Explosion in central Oslo, Norwegian Primeminister's Office was hit.

[JD50]

This is a sampling from just the last 3 years.

<snip>

You're right, those kinds of things don't generally make me think "terrorism", and for the record, neither do those incidents that Infohawk posted. If you're gonna include every act of violence by some dumb redneck in the south then you'll need to also include every heinous crime committed by a gangbanger in the ghetto.

Edit - If you're referring to domestic terrorism then I would agree that some of those acts (abortion dr. killing, midwest militia) would be considered acts of domestic terrorism. However, the difference between some neo nazi skinheads in the midwest and radical muslims committing terrorist acts all across the globe are obvious. I'm not excusing or downplaying the acts of right wing extremists, just pointing out the difference in scale and severity.

 

[JD50]

Right, I don't mind predictions but what I do mind is how people demonize a group over the perceived actions of a few. If the predictions were more like "It's probably Islamic extremist considering the recent events" vs "Islam is evil, look at this event!" or "Maybe Europe will attack the Middle East now!"

There's really no reason to demonize anyone except the people who carried out the attack and those who support the attackers.For example just because the attacker was conservative doesn't mean I am not going to call the lynching of Limbaugh or attacks on right wingers. I have seen this mob mentality a lot in this thread and other similar threads and it's quite sad.

If you want to see a perfect example of the left doing the same thing, go look for the Gabby Giffords thread.

 

[JD50]

Pretty much. I think projo and similar posters here have pretty weak arguments. They seem to have a double standard about right-wing violence and Islamic violence. The hyper-partisans are never going to change their mind and it's too bad they suck up so much attention. Phokus is the flip side of the partisan coin.



People shouldn't be so terrified of making predictions or being wrong. Sure you look dumb if you say, "those damned Muslims again!" right away, but that's not what everyone was doing. Scandinavian PingVin for example was just saying that he didn't see that this could be any other group besides Muslims. In a sense he was being reasonable. There really wasn't a precedent for this kind of act in Scandinavia. And it seems fairly unlikely that this is going to be repeated any time soon. Most of the time the knee-jerk Muslim blamers actually end up being right about these terrorist attacks on this board, whether they're smart or not. Much of what is going on in this thread now is just, "haha you were wrong this one time!"

Good post, probably lost among the noise though.

 

[Lonbjerg]

More about this nutjob:

He finds the norwegian church to mordern, churces looks like shopping malls and the priests wear jeans. He dreams abot the protestantic church goes back to the catholic church "back to basics" but untill that he will continue to vote as conservative as possible to parish assembleys.

On his twitterprofile he has posted a quote from the UK philosopher John Stuart Mills:

"One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100 000 who have only interests"

And he is right, he has a as christian way supassed the killing rate of 100.000 avarage norwegians....

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

The Ft Hood is a border line incident. As this may turn out to be.

Read up on the Fort Hood incident. The shooter was not linked to any terrorist group, like this guy. Most psychiatrist seem to think that the attack was related more to mental issues than terrorism issues.

Meanwhile all the 'terrorism' experts call it a terrorist attack.

Funny how you still screamed terrorist and blamed Muslims for that, and not for this. Very telling indeed.

Again, if this guy's name had been Mohammed, you would have been leading the bandwagon calling it terrorism. After all you claim that all Muslim acts are part of a "long range plan" (your words, BTW)

Glenn Greenwald has a good article up about the double standards that many people (especially PJ) follow:

Link

Shows clearly that everyone rushed to blame Muslims (hello PJ!) and even when proved wrong, shifted the story to still try and blame Muslims for setting the stage for these attacks.

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. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't).

Hmmm...just like PJ and others here....Muslim terrorism!..oh wait, its a white right winger? Oh, just a crazy guy, no terrorism to see here, move along please.

 

[MotF Bane]

You missed the point. I would be fine with profiling people of far left ideology if they were nearly as violent and destructive as those of far right ideology, especially those who follow a far right extremist racist ideology.

And, yes, we just need to see the patterns of some of the white supremacists on this forum and profile patterns that match them.

You are delusional.

 

[zinfamous]

Looks like you hit the nail right on the head and might not have even noticed.

Osama was the leader of the largest terrorist group in the world.

This guy was a member of NO terrorist group.

bin Laden does not represent all Muslims, as that retarded poster seems to claim.

 

[zinfamous]

Seriously? Examples please.


Stalin and Mao were left wing radicals that killed 70+ million people combined. Does that mean I can now claim that left wing radical violence has killed millions of people?

but but but but Hitler.

🙂

 

[zinfamous]

Query, why were the only guns on that island in the hands of the mass murdering madman? It took 90 minutes for swat to respond. It should have been over in 5. Many more people would be alive today if they had the means to defend themselves.

because Rambo is a movie.

 

[cubby1223]

Funny how you still screamed terrorist and blamed Muslims for that, and not for this. Very telling indeed.

Again, if this guy's name had been Mohammed, you would have been leading the bandwagon calling it terrorism. After all you claim that all Muslim acts are part of a "long range plan" (your words, BTW)

Glenn Greenwald has a good article up about the double standards that many people (especially PJ) follow:

Link

Shows clearly that everyone rushed to blame Muslims (hello PJ!) and even when proved wrong, shifted the story to still try and blame Muslims for setting the stage for these attacks.



Hmmm...just like PJ and others here....Muslim terrorism!..oh wait, its a white right winger? Oh, just a crazy guy, no terrorism to see here, move along please.

And, of course, you have proof of PJ's comments, right?

Here's the link for your searching convenience:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2020795

Oh wait, you're just making shit up to try and prove yourself correct!

There was this comment:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2022617&page=2

But it still not what you are crying about.

Don't say stuff you merely *think* is true.

 

[Pia]

this was a youth summer camp on a secluded island, would you have armed guards at a bible camp for instance?

furthermore, we don't use guns for selfdefense here, only for sporting purposes, if you ask people on the street they'd tell you they didn't want U.S. conditions where you have to sleep with a gun under your pillow to feel safe.

If so, the people on the street in Norway are melodramatic and severely logic-challenged. (I have a feeling this is not actually the case.)

The conditions are what they are. In this case, the conditions were such that an asshole was free to execute ninety people. Even one other person having a gun would likely have stopped the killer, or at the very least, distracted the killer and prevented his moving freely about to hunt more victims. Even with a very strict concealed carry licensing scheme, there would probably have been at least one gun between the hundreds of people - if only it was allowed.

Far as I know, making concealed carry an option for law-abiding citizens (possibly contingent on proficiency tests and such) prevents crime, specifically some of the crime that was already going on. It certainly doesn't turn any place into the U.S. Criminals carry if they want already, and allowing citizens to carry doesn't change that.

We don't have legal gun carry (or self defense anything carry) here in Finland either, but I'd vote for it any time. You might not be aware of this, but Estonia and Czech Republic do allow carrying of firearms in self-defense. Fact: they have not become some kind of battle zones as a result.

 

[Nebor]

Even with a very strict concealed carry licensing scheme, there would probably have been at least one gun between the hundreds of people - if only it was allowed.

Even if it were allowed, no one would carry a gun. It's not how their culture works.

 

[Jaskalas]

this was a youth summer camp on a secluded island, would you have armed guards at a bible camp for instance?

I'm quite certain there are guns at camps. Hell, there are old ladies having lunch with guns in their purses. Here in the states, even Grandma would have plugged the killer before 90 people were lambs to the slaughter.

The killer should have been confronted and stopped in the first five minutes.

Now another point I want to make, it doesn't have to be a gun. Why are there absolutely NO means of self defense? How about a freaking taser. Crossbow? ANYTHING to stop a madman. You could use a taser in the event where a gun would otherwise be used to kill the man. It's sometimes fatal, but certainly less so than a gun. You have a problem securing people, and if you aren't going to use the most obvious means then start getting creative and come up with solutions.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm quite certain there are guns at camps. Hell, there are old ladies having lunch with guns in their purses. Here in the states, even Grandma would have plugged the killer before 90 people were lambs to the slaughter.

The killer should have been confronted and stopped in the first five minutes.

Now another point I want to make, it doesn't have to be a gun. Why are there absolutely NO means of self defense? How about a freaking taser. Crossbow? ANYTHING to stop a madman. You could use a taser in the event where a gun would otherwise be used to kill the man. It's sometimes fatal, but certainly less so than a gun. You have a problem securing people, and if you aren't going to use the most obvious means then start getting creative and come up with solutions.

Just how many spree killers have been shot, stopped by armed citizens in the US? It's usually suicide or police intervention that ends these types of incidents (Giffords incident being an example of the exception).

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Just how many spree killers have been shot, stopped by armed citizens in the US? It's usually suicide or police intervention that ends these types of incidents (Giffords incident being an example of the exception).

Probably because a lot of spree killers do their work in schools where firearm possession is forbidden.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Probably because a lot of spree killers do their work in schools where firearm possession is forbidden.

And yet some think a youth camp should be armed to the teeth...

 

[Jaskalas]

And yet some think a youth camp should be armed to the teeth...

Having the capacity of self defense is not 'armed to the teeth'. It's nothing short of insanity to assault the notion of not being slaughtered.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do you think that he would have been able to shoot 80+ people if it was?

 

[theeedude]

Remember how much heat Janet Napolitano got from the right for focusing on domestic terrorism? Right wing politicians are the enablers of this kind of terror.

 

[Arkaign]

Will Norway cower in fear, or lay vengence on this Islamic sect?

I hope they have some assasination squads ready.

😀

Reading through this thread from the beginning is unintentionally kind of funny.

I won't lie, when I first heard the news I strongly suspected some Jihadists might be responsible as well.

 

[Phokus]

You're right, those kinds of things don't generally make me think "terrorism", and for the record, neither do those incidents that Infohawk posted. If you're gonna include every act of violence by some dumb redneck in the south then you'll need to also include every heinous crime committed by a gangbanger in the ghetto.

Edit - If you're referring to domestic terrorism then I would agree that some of those acts (abortion dr. killing, midwest militia) would be considered acts of domestic terrorism. However, the difference between some neo nazi skinheads in the midwest and radical muslims committing terrorist acts all across the globe are obvious. I'm not excusing or downplaying the acts of right wing extremists, just pointing out the difference in scale and severity.

You're dumb, the very first item on that list is the very definition of terrorism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

Adkisson, a former private in the United States Army from 1974 to 1977, says that he was motivated by hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals.[2][9][10] According to a sworn affidavit by one of the officers who interviewed Adkisson on July 27, 2008:[3]

“ During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years. ”
Additionally, one of Adkisson's former wives had been a member (in the 1990s) of the church where the attack occurred.[11]

Adkisson's manifesto[12] also cited the inability to find a job, and that his food stamps were being cut. His manifesto stated that he intended to keep shooting until police arrived and expected to be killed by police. Adkisson had a waist satchel with more ammunition, totaling 76 shells of #4 shot.

In his manifesto, Adkisson also included the Democratic members of the House and Senate,[12] and the 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America [12] of Bernard Goldberg in his list of wished-for targets.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Remember how much heat Janet Napolitano got from the right for focusing on domestic terrorism? Right wing politicians are the enablers of this kind of terror.

Yes. Right wing political groups also need to be targeted by the FBI. Can we bring back loyalty oaths?

 

[theeedude]

Yes. Right wing political groups also need to be targeted by the FBI. Can we bring back loyalty oaths?

Thanks for making my point, enabler.

 

[Pia]

Even if it were allowed, no one would carry a gun. It's not how their culture works.

Cool categorical statement on all Norwegians. Got any basis for this? Any at all?

Here in Finland, even police can't carry a gun when off duty. (Dunno if it's the same in Norway.) I have heard from more than one policeman that they would want to have the opportunity. Furthermore, in my shooting clubs and organizations, I know plenty of people would carry. Just to give an example of a recurring situation where the status quo makes no sense: transporting a gun to the shooting range. Since I obey the law, I carry it stowed away in a bag. If someone mugs me, the gun and ammo fall in the hands of a violent criminal. If I could legally carry the gun secured on my person instead of the bag, it would be much less likely to be taken from me. If I could carry it loaded, that would be better still.

Just two weeks ago I chatted with a Norwegian taking part in the same shooting competition I did. And you know what? He would have liked a right to carry.

 

[Phokus]

Pretty much. I think projo and similar posters here have pretty weak arguments. They seem to have a double standard about right-wing violence and Islamic violence. The hyper-partisans are never going to change their mind and it's too bad they suck up so much attention. Phokus is the flip side of the partisan coin.



People shouldn't be so terrified of making predictions or being wrong. Sure you look dumb if you say, "those damned Muslims again!" right away, but that's not what everyone was doing. Scandinavian PingVin for example was just saying that he didn't see that this could be any other group besides Muslims. In a sense he was being reasonable. There really wasn't a precedent for this kind of act in Scandinavia. And it seems fairly unlikely that this is going to be repeated any time soon. Most of the time the knee-jerk Muslim blamers actually end up being right about these terrorist attacks on this board, whether they're smart or not. Much of what is going on in this thread now is just, "haha you were wrong this one time!"

What about you? You made that pathetic thread patting the backs of the norwegian rigthwing anti-immigration/anti-muslim political party for condemning the attacks. Are you fucking crazy? It's almost like they were being self serving and wanted to protect themselves from criticism/preserve their political power. Do they really deserve a cookie for that?