Doctor Fate wrote:So, if he fancies football, tea, and British comedy, then he has some things in common with you. Is it uncomfortable to realize how closely tied you are to a killer?

Yes, and it would be a source of discomfort. More so if he claimed to be acting on behalf of tea-drinking football fans with a great sense of humour.

Because he's a homicidal maniac. Not so difficult, is it?

So was John Allen Muhammed. So was James Wenneker von Brunn. So is Nidal Malik Hasan. So is David Copeland.

I never said it wasn't a problem. I'm saying of the issues that arise, it's not the most important.

Unless, per chance, one is interested in reducing the risk of a future occurrence.

Understanding why, and looking into whether others share the same motivations is part of that, too. After all, if there are factors in his life that contributed, perhaps we can do something to reduce their effect on others.

And perhaps there has been too much complacency about the threat of far-right violence.

Perhaps there's something in his claimed links with others.

His motive would be obvious. In this case, his motive is also obvious: extreme xenophobia combined with sociopathy and a violent psychopathic streak one suspects he's been cultivating for a very long time.

Well it's a good job no-one had been feeding his delusions, eh?

Do you know why the Manson crew did what they did? Manson thought . . . it would trigger a race war. There are more similarities than you'd care to admit.

I'm aware of that, but Helter Skelter was not written about race. That link was in Manson's head. Breivik pointed to writing that was about Islamic immigration and a conspiracy by the left. See the difference?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, if he fancies football, tea, and British comedy, then he has some things in common with you. Is it uncomfortable to realize how closely tied you are to a killer?

Yes, and it would be a source of discomfort. More so if he claimed to be acting on behalf of tea-drinking football fans with a great sense of humour.

I understand all of that is included in an appendix.

So was John Allen Muhammed. So was James Wenneker von Brunn. So is Nidal Malik Hasan. So is David Copeland.

Here's your problem: Breivik identifies himself as some kind of Teutonic Knight, a defender of Europe against the Islamic hordes. He says there are others like him.

On the other hand, Hasan fancies himself a warrior of Islam, but he had actual connections with terrorists and there have been a myriad of attacks of people holding the same ideology both before Hasan and after.

i understand your liberal, knee-jerk desire to pretend that all "hatred" is from the same bowl. However, any serious study of the matter pokes dozens of holes in your theory. We know Hasan's ideology. We've seen it for decades across the globe. Tens of thousands have died at the hands of Islamic extremists. It is an actual global movement motivated by religion--whether or not it actually represents the tenets of that religion.

Breivik's xenophobia is not rare. However, his psychopathy and the complete lack of compassion he displayed, is. Hasan's mentality is manifested daily--in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, the Philippines, and other, more random places.

You don't want to see a difference. Fine. That's your problem.

Understanding why, and looking into whether others share the same motivations is part of that, too.

I presume you'll apply that to Islamists too? There are many more of them than there are of Breivik's ilk.

After all, if there are factors in his life that contributed, perhaps we can do something to reduce their effect on others.

How do you stop or minimize psychopathy?

And perhaps there has been too much complacency about the threat of far-right violence.

Perhaps there's something in his claimed links with others.

I don't doubt we'll find out. This is politically correct. Trying to stop radical Islam is not so.

His motive would be obvious. In this case, his motive is also obvious: extreme xenophobia combined with sociopathy and a violent psychopathic streak one suspects he's been cultivating for a very long time.

Well it's a good job no-one had been feeding his delusions, eh?

How much does it take to "feed" someone bent on murder? How can you know any of what was said by general media types influenced him?

I'm aware of that, but Helter Skelter was not written about race. That link was in Manson's head. Breivik pointed to writing that was about Islamic immigration and a conspiracy by the left. See the difference?

There is no difference. The "conspiracy" is as delusional as Manson's interpretation of a song. This sort of person twists just about anything into a pretzel to sear their conscience and to justify what they are going to do.

Good job then, that there aren't right wing politicians or pundits who have said he had a point.

Well, Beck claims to have predicted him, a senior member of Italy's Northern League has said Breivik's ideas are 'in defence of western civilisation'.

And if it does turn out that Breivik was in contact with others who advocate or organise violence, is it so easy to dismis him as a one-off nutter?

danivon wrote:Good job then, that there aren't right wing politicians or pundits who have said he had a point.

Well, Beck claims to have predicted him, a senior member of Italy's Northern League has said Breivik's ideas are 'in defence of western civilisation'.

And if it does turn out that Breivik was in contact with others who advocate or organise violence, is it so easy to dismis him as a one-off nutter?

Sources? Thanks.

I'm restricted to phone for a bit. The Beck stuff is from the same 7 min segment as his Hitler Youth comments.

On European apologists:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14315108

A second senior Northern League member joins in:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... ds-breivik

Fascism, particularly the European, white nationalist and anti-immigrant varieties are coherent ideologies with organised groups. They have killed before, and they do not exist in a vacuum.

danivon wrote:On European apologists:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14315108

A second senior Northern League member joins in:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... ds-breivik

Fascism, particularly the European, white nationalist and anti-immigrant varieties are coherent ideologies with organised groups. They have killed before, and they do not exist in a vacuum.

So does anti-Semitism. Bad ideologies tend to just recycle in Europe.

That said, which is more acceptable in terms of the intended audience:

1. Violence against Muslims and/or perceived supporters of multiculturalism in Europe.

Or

2. Violence against Westerners in the Islamic world.

I find both equally 'unacceptable'. I don't kow who the 'intended audience' would be in each case, but don't think that there are not people who are glad to see dozens of dead 'traitors'.

By the way, it's not just Europe. We probably have it worse but your nation is not immume from far right anti-semitism - cf. Von Brunn and his attack on the US Holocaust Museum.

danivon wrote:I find both equally 'unacceptable'. I don't kow who the 'intended audience' would be. . .

I don't believe that.

Breivik made it plain who his 'intended audience' was--ethnic Europeans.

Al Qaida and other Islamic groups make their attacks for an intended audience too: other Muslims. They hope to portray themselves as the "strong horse" and the West as weak. That's no mystery; you just don't like it.

. . . in each case, but don't think that there are not people who are glad to see dozens of dead 'traitors'.

Sure, but which group will be cheering in the streets (see 9/11) while the other could get together in a large coat room?

By the way, it's not just Europe. We probably have it worse but your nation is not immume from far right anti-semitism - cf. Von Brunn and his attack on the US Holocaust Museum.

I think anti-Semitism is present all over the world. However, historically and now, it has been a staple of European thought, not a fringe issue. I'm not saying most Europeans are anti-Semites. I am saying there is a large strain of it in European politics that is invisible in the US. An American politician who seems anti-Semitic is automatically a fringe candidate, very fringey (to make up an adjective).

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I find both equally 'unacceptable'. I don't kow who the 'intended audience' would be. . .

I don't believe that.

Breivik made it plain who his 'intended audience' was--ethnic Europeans.

Al Qaida and other Islamic groups make their attacks for an intended audience too: other Muslims. They hope to portray themselves as the "strong horse" and the West as weak. That's no mystery; you just don't like it.

So they don't intend for anyone else to be audiences as well? Terrorism is not just aboutplaying to a gallery, it's about intimidating your opponents or provoking them. You presume that there's only one audience, and that it's always the same one? I don't make such presumptions about the minds of killers.

. . . in each case, but don't think that there are not people who are glad to see dozens of dead 'traitors'.

Sure, but which group will be cheering in the streets (see 9/11) while the other could get together in a large coat room?

Very few were cheering in the streets after 9/11, although the cameras did find them. The attitude of idiots who cheerlead is partly relevant, but so is the linkage to organised groups with similar views and, while not as murderous, violent tendencies.

I think anti-Semitism is present all over the world. However, historically and now, it has been a staple of European thought, not a fringe issue. I'm not saying most Europeans are anti-Semites. I am saying there is a large strain of it in European politics that is invisible in the US. An American politician who seems anti-Semitic is automatically a fringe candidate, very fringey (to make up an adjective).

The guys who are causing problems over here are rarely politicians, and those that are are also very 'fringey' in the main (perhaps your views on Europe are coloured a little by distance and a media lens?). I will say that anti-Muslim feelings are more mainstream, as are extremely social conservative views (hatred of immigration, racial mixing, multiculturalism of any kind, homosexuality...). But they seem to also find a voice around the world.

Should we be concerned about Islamo-fascism? Should we be concerned about violence it inspires? Yes.

Should we be concerned with all forms of fascism, and the violence they inspire? Yes.

I've never felt personally in fear of attack from any Muslim I've met in the UK or abroad. I have felt in personal danger with some white racists/fascists. It's not 'politically correct' to oppose racism or bigotry whatever it's source. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the answer in your head is 'Muslims' even when the act is commited in the name of us white christians (lower-case 'c' as it refers to cultural Christians, not necessarily practising ones).

Doctor Fate wrote:As for Mr. Breivik being a Christian, let's look at his own words (I know, I know, it's a wild idea).

Sure, as long as you don't ignore the parts that others have pointed to, eh?

That's a rather unusual definition of Christianity. He fairly clearly rejects the religion, but endorses the perception of its cultural, social, and moral influence.

What he wrote could have been written by Hitler. It would not have been written by anyone actually of the Christian faith.

You have surely heard of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, Steve? Your post is a good example of it.

He was baptised as a Christian (and not as a baby, as a 15 year old). His statements do not say that he is not a Christian, he alludes to not believing in all of it, but does not come flat out and say so. In some places he talks of praying that his plans come to fruition.

I know that you have a strict definition of what a Christian is. So strict that I suspect that the majority of church-going and Godfearing people on the planet will fall short of it. Catholics, Orthodox & Copts, Episcopalians...

That doesn't mean it's the only one. And you cannot deny his claims to be acting on behalf of Christians. As I said before, he's not a fundamentalist, but he is at least culturally Christian.

danivon wrote:]So they don't intend for anyone else to be audiences as well? Terrorism is not just aboutplaying to a gallery, it's about intimidating your opponents or provoking them. You presume that there's only one audience, and that it's always the same one? I don't make such presumptions about the minds of killers.

And, I'll grant you the point about secondary motives. It does nothing to further your argument.

Very few were cheering in the streets after 9/11, although the cameras did find them. The attitude of idiots who cheerlead is partly relevant, but so is the linkage to organised groups with similar views and, while not as murderous, violent tendencies.

Rubbish. Polls consistently show those in the Muslim world don't believe 9/11 was even a terror attack. In other words, they hate us so much they cannot even believe the government itself didn't do this. They're just happy Americans died.

Should we be concerned about Islamo-fascism? Should we be concerned about violence it inspires? Yes.

Should we be concerned with all forms of fascism, and the violence they inspire? Yes.

Which is the bigger threat? I'll wager you can't/won't really answer that.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the answer in your head is 'Muslims' even when the act is commited in the name of us white christians (lower-case 'c' as it refers to cultural Christians, not necessarily practising ones).

I will concede that is my first thought. Is it because I hate Muslims? No. It's because I see what virulent forms of it do across the world on a daily basis. There really is no comparison in terms of activity, but I'm sure it makes you feel less of a bigot to believe cultural christians and white supremacists are equally valid threats.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:As for Mr. Breivik being a Christian, let's look at his own words (I know, I know, it's a wild idea).

Sure, as long as you don't ignore the parts that others have pointed to, eh?

I think he was very clear. He is not a believer, but a "cultural" christian.

You have surely heard of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, Steve? Your post is a good example of it.

Except that it's true, Dan.

He was baptised as a Christian (and not as a baby, as a 15 year old). His statements do not say that he is not a Christian, he alludes to not believing in all of it, but does not come flat out and say so. In some places he talks of praying that his plans come to fruition.

He spent 10 years planning this thing out. From the liberal to socialist, mediamatters:

Breivik chose to be baptized at age 15. He self-identified as "Christian" on his Facebook page. He thought "Christianity should recombine under the banner of a reconstituted and traditionalist Catholic Church" or, later, under a new (traditionalist) European Church.

Breivik is not an American-style evangelical Christian. He is not a "fundamentalist" in that sense. Though he does identify with American cultural Christian conservatives. And he considers himself to be fighting in the name of "our Christian cultural heritage." He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity.

There is nothing "Christian" about that. Anyone who thinks everyone should unite under one banner doesn't understand that, essentially, Catholicism and evangelical Christianity are two different religions. We worship the same God, but define Him and salvation in completely different terms.

Christ said His kingdom is not of this world. Breivik says his is. That's not Christian.

I know that you have a strict definition of what a Christian is. So strict that I suspect that the majority of church-going and Godfearing people on the planet will fall short of it. Catholics, Orthodox & Copts, Episcopalians...

Anyone who thinks that getting baptized makes you a Christian doesn't understand baptism or Christianity.

That doesn't mean it's the only one. And you cannot deny his claims to be acting on behalf of Christians. As I said before, he's not a fundamentalist, but he is at least culturally Christian.

Which is a meaningless term.

Btw, I am now President of the United States. I authorize all future paychecks to be sent to me.

All I have to do is claim to be President to make it reality. Constitution? Doesn't matter. Obama? A pretender.

Doctor Fate wrote:Which is the bigger threat? I'll wager you can't/won't really answer that.

That one is really easy. Neither one poses an immentent threat to western culture or securtiy in any serious way. How we react to them however does pose a threat to our values and culture.
Just compare what Norway proposes to do in the aftermath of this attack and others who trot out lame anti terror legislation, want to curb free speech, increase data collection for security services and whatnot.
Costs loads of dough, decreases freedom and won't stop the next dedicated, bright deranged person of pulling off the very same thing again. Heck we'll probably see some not so bright 16 year old successfully shoot up a school within 3 month. Sucks but you're still 1000x more likely to get hurt while puttering around in your garden or house.

Faxmonkey wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Which is the bigger threat? I'll wager you can't/won't really answer that.

That one is really easy. Neither one poses an immentent threat to western culture or securtiy in any serious way. How we react to them however does pose a threat to our values and culture.

Perfect dodge.

One of them causes more deaths and violence than the other. Which is it?

That's like me asking which is more dangerous, cancer or scurvy, and you answering "Neither one." That's not an answer.