A psycho in Norway

Remove all ads!

In my opinion rg58 was using those as examples to show how ridiculous it is to tag nutcases as "right wing" or "left wing". If anything, your comments strengthen his argument -- it is ridiculous to claim these killings were related to any real political agenda.

 

I haven't read his manifesto -- and I'm not likely to-- but I have heard it reported that he says in it that he does not have a close relationship with Jesus and isn't really all that religious. Yet there are those who are still trumpeting the "Christian Fundamentalist" crap. He's an angry, evil, cowardly man, but nothing I've read leads me to believe that he's part of a larger group of people who are waiting in the wings to emulate his crimes. Or that anyone else is in any way responsible for his actions.

Oh, and this singer Morrisey? He can go and .... Do something anatomically impossible. What an <snipped>.

 

Dang! I been ninja"d by T2bruno ! I guess my sarcasm was a little to subtle. Wait,(mumbled conversation in background) what do you mean non-existent?

Hiya joaqin, yes being a minority in america is a very big deal. I will always be judged by some people as a "black man" first & foremost, no matter what I may have done.
I'll give you some typical examples.
Does my sphincter tighten up when a cop gets behind me? Yep, "driving while black" is all the probable cause a lot of cops need. Granted a highly disproportinate number of criminals in the system are black, but c'mon! When the BOLO is a young black male in a 2 door & I'm an old black male in a 4x4, just how the heck do I "fit the profile" ?!?(not sure how to write that as a proper sentence)
When I enter a gas station late at night, it's funny(in a sad kinda way) to see the momentary nervous fear flicker on the face of cashiers as if I was wearing a bandanna & wielding a gun.
Having a great conversation on the phone or computer with the hiring dept of a company, being told you are just what they are looking for, until the face-to-face. Suddenly, that position was just filled by a returning worker, sorry about that.
You want to get an idea about how a lot of US blacks are in RL, watch a tyler perry movie. If you ever go to see one at a movie theater though, the white folk stick out bad(looks like some doves sprinkled amid a flock of crows).

Hope that helps out some. Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions.
Now back on topic !
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dang it, I forgot what the topic was.

 

It's rather intriguing that Mr. Breivik actually ascended the commonplace "those <expletive> muslims/jihadists/islamists come and conquer us soon from the inside unless we <incite revolt in some way>" argumentation. He didn't target his prime suspects but the people that, according to him at least, are the most pro-multiculture and tolerant of such. The tree-huggers of the liberal let's all live together folk, if you will.

Rather new take on the whole doomsday profetia preacher thing. Just like 'they' finally realized that strolling around with hand-written boards "the end is nigh!", "repent while you still can!" and all that didn't quite get the attention 'they' wanted, so let's up the ante a bit.

Obligatory obvious point: I'm not actually suggesting that Breivik would be best described as a doomsday prophet, but there are certain parts in his ideology that seem to match.

 

T2,
I really couldn't care less about rg58 feeling slighted by people correctly labelling Breivik as the right winger that he is. Breivik is right wing. The US and European anti-Jihadist scene is right wing. Period.

There is a point to be made here, and I am pleasantly surprised to see, of all people, Abe Foxman make it, and make it well:

 

I have views similar to those of your quote, but I believe the use of terms such as "right wing zealot", "muslim extremist", or "black assailant" are very counter productive. When using those kinds of terms it lends give focus to "right wing", "muslim", and "black" which puts a negative on those groups -- even though the groups really had nothing to do with the crime. It becomes guilt by association and is nothing but prejudice.

The same is true with Breivik and right wing organizations. I do not believe his politic beliefs had anything to do with his committing a crime. It may have influenced his choice of targets, but not his desire to harm others. Lumping Breivik with all right wingers is simply showing bias and promoting an agenda.

 

I am sorry, but who does that? Right wing is a wide field. 'Ultra right' or 'Far right' is much narrower one. Currently the US, in part through the tea party, has brought some of the far right into the mainstream. After all, it is not an accident that the last years, after decades in the wilderness, the nutty Birchers were allowed back into Republican conventions. It's not an aberration but merely a sign of the times.

Diversity is key here - as with the right wing Islamdom is many things to many people, it specifically is not homogeneous, and the idea that it is out to subdue the West and to introduce Sharia law - or some other such absurdity - is, well, absurd.

The point is that the Islamophobic views that Breivik stressed, are prevalent in the US right wing. I already pointed out what Beck said. As just one example of many, just take this guy, Bryan Fischer of the arch conservative, Christian American Family Association. He has a talk show on which no less than six Republican presidential aspirants bothered to appear - Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachmann, Haley Barbour and Newt Gingrich - and he said in a recent column that Breiviks views vis a vis Muslims and them 'Cultural Marxists' are 'accurate'.

If Breivik's views are accurate then the threat is as dire as right wing lore has it. The logical implication is that when the situation is so dire, then something has to be done about it. The propagandists only stop short of calling for action. Breivik thought their ideas to the logical and consequent extreme. That's an inconvenient truth the anti-Islamic right wing in the US tries to run away from. Much more convenient to maintain Breivik was a madman.

 

"Who does that?" Well, you for one Ragusa. Your quote of "Breivik is right wing" makes him the spokesperson for "right wing" -- at least in your arguments. Unless you're not understanding some of the nuaces of the English language and really didn't mean to draw that inference (which is possible but you often aim such inferences at groups you do not like and no such inferences are aimed at groups you support).

I have many times condemned the hateful rhetoric from both sides of the aisle. I disagree with politicians who choose to paint black-and-white portraits of issues with the sole purpose of eliciting a hateful response. I hear it from the Democratic engine here in Chicago and the Republican engine in DC -- albeit really only a few do it. Fortunately, most people can see through the rhetoric and very few act on the hate.

Those few who have acted on the hateful rhetoric have shown a thin grasp on reality and have basically been "weapons waiting for a cause." These misguided few are not the right wing, left wing, socialist, communist, or moderate. They are their own group and only want to cause harm.

edit: [removed the inflammatory comment about rg58=martaug...].

 

Oh please. It's the other way around actually, it's not Breivik who is a spokesperson for the right. It's rather about the, emphasis for you, spokespersons of the FAR RIGHT in the US who say he is right on topic, but wrong in his actions.

They try to have it both ways - they say the outrageous stuff like that Breivik is accurate on the Muslim horde overrunning the west and the 'multicultural Cultural Marxists', while not wanting anything to do with people who act based on the crap they tell.

In that regard they are no less hypocritical than, an example chosen out of sheer laziness, that prominent a**hole who called Dr. Tiller 'Tiller the Baby Killer', and that he 'got away' on prime time tv, to then express utter surprise and shock, shock I tell you, that someone eventually murdered him, only to add that, while the murder was wrong, Tiller sure deserved it.

Talk has consequences.

 

Interestingly enough a Finnish openly neo-nazi themed site condemned Breiviks rampage because "real national socialists don't kill members of their own race." Not even the most extreme of the extreme right want any credit for this one.

 

I think, and I don't mean to speak for T2, is that the cause doesn't matter, whether it's right or left. These are mean-spirited, hateful people who will latch onto a cause, no matter what it is, and then take action against others because they don't know any other way to act. People act out in this manner because they have emotional problems, not because of ideology.

Ragusa - I'm not in the least discounting what you are saying, a lot of it has merit. Some people certainly play to the raw emotions of others to advance themselves and their own agendas. But those kinds of people are easy to spot, at least for most well-adjusted, thinking people. Neverhteless, they have a way of controlling the message and fashioning the debate. It's unfortunate, but they do because they always seem to get a platform on which to spout their hate.

 

Chandos,
I think you underestimate the gullibility of your fellow citizens. I recently saw an interview with a nice old lady of retirement age, somewhere in the US heartland, who was utterly convinced that we Euros are going down under the relentless onslaught of the Islamic horde and that we largely live under Sharia law.

Now I do not live under Sharia law, in fact nobody in my country of ~80 million does, and neither do I spot the trend that we are being overrun by 'Islamics', as she put it, but what would I know about my country?

Probably she doesn't have a passport (taking into account that only ~30 % of Americans do), doesn't travel, and knows all that from hearsay only, from trusted messengers. But never mind that detail, she spoke with uttermost conviction. She was reiterating the nonsense people have been telling her.

 

Yes, he makes them look bad. Killing immigrants only would be fine by those criteria, I guess.

Anyway, I'm not sure how Brevik being described as "right-wing extremist" somehow makes him representative of the right-wing ideology as a whole - not to mention I think the term itself means somewhat different things in different countries. He is an extremist (as in, an outlier), and he was, as far as we can tell, motivated by a vision taken from right-wing ideology, with a strong slant. There are people who can turn an ideological statement, especially if strong enough (which is part of why Breivik left his previous party) into a motive for killing. It need not be ground for silencing such views, but it does mean that people should consider themselves responsible for the statements they make.

 

Well, hate speech is already quasi-illegal in the US. I heard a few such cases when I sat on a grand jury a few years back. If you commit a crime that was motivated out of hatred for a particular group, you can get slapped with an additional charge of a "hate crime" that can bump up your sentence, if convicted, by up to five years.

So while calling someone by a racially degrading name isn't a crime per se, if you then go a do something illegal, it is "more illegal" (for lack of a better term) because of your previous statements.

And of course directly enciting violence (not that Beck did that) is NOT protected speech.

 

I think this cartoon kind of sums up my feelings on this multi page thread that seems to be focusing more on the "right wing" aspect of the shooting then it does on the actual shooting.

 

@TGS

LMAO!!!

 

I'd rep that if I could. Right on the money.

 

Oh yes, yes, if the killer had been Muslim, left-wing, or atheist the matter would be forgotten so much more quickly and with so much less posturing by political and media figures. No way it could have persisted in the news for, what, two weeks? Yeah, nice cartoon, but I call BS on the premise.

The relative persistance of the "right-wing" connection is imo mostly because:

a) the scale of the killings was huge. This sicko killed more people than died in the London subway bombing. The interest in them would be long-lasting no matter who or where caused them.

b) he himself called attention to his motives, political and religious views. He did it several times, and continues to do so from the arrest. Want to blame someone for bringing it up? Blame him.

c) there is an element of novelty; we have become used to hearing such acts of violence perpetrated by Muslim extremists, while this guy appears to be the polar opposite. He is different than the mold, and professes allegiance to views seemingly not that different to that of many in the West.

 

Shaman, do you really think that persisting with this is going to convince anybody? Their very point is that going on about a mass murderer's political motivations and affiliations is wrong/misguided/beside the point/whatever, so continuing with that very thing is about the worst strategy you could possibly pursue to change their minds. The tragedy of the deaths of the victims themselves hasn't even been mentioned in this thread now since like the third post, so each additional post that wanders even further afield only stengthens that argument here.

To return to the heart of the matter, I am very sad that these innocent people in Norway were murdered. If we could have shared a moment with some of them while they were dying, it probably would have been more comfort to them to tell them that they were loved and that their loved ones will be cared for than to explain that we think it was a right-wing fanatic who did it, probably motivated by Glenn Beck and the Tea Party, and that if only no one watched Fox News it wouldn't have happened. People who are dying don't really think about politics too much. They focus moreso on the basics, like "Huh, I seem to be dying" and "Wow, I've got a bullet hole in my chest" and "So I guess I'll never see my spouse/kid/parent again" and "I'm really not ready to go" and "This isn't fair."