Terrorist Attack in Oslo, Norway

[Sunstone]

It interests me that when a Muslim does something like this, it's because of his religion. But when a Right Winger does something like this, it's not only that he did it because of psychological problems -- and certainly not because of his religion or political views -- but it's also that he's not even a true Right Winger. Welcome to the new PC.

 

[Revoltingest]

Diversity isn't just for normal people.
Violent sociopaths will defy stereotypes & convenient labels too.
The real issues should be:
Understand why it happened.
Take reasonable precautions based on lessons learned.
Continually reconsider the threats, prevention & response.

 

[England my lionheart]

Just watched the BBC news and the scumbags Lawyer was concerned that he will recieve threats and abuse for taking the role.

 

[Copernicus]

If you want to play that game, he self identifies as an economic liberal (according to Wikipedia), so he could be seen as a left leaning terrorist.
He went after his own because of their social agenda. See...we can read whatever we want into this malefactor. Pointless.

I don't see why you feel it so necessary to try to paint this guy as either non-political or some kind of leftist lunatic. I freely admit that these kinds of people can come from either side of the political spectrum. This guy happened to come from the right, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that fact. It clearly makes you feel uncomfortable, and it shouldn't. The problem nowadays is not with left-wing terrorists. They do not seem to be out in equal numbers. And the right wing in the US has used some pretty violent rhetoric to support their cause. The "Tea Party" revels in its ahistorical attempts to invoke the American Revolution. Many in the Republican Party have gone to extreme lengths to vilify Democrats, especially liberal Democrats. That such rhetoric should inspire people like Loughner and Breivik should come as no surprise to you, yet you still seem not to want to acknowledge what is going on here. Extremist rhetoric on the right needs to be toned down, but that is not going to happen until people on the right condemn it in no uncertain terms.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see why you feel it so necessary to try to paint this guy as either non-political or some kind of leftist lunatic.

That's the opposite of what I'm doing.
I object to his being appropriated for demonization of any group....other than dangerous fanatics.

I freely admit that these kinds of people can come from either side of the political spectrum. This guy happened to come from the right, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that fact. It clearly makes you feel uncomfortable, and it shouldn't.

Again you miss my point?
I don't think he sullies either the right or the left...or anyone else.

The problem nowadays is not with left-wing terrorists. They do not seem to be out in equal numbers. And the right wing in the US has used......to support their cause. The "Tea Party" revels in its ahistorical attempts to invoke the American Revolution. Many in the Republican Party have gone to extreme lengths to vilify Democrats, especially liberal Democrats.

Inflammatory rhetoric comes from both sides of the aisle.
But one must be willing to listen without filtering it thru a partisan agenda.

 

[Copernicus]

Inflammatory rhetoric comes from both sides of the aisle. But one must be willing to listen without filtering it thru a partisan agenda.

That's a false equivalence nowadays. The left has no strong voices in the popular media. The right wing is well-financed and well-organized. The Democrats have some media propaganda outlets, but nothing near as influential or well-funded as what exists on the right. Barack Obama is essentially a moderate Republican, yet he is vilified daily as a "socialist", and a large percentage of the US public has bought into this delusion. Where are the left-wing terrorists? Does anybody worship Che Guevara these days?

 

[Father Heathen]

That definition is exactly what I meant.
This particular Norwegian defined himself as Libertarian and fundamental Christian.
A European has no difficulty in seeing this connection.

Having a totalitarian, theocratic viewpoint isn't compatible with liberty and self-sovereignty.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a false equivalence nowadays.

False to those who must believe otherwise.

His being a mass murderer is pretty strong evidence that he's no libertarian.
Have any evidence (other than your own proclamation) for your claim that he is one?

Having a totalitarian, theocratic viewpoint isn't compatible with liberty and self-sovereignty.

So very true dat.

 

[atanu]

Nevertheless, a peculiar kind of theocracy, tinged with intolerance, characterises the righist politics everywhere in the world. I remember Mr. Bush thinking that he was an agent of God.

In older times, in India at least, reading scriptures was banned for immature people. When scripture says pay 'Poor Tax', the greedy collect 'Poor Tax'. When God in scripture says "I am all castes", the hatred full theocrat sees that as justification of caste discrimination that he practices.

I think that rightists use theocracy more to further their agendas - whether in mild or in virulent form.

.................

Government of Norway seems to be doing a good job in not allowing the horrific event and its aftermath to create fissure in society.

 

[Kathryn]

I would like to see a credible source that profiles him as a Libertarian. There's nothing in his manifesto, beliefs, or actions that I can see which puts him in this category.

 

[Father Heathen]

Libertarian means to be liberal on social issues (such as personal freedoms, rights and equality, etc.), and conservative on fiscal issues (free market, capitalism, deregulation, decentralized government, etc.) The root word in Libertarianism is Liberty. If something runs contrary to liberty then it runs contrary to libertarianism. Figured I would get that out of the way since people seem set on misrepresenting it.

 

[Kathryn]

Libertarian means to be liberal on social issues (such as personal freedoms, rights and equality, etc.), and conservative on fiscal issues (free market, capitalism, deregulation, decentralized government, etc.) The root word in Libertarianism is Liberty. If something runs contrary to liberty then it runs contrary to libertarianism. Figured I would get that out of the way since people seem set on misrepresenting it.

Thanks, FH. Seems ol' Anders is far, far right and definitely not Libertarian. I knew that already but thank you for clarifying for those who seem to confuse libertarian views with the far right.

Libertarian views are incompatible with any political viewpoint which is opposed to multiculturalism generally, because libertarians are socially liberal.

 

[Copernicus]

His being a mass murderer is pretty strong evidence that he's no libertarian.
Have any evidence (other than your own proclamation) for your claim that he is one?

I have not called him a libertarian. You are confusing me with someone else. I think that he felt he had common cause with the American right, especially the most extremist elements of the Tea Party and Christian fundamentalists. His hatred was focused on those that he felt were selling his country to foreigners--the hated liberals. Surely you know who those people are. You watch Fox News, don't you? (If not, then you should.)

 

[jarofthoughts]

It interests me that when a Muslim does something like this, it's because of his religion. But when a Right Winger does something like this, it's not only that he did it because of psychological problems -- and certainly not because of his religion or political views -- but it's also that he's not even a true Right Winger. Welcome to the new PC.

Let me just state that this person's religious views would, at best, have similarities among an extreme minority in Norway.
As for his political views, they are all over the map, and while they -might- fit with, again, an extreme minority, his political stance isn't anywhere even remotely close to that of any political party in Norway.
You have to remember that the political and social landscape in Norway is quite different from the one in the US, and not even the Progress Party, our most right leaning party, is anywhere near the views of this man.

 

[Sunstone]

Let me just state that this person's religious views would, at best, have similarities among an extreme minority in Norway.
As for his political views, they are all over the map, and while they -might- fit with, again, an extreme minority, his political stance isn't anywhere even remotely close to that of any political party in Norway.
You have to remember that the political and social landscape in Norway is quite different from the one in the US, and not even the Progress Party, our most right leaning party, is anywhere near the views of this man.

Apparently, Breivik's 1500 page "Compendium" quotes Right Wingers on both sides of the Atlantic, and freely borrows ideas from all sorts of Right Wing sources -- both within Norway and outside of Norway. So I'm not sure how accurate it is to argue that he is not a Right Winger because the political landscape of Norway is quite different from the political landscape of the US. He does not seem to rely on Norwegian ideas alone.

"His compendium [is] filled with attacks on familiar right-wing targets: Secularism and political correctness; the European Union and the sexual revolution; radical Islam and the academic left."

At any rate, my point is that, because he has ties to the Right, he is insane. But if his ties to the Left were as strong as his ties to the Right, he would suddenly not be insane: Instead, he would be a Leftist, a Socialist, a Communist. Anything but insane.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Apparently, Breivik's 1500 page "Compendium" quotes Right Wingers on both sides of the Atlantic, and freely borrows ideas from all sorts of Right Wing sources -- both within Norway and outside of Norway. So I'm not sure how accurate it is to argue that he is not a Right Winger because the political landscape of Norway is quite different from the political landscape of the US. He does not seem to rely on Norwegian ideas alone.

"His compendium [is] filled with attacks on familiar right-wing targets: Secularism and political correctness; the European Union and the sexual revolution; radical Islam and the academic left."

At any rate, my point is that, because he has ties to the Right, he is insane. But if his ties to the Left were as strong as his ties to the Right, he would suddenly not be insane: Instead, he would be a Leftist, a Socialist, a Communist. Anything but insane.

Oh, I wasn't arguing that he's not right-wing. I'm fairly certain that he is, and "his" so called "manifest" certainly indicates that.
I merely pointed out that we don't have a political party or movement of any notable size that even remotely corresponds to the views of this psychopath. Thus, his views are not represented anywhere in Norwegian politics.
We know for a fact that he has gathered inspiration for his nightmarish and delusional view of reality from many different sources.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It seems He had some tenuous links to the extreme right in several countries, including the UK and the USA.
It is clear he despised the centre left and the academic left even more so.

Libertarianism is more associated as extreme personal freedom and anarchy in Europe. It is freedom with out social restraint, or social conscience.

 

[Father Heathen]

Libertarianism is more associated as extreme personal freedom and anarchy in Europe. It is freedom with out social restraint, or social conscience.

Even with that wacky distortion, it's still incompatible with far right totalitarian and theocratic ideology.

Do Europeans honestly believe that people are incapable of being responsible or having a conscience without being beneath the state's thumb?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even with that wacky distortion, it's still incompatible with far right totalitarian and theocratic ideology.

You Might expect it to be so... except I do not see the Far right as necessarily Totalitarian, or indeed usually so.

In that case It does indeed come close to anarchy.
Theocratic Ideology seems to appeal to people who take up all extreme positions.

 

[Flankerl]

Do Americans honestly believe that the state is always out to get you?