a responsibility to act responsibly, particuarly on issues which are hot-button, and which they know trigger people to act irrationally. Of course your own behaviour is YOUR responsibility. How others act is THEIR responsibility, but it’s utterly disingenuous to think that everything operates independently. I don’t even see how that can be controversial.

    I’m sure you’d agree that if you cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, you’ve influenced people to act, and the resulting injuries are your responsibiliy. Now of course that’s an extreme example/analogy. I’m not saying that this situation in Norway (or the Giffins shooting) is that cut and dry. It’s clearly not. I think it’s a continuum, rather then a binary off/on thing.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  127. CM says:

    No I mean the issue of whether the government should consider ‘hate groups’ and what purpose that serves and what criteria it has to meet and what it means in reality. Those all very tough questions.

    Out of this list which would you consider hate groups and why? Those who are in the Tea Party, those who protest taxes, those who protested Obamacare, or anyone who had bad words for Obama (if it comes from a right leaning person of course). Perhaps you say some or none just curious.

    None of them, by any stretch. I would imagine I’d go with groups based on their hate of a race or religion or sexual orientation. Or a hatred of how society is structured (so the anti-govt extremists). But I’d imagine the history of the group is important.

    As far as it being a difficult question to answer, then how does the government go about monitoring such groups? I mean if there is nothing clear cut about it, then anyone could be considered hateful if they don’t believe in what I believe in, or don’t believe in the ideology you believe in right?

    Yep, it’s tough. It’s not a black or white issue ;-)
    I guess it can be done back-to-front in some ways. You add groups/people to the watch list when they rise above the rest and make actual threats (or when they or one of their groups carries out a violent act).

    What about those who attacked Glen Beck a couple of months ago were they hateful? I remember you thought it was completely out of line what they did right before you posted two paragraphs justifying it, so I was kind of left confused on that one :)

    If you believe I was trying to justify what they did then you misinterpreted me. In no way did I suggest it was in any way justified.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  128. HARLEY says:

    They’ve been found guilty of some serious crime (e.g. rape and murder).

    OK that sounds much better, but still disturbing.

    even if the person is a possible danger, its is a bit wrong to keep a person in jail, just because you think they might commit another crime. To me it smacks of a violation of the law, rights and a abuse of the system.
    Maybe the sentencing process should be harsher for these crimes?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  129. HARLEY says:

    These kids were on a mainstream political youth camp, organized by the largest party in Norway, and has absolutely nothing to do with Hitlerjugend (are you listening Glenn Beck?), but more to do with young people engaging with society. And in honesty very much about young people getting together having fun.

    Beck slammed ALL political youth camps as being like the Hitler youth, not just Norways, if anybody would just fucking pay attention to what was actually said, they would realize that . I swear the hatred against Beck, is amazing, the mans a entertaining kook, but he does at times hit the nail on the head.
    let me repeat, he was called all kids camps, that were centered around political ideology as very wrong, and he would NEVER send his kids to one.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  130. HARLEY says:

    I’m sure you’d agree that if you cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, you’ve influenced people to

    Horseshit, if you are in that theatre and you reacs in panic to someone screaming fire, without yourself checking or at the minimum, trying to determining if there is a fire, you do deserve to be cut out of the gene pool.
    and i sincerely hope you get my drift there.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  131. Kimpost says:

    No, he prefers to indoctrinate his at home. Home schooling FTW! Are boy scouts indoctrinating people too, because they advocate respect for people and nature? I mean if someone disagrees with those, then it’s indoctrination, isn’t it? How about religious camps? Wouldn’t surprise me if some of them teach kids that homosexuality is wrong, and that science sucks.

    And how about his own 9-12 project youth camps? Teaching kids, actual kids, of patriotism and the Constitution?

    If he occasionally hits the nail on its head, then this was not one of those times.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  132. richtaylor365 says:

    Yes, he would be one of them.

    How so?

    Tell me, is any criticism of Muslims and their actions Islamaphobia? Can one be concerned about the Islamization of (pick whatever continent you wish) and NOT be islamaphobic? When Bawer wrote a book criticizing evangelicals, was he Jesusaphobia? When he criticized the radical gay movement in America for their political philosophy in general and the need to move more to the center, was he being liberalgaymovementaphobia? Can one criticize anything at all, anywhere, without being lamely labeled as a hater? You see where this is going, right? Your narrow limitations do not allow debate at all, pigeon holing the whole lot into one big stew pot of hate, then marginalizing whatever they say, not quite sporting (or accurate).

    He’s not Norwegian, he’s American. But yes, he lives in Oslo.

    Since 1999, and from what i can gather, plans to remain there like forever, I’d say he qualifies.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  133. Kimpost says:

    Tell me, is any criticism of Muslims and their actions Islamaphobia?

    There’s plenty about the practical implementations of Islam that is worthy of criticism. Much of the Muslim world is what it is, and Islam surely has a role to play in that. But it’s not the main reason, and it’s certainly not the sole reason.

    If Christianity indeed is so different, then why was its implementation so fucked up before the enlightenment, and even long after it? The Middle East needs democracy and prosperity. Without it, fundamentalism will stay. After all, theocracies have nothing to gain from enlightenment and the secularism that follows that.

    Anyway, criticize Islam, but be rational. Are there instances where European courts have been stupid in regards to Sharia law? Yes, and when that happens, say so. Point the absurdity out. But don’t pretend that Europe’s under some kind of actual threat, because that’s crazy talk. It’s not possible to hold such views and to be claiming rationality. Just like it’s impossible to combine rationality with being a 9/11 truther.

    And where is this caliphate they are talking about? It’s not even forming in the Middle East for Christ’s sake. I’d take it a step further and suggest that thinking it would be forming there would be crazy talk. In Europe? That goes beyond crazy.

    Multiculturalism isn’t about letting fundamentalists forming enclaves who are living outside of our laws. It’s about being allowed to celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas and Ramadan. It’s not about being allowed to marry children, or genital mutilation, it’s about being allowed to build a church or a mosque, or to organize an Iranian dance night. The respect for our laws are absolutes. They are not in question and they are not threatened. Not when you are looking at the full picture.

    As I’ve stated many times before, there are problems with immigration, integration and assimilation. In many areas we have failed, just as the immigrants themselves have failed. Those things can and should be addressed, and they deserve the attention any serious problem should have. But making absurd claims isn’t helping…

    Since 1999, and from what i can gather, plans to remain there like forever, I’d say he qualifies.

    He has no Norwegian heritage, but fine, it’s not important anyway.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  134. hist_ed says:

    I’m sure you’d agree that if you cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, you’ve influenced people to act, and the resulting injuries are your responsibiliy.

    Unless there really is a fire.

    CM I’ve asked a couple of times for specific examples (not hypothetical examples). If you are having problems with the English language, please refer to dictionary.com for the meaning of the words “specific” and “examples”. If you have decided, for whatever reasons, to not provide any, would you just please let me know (a reason why would also be nice). Otherwise, since you are so concerned about the nasty, violence inspiring, anti-Muslim rhetoric, I thought it would be pretty easy for you show us some. It would also be very helpful in narrowing down what you are really talking about. Sometimes, when people say things like you have, they mean “Don’t encourage others to publically shoot people”; sometimes they mean “don’t say a single thing that I don’t like.” It would be nice to see where you fall on the spectrum.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  135. balthazar says:

    You have this fixation on men humping you or something?

    Most people dont talk about their sex fantasies on a public blog as people just arnt interested, why do you think people are interested in yours?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  136. Poosh says:

    I think a couple of BNP/racist types were found with a lot of explosives in their house, clearly planning something, in the UK.

    The British National Party whilst called “far right wing” because they are racists, white-supremisits sort of, who want to deport all non-anglo-saxons, their actual policies are more socialistic, government running the industries etc (they are literally left-wing, but never mind).

    Bomb seizures spark far-right terror plot fear (UK, 2009)

    60 right-wing terror plots foiled (USA)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  137. AlexInCT says:

    He has no Norwegian heritage, but fine, it’s not important anyway.

    So he is not pure enough to be Norwegian? Hope you see the irony of something like that after you accused this freak Breivik of being one of those pure race hucksters.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  138. Kimpost says:

    No, I just pointed out that Rich was wrong in saying that he was of Norwegian heritage. I meant nothing more than that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  139. Poosh says:

    Multiculturalism isn’t about letting fundamentalists forming enclaves who are living outside of our laws. It’s about being allowed to celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas and Ramadan. It’s not about being allowed to marry children, or genital mutilation, it’s a

    Oh dear oh dear!

    Multiculturalism is about us all singing “kumbaya” around a freaking camp fire. No shit. There is one particular culture that is not playing along. It’s following a religion that is POLITICAL rather than just spiritual. Many of those who come under that culture are not only disloyal to the western country that has welcomed them with open arms, but continue with their aspirations which they derive from their religion. The failure of multiculturalism is to take things to far, to not demonstrate a uniting culture (like america does), and to stupidly think all cultures are equal, when in fact they are not. Demographics clearly show in the UK at least that it is immigrants who are having the most babies, not the loyal indigenous population (obviously many immigrants, including all non-Muslim immigration seem to be loyal). This creates an incredible problem for the future. I’ve shown beyond doubt that a significant % of those Muslims desire elements of Sharia law, and are disloyal to the nation, and would wish the UK to become an Islamic country. We have a problem. This is part of a design which is openly talked about, by arab preachers etc. That doesn’t mean all Muslims are hear to destroy our liberal culture, but there are many that are and plainly can be seen to. Entire areas destroyed by an inferior, homophobic, degenerate, sexist, Islamist style culture. We have had many undercover documentaries (both BBC and Channel 4′s Dispatches) now showing how Islamic schools, some, spread horrific anti-liberal ideas to their children – part of their islamic culture, for example. What you ALSO have is a historical precedence. Islam has always been imperialstic by nature, unlike all other religions. It was conceived of as a political project. Now, a liberal Muslim can happily read what he wants from the Koran and not desire to do anything evil. Most Muslims do. But they are not following their religion correctly (and I wouldn’t want them to). When terrorists claim they are murdering for Islam, they ARE NOT LYING, nor are they missquoting the Koran. Read the Koran and the additional Hadiths yourself. This causes a massive problem for us.

    The failure to create a strong unified – nationalist – identity to unify us all, has given way to the create of great injustice through degenerate cultures being allowed to thrive here. The same can be said for African voodoo/christians but they have no political desire to turn the UK into a different political identity. I mean Islam’s Koran itself states if you leave Islam you are to be put to death – there’s nothing out of context there! What kind of religion teaches that? What kind of men do you think such a religion would breed? Don’t bother with any pathetic attempt to say ‘oh man but look at all these horrible christian quotes I found on the internetz” it’s just vulgar and shows a lack of theological understanding for both religions – I will say, no Christians are currently blowing themselves up ’cause of a sustained doctrine in the Bible, however.

    Recognise America, so I am told, has less of a problem as you are far more able to assimilate cultures better.

    We should all have an overarching culture of liberal democratic nationalism where all the founding principles of our western culture and the advances we’ve made in thought are enshrined in a national culture – simple things like we are all equal, one man one vote, sexual equality, right to worship etc. A country which is happy to allow immigrants from inferior, degenerate cultured countries such as Pakistan or Egypt, must be prepared to assimilate them and change their ways of thought – to free their ways of thinking – that being said, many immigrants from bad countries rejected their country’s/peoples’ culture long ago, even before they set foot on a EU country – many of them are Asylum Seekers (who we should always welcome).

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  140. HARLEY says:

    What the fuck? wow what away to go left field.
    the Boy scouts are NOT a political organization, What this discussion is about a political partys summer camp. Religious camps, Give me a fucking break, yeah i agree indoctrination, but its not run by a political party.

    9/12 camps, wow, still not a political party at all. I would wager they the “indoctrination” there is solidly on the constitutional principals than one would experience in any republican or democrat summer camp.
    Are you implying that the 9/12 camps, teach hateful or dangerous rhetoric? other than respect for the US Constitution?
    and BTW , why is your head up your ass, did you actually listen to Becks Program that day? or just read about it somewhere.
    I swear this hatred of beck is amazing, yeah heis a fruit, but damm funny to listen too at times.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  141. richtaylor365 says:

    He has no Norwegian heritage, but fine, it’s not important anyway.

    No, it’s not, because he has lived in Norway for 12 years, has no plans of ever leaving and has written books about the dangers of the Islamization of his new adopted country.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  142. richtaylor365 says:

    But don’t pretend that Europe’s under some kind of actual threat, because that’s crazy talk.

    To you it’s crazy talk, to many many other real Europeans that actually live in the belly of the beast, it’s not crazy at all. As I said before, I respect your opinion…………….but it is NOT the only opinion. You can dismiss it as crazy talk, but it really isn’t.

    And where is this caliphate they are talking about?

    What does that have to do with anything? The goal of making the world Sharia complaint is the horse before the cart, first things first. Jesus has not returned either, does this mean that Christians are not out there trying to save souls? You are deflecting.

    In Europe? That goes beyond crazy.

    Well, yes, if it ever happens he won’t be seated in Europe, but that is not what these European types are worried about anyway.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  143. Kimpost says:

    Well, I think that opinions basically are politics, so what difference does it make if the messenger is political, religious or something else? As long as it’s mostly benign, and of free will, I can live with a political bias.

    I think there’s a minor cultural divide here. Camps like these aren’t uncommon in Scandinavia, and they have been around for 100 years or so. For people who aren’t used to the idea, it just sounds weird. I haven’t really thought about it. I guess I kind of took it for granted that Republicans and Democrats in the US hosted summer camps. But judging by your reactions, I take it they don’t.

    I listened to a few minutes of the Beck show. Granted, I only did it after the story broke. I think that he got it wrong. But mostly I think that he just shouldn’t have politicized the massacre.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  144. Poosh says:

    If Christianity indeed is so different, then why was its implementation so fucked up before the enlightenment, and even long after it?

    This demonstrates a high level of ignorance towards history, but understandable. For example you probably think, incorrectly, that the Crusades were a Christian act of aggression. The sins of early ‘Christians’ can easily be seen as stemming from a bad understanding of the theology of Christianity. Almost no one could read, remember, and power lay in the hands of those who could manipulate the text. Christian extremism, if we understand that to be an over-the-top obedience of the Bible, would result in never defending yourself ever and all sorts of stupid things – but not violence. Christianity, as with everything under the sun, is open to abuse. The difference is the ACTUAL content, which is timeless. The Koran etc is a whole different kettle of fish, completely a different project. Jesus’ religion, if he existed, was merely preaching which ended with his death. The prophet of Islam was a warlord – as the Koran says – who conquered and fought his way across arabia, spreading the word of Allah < there is more evidence that Muhammad existed than Jesus I believe.

    When Christians used force to spread their religion, they are defying a host of parables and doctrines. When Muslims spread Islam by a certain kind of force, they are doing as the Koran commands and how their prophet behaved. Jesus healed the ear of the roman guard who came to arrest him – Muhammad executed a poet that said some bad things about him. Jesus says God always values the 'black sheep' that loses his way but returns – Muhammad says to KILL anyone who leaves the religion of Islam.

    Additionally, you don't seem to understand Christian thinking directly gave rise to the Enlightenment – ONLY Christians could have done this. The very doctrines including 'search for the truth' are pregnant in Christian theology – once freed up for all to read. Even bloody post-Marxists admit that Christianity led to the Enlightenment (Muslims were technologically more advanced, we're told, speeding ahead of the Christian world, yet they had no Enlightenment). What we have is a "christian" society without Jesus or God. We've found Christian morality – as stems from Christianity and the religion of the Jews – can be perfectly applicable without the need of a 'god' etc. Look at all those Enlightenment philosophers, most of the Christian, you find them trying to look outside of religion to justify morality that only exists because of their Christian upbringing and culture. This is what Nietzsche talks about, when he refers to us killing God, yet keeping the christian 'slave morality'.
    Poosh recently posted..The Myth of Gender and HeterosexualityMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  145. Kimpost says:

    This demonstrates a high level of ignorance towards history, but understandable. For example you probably think, incorrectly, that the Crusades were a Christian act of aggression.

    I would never paint the Crusades as simplistic as that. But nor would I categorize them as noble acts of self defence. Anyway, the Crusades are just a part of the violent history of Christianity.

    We could argue all day about the true nature of any religion, but I’d argue that it’s pointless. There are no objective definitions of them. As far as I’m concerned religion is largely dependent on what people can put together in their own minds. You could believe in a flying spaghetti monster and be Christian for all that I care. Similarly you could picks verses from the Quran, and interpret the Hadiths as you feel fit, and be a Muslim.

    As bystanders we can form our own opinions of those who claim allegiance to a certain religion. We might even study scripture ourselves, and find some people’s definitions to be ridiculous, but it doesn’t matter much. It is what it is – spirituality, difficult and almost impossible to categorize.

    As an almost atheist I find all organised religions to be ludicrous. But I don’t regard them as inherently evil. Instead, I base such judgements on their particular implementations. Genital mutilation, bad. Quietly praying towards Mecca five times a day, harmless. Helping stranded strangers, good. Murdering innocent people, bad. Finding inner peace, good. Ringing my doorbell on Sunday morning, downright evil…

    I wouldn’t agree with your characterisation of the Enlightenment. Christianity wasn’t the reason for it, the ideas themselves (progress, scientific advances), were the main forces behind the movement, in my opinion. In essence, it largely just happened. Sometimes it was in direct confrontation with Christianity.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  146. Kimpost says:

    Demographics clearly show in the UK at least that it is immigrants who are having the most babies, not the loyal indigenous population (obviously many immigrants, including all non-Muslim immigration seem to be loyal).

    Yes, but the numbers aren’t exactly overwhelming, are they? A small community (4.5% in the UK) having slightly (2.5 to 1,5) higher birthrates (their birthrates are also are dropping fast) , does not lead to the small community passing the large community any time soon.

    And the 4.5% mentioned is counting all muslims. Not just the radical minority. So how big is the actual threat, really?

    I’ve shown beyond doubt that a significant % of those Muslims desire elements of Sharia law, and are disloyal to the nation, and would wish the UK to become an Islamic country.

    You’ve shown no such thing. “Elements of Sharia law”, does not actually say much, does it? Nor does “Islamic country”.

    The failure to create a strong unified – nationalist – identity to unify us all, has given way to the create of great injustice through degenerate cultures being allowed to thrive here.

    I don’t agree. Nothing good stems from nationalism. Individuals should be able to define themselves without resorting to nationalism, which I believe is nothing more than a man made construct designed to further political goals.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  147. Kimpost says:

    To you it’s crazy talk, to many many other real Europeans that actually live in the belly of the beast, it’s not crazy at all. As I said before, I respect your opinion…………….but it is NOT the only opinion. You can dismiss it as crazy talk, but it really isn’t.

    I think that they might seem to be more than what they actually are. The Swedish nationalist party polls around 5%, and they don’t hold those views, at least not publicly. Sweden has eight parties in parliament. Three are to the left, four are to the right. And then we have our nationalists, who generally are considered a bit more right than left, but they are hard to categorize.

    What does that have to do with anything? The goal of making the world Sharia complaint is the horse before the cart, first things first. Jesus has not returned either, does this mean that Christians are not out there trying to save souls? You are deflecting.

    The relevance is that it’s one of the things the alarmists are warning for. If that’s considered nutty by some people, then perhaps the rest of it is kind of nutty too?

    I still don’t think that US conservatives in general, agrees with Geller. George W Bush is regarded as pretty conservative, isn’t he? I’d think that his views were kind of typical for conservatives. A few W quotes…

    The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.

    The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

    I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know — that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction.

    And here’s a nice Youtube speech from him.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  148. balthazar says:

    Ill continue to hold your sorry fucking ass accountable for your idiotic “arguements” and constant RFC’s when its blatantly obvious to someone that graduated from elementary school, what the poster means.

    And go fuck yourself, and stop advocating that the government fuck everyone else for you since you dont have the power to do it yourself.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  149. balthazar says:

    George W Bush is regarded as pretty conservative, isn’t he?

    Not really, He is a big national defense guy, but alot of conservative platforms he tossed. Especially the main ones, small government and less spending.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  150. AlexInCT says:

    Funny how you guys seem to now be able to take everything you are being spoon fed about this insane bozo as factual and the gospel truth, when you argued with me and never acknowledged Obama saying what he meant in a video about his energy policy a while back.

    Again. I reiterate: this guy is an insane shithead that is saying whatever it takes to get attention. He has figured out that what plays well is to say the things the left likes to hear, because the LSM will report that without doing it it’s due diligence, and post hast.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  151. AlexInCT says:

    I would never paint the Crusades as simplistic as that. But nor would I categorize them as noble acts of self defence. Anyway, the Crusades are just a part of the violent history of Christianity.

    Heh, way to contradict yourself there Kimpost, but not surprising to me, to see it happen when you believe what you do. First, you say you wouldn’t paint the Crusades in such a simplistic way, then you lay all the blame on Christianity’s violent nature, anyway. I guess the other guys involved in the whole thing were just forced to fight back when those pesky Christians decided they had had enough of Islam’s expansion politics, and took the fight to them. Shame on them Christians for kicking those peace loving Muslims out of Spain and Portugal and trying to do the same in the Holy lands. Sure the Catholic church doesn’t have clean hands, but to posit the Crusades happened solely because of the violence of Christianity makes it very obvious, even if it is not to you, that you have a bias.

    Islam BTW is not just a religion: it is primarily a political/military ideology, using religion as a pretext to justify its expansionist premises, and contrary to the usual bullshit about how enlightened and good we now have people with inferiority complexes and a dislike for their own cultures telling us Islam was in the past, just as violent, if not worse, as the Christians. In fact, today Islam seems to be the predominant source for most of the world’s violence, more often than not just as likely to be targeted against other fellow believers, and that’s because the most active people in Islam still believe the end goal is world domination. Ignore that at your own peril.

    And also keep in mind that while those killing in the name of Islam are trying real hard to take the record back for religious violence – despite the fact that today’s Islam is really more of a fascist movement with a lot more in common with Germany- and that most of the violence attributed to religion happened over more than a millennia, this just can’t compare to just 100 years of progressive reformation. Between the socialists in Hitler’s Germany/Mussolini’s Italy and the Bolsheviks and their world wide revolution, they managed to kill hundreds of millions, often their own population, and subject billions to the shared misery of collectivist tyranny. And that chapter seems to not be over yet. And yet, leftists are always complaining about evil religious violence. Go figure.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  152. Kimpost says:

    Eh…? I lay all the blame on what now? I merely stated that Christianity has a violent history. So has Islam. Hell, Islam might even be worse in that regard, but I never made that distinction. That wasn’t the question…

    [...]but to posit the Crusades happened solely because of the violence of Christianity

    That’s a perfect example of something I wouldn’t say.

    Other than that you do as so many others. You continue to say what Islam actually is, as if were objectively definable. I don’t agree with that.

    Your bit about non-religious violence I don’t get. Have I suggested that non-religious people can’t be violent?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  153. AlexInCT says:

    Eh…? I lay all the blame on what now? I merely stated that Christianity has a violent history. So has Islam. Hell, Islam might even be worse in that regard, but I never made that distinction.

    The problem was that you mentioned the violent past of Christianity, not that of Islam, or I wouldn’t have bothered with the comment Kimpost.

    That wasn’t the question…

    No, but that was the impression your post gave me.

    That’s a perfect example of something I wouldn’t say.

    OK, I will grant you that after your correction, but you do see that the original paragraph you wrote gave that impression, because the second part was missing, and then, after you said the subject was a lot more complicated than it appeared.

    Other than that you do as so many others. You continue to say what Islam actually is, as if were objectively definable. I don’t agree with that.

    Actually I am telling you what Muslims have told me Islam is – both through the words in the Koran and the many other publications, in how they behave and run their Islamic nations, and when speaking with them and seeing them live by those beliefs – and I do not accept your premise that you can’t define Islam. Christianity maybe, since is a pure religion and hence subject to human whim. Islam is no such thing. It is a political, military, economic, religious, and tyrannical system, all wrapped in one, hiding behind the religious aspect.

    The Ten Commandments or the laws of the old testament, are all but made fun of these days in what some would label Christian countries. Nowhere on the planet, despite the propaganda to the contrary, do you find people fighting wars in the name of Christianity. Unless you equate Christianity with big failed collectivist governments, its teachings have very little economic impact. And the tyranny in “Christian lands” (that’s in quotes because even the concept seems ludicrous) doesn’t come from the religious, but from a government that needs to curtail our freedoms in the never ending pursuit of social justice.

    Islamic countries on the other hand are out there. They hold on to Sharia law with fervor. Most wars are about or involve those pushing Islamic jihad, and so on. Islam is well defined indeed.

    Your bit about non-religious violence I don’t get. Have I suggested that non-religious people can’t be violent?

    That was reflexive response to the christian violence comment, sans the relevant clarification you added in the above post about Islam, and a point of order I make de facto whenever people speak of religious violence. It’s a reminder that religious violence unjustly gets a lot more attention from people on the left than other violence, especially that done in the name of the ideology. And saying other people are also violent, to me, either minimizes or ignores the the body count that Marx’s new religion(s) have racked up.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.