Norwegian Terrorism

The place for measured discourse about politics and current events, including developments in science and medicine.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ghân-buri-Ghân
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Evading prying eyes

Post by Ghân-buri-Ghân »

Lalaith wrote:I read something about Marxism, too. That also makes me question his driving ideology. Perhaps, he's just plain nuts. (Well, in fact, I'd bet money that he's insane.)

ETA: Of course, now I'm thinking that I can't remember whether the article said he visited sites for Marxism or against. :oops: So, um, never mind. That may be a completely irrelevant point...or it may be a salient one. You never know with me. :blackeye:
Anders Breivik is avowedly anti-Islamic and anti-Marxist. Rather than being ideologically confused, he is chillingly coherent. Furthermore, I think it will be difficult to claim he is "just plain nuts", unless a definition of insanity is the commiting of multiple murder, and if that is the case, it means that all multiple murderers cannot be tried for their actions in any category other than criminally insane... in which case they are not, technically, responsible.

I believe Anders Breivik is absolutely in control of all his faculties. His planning for this, over two years, has been brilliantly meticulous, from signalling his status as a "farmer" in order to purchase the huge quantities of fertilizer to make the bomb, to his impersonation of a police officer. He knew exactly what he was doing, and why.

It is uncomfortable to accept that sane people commit "evil" acts, and so we often retreat into "otherness" mode; "they" are different, sociopathic, evil, alien. It is just such a mentality that allows the media, and the conditioned "us", to expect Muslims to be the perpetrators of each and every despicable act. It is lazy but so, so convenient. Islam has been flagged as inherently violent, primitive, even despicable. There is a constant meme forced upon "us"; a tirade of anti-Islamic propaganda, whether it is the need to ban the veil for the furtherance of "women's rights", to the designation of the democratically elected Palestinian resistance movement, Hamas, as "terrorists".

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the "talking heads" are preaching from the same hymn book, and so we have become indoctrinated into a default anti-Islamic mindset. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Islam barely merited a mention. In fact, the major reference to Islam in the mainstream was to laud those Mujaheddin who fought the evil Soviet empire in Afghanistan...

There is one final aspect of the news coverage of Anders Breivik that I find significant, and I have hinted at it earlier; there is almost a "reverance", or grudging respect, for the efficacy of his plan. Here is the blonde haired, blue-eyed, "Aryan" Übermensch. Even in their condemnation, the media "praise" him.

A step back is, I feel, required, and Michael Moore, for all his crass distortions, would seem to be right. "Whitey" is, and has always been, the problem.
tenebris lux
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46243
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

I agree, Ghân, pretty much with everything that you say there.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

As for whether he's clinically insane, that doesn't matter to me. He's batshit crazy. I don't mean he's so crazy he can't plan and carry out his plans, he isn't foaming at the mouth, he is clever, well-organized, etc. But he's still as crazy as they come.

His lunacy is of a particular kind. And there is no way it is only "whitey". There are many examples to the contrary. I can think of a number of men who were just as crazy and who wound up being the leaders of whole nations. A couple still are. They appeal to something in a lot of people, and that's the truly bad part.

As for
There is one final aspect of the news coverage of Anders Breivik that I find significant, and I have hinted at it earlier; there is almost a "reverance", or grudging respect, for the efficacy of his plan. Here is the blonde haired, blue-eyed, "Aryan" Übermensch. Even in their condemnation, the media "praise" him.
Really? Your hints betray nothing but your mindset.
Dig deeper.
User avatar
Ghân-buri-Ghân
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Evading prying eyes

Post by Ghân-buri-Ghân »

vison wrote:As for whether he's clinically insane, that doesn't matter to me. He's batshit crazy. I don't mean he's so crazy he can't plan and carry out his plans, he isn't foaming at the mouth, he is clever, well-organized, etc. But he's still as crazy as they come.
I don't actually know what "batshit crazy" means. Perhaps you could elucidate? I don't expect chapter and verse, but I would appreciate if you would provide some references for your diagnosis... :)
vison wrote:His lunacy is of a particular kind. And there is no way it is only "whitey". There are many examples to the contrary. I can think of a number of men who were just as crazy and who wound up being the leaders of whole nations. A couple still are. They appeal to something in a lot of people, and that's the truly bad part.
More elucidation would be helpful. Perhaps you could filter out some characteristic that distinguishes the "sane" leader from the "crazy" leader...
vison wrote:As for
There is one final aspect of the news coverage of Anders Breivik that I find significant, and I have hinted at it earlier; there is almost a "reverance", or grudging respect, for the efficacy of his plan. Here is the blonde haired, blue-eyed, "Aryan" Übermensch. Even in their condemnation, the media "praise" him.
Really? Your hints betray nothing but your mindset.
And here you leave me flummoxed. To what mindset do you refer? I find, here in Europe, a distinctly "awkward" tone with respect to Anders Breivik, and as a Danish friend of mine admitted tonight, Anders Breivik is just the type of "anti-hero" who appeals to a rather large, if subdued, Scandinavian constituency.

And I reckon in my own country, the stereotypical "Daily Mail" set will be finding this whole story "troubling" to report. Anders Breivik is simply the "wrong" villain!
tenebris lux
Holbytla
Posts: 5871
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:31 pm

Post by Holbytla »

Batshit crazy = Charles Manson
Batshit crazy = Jeffrey Dahmer

Not stupid. Not incapable. Not not cunning.

Just off the wall insanely crazy with little ability to have a basis in "reality"..
Image
User avatar
Ghân-buri-Ghân
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Evading prying eyes

Post by Ghân-buri-Ghân »

Holbytla wrote:Batshit crazy = Charles Manson
Batshit crazy = Jeffrey Dahmer

Not stupid. Not incapable. Not not cunning.

Just off the wall insanely crazy with little ability to have a basis in "reality"..
Okay, but I'm not convinced Anders Breivik fits this description.
tenebris lux
User avatar
Lalaith
Lali Beag Bídeach
Posts: 15724
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Rivendell

Post by Lalaith »

I agree with vison and holby.

Sane people, people in their right minds, do not commit mass murder.
Image
User avatar
River
bioalchemist
Posts: 13433
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:08 am
Location: the dry land

Post by River »

There are people in this world who are definitely more than one deviation from the norm as far as being bent goes, but not quite screwed up enough to be diagnosed and treated. Breivik belongs among that group. He's too well to get away with an insanity plea, even if wanted one (from what I've read, he's actually looking for some sort of martyrdom), but he's not healthy. I suspect that's true for most terrorists. That's part of what makes them scary.

I haven't caught much shock in the US press that a white Norwegian could slaughter other white Norwegians, but we've had some rather sharp experiences with domestic terror. We know it can happen and we're sorry it happened over there. This whole thing has thrown an interesting spotlight on the right-wing in Norway and, by extension, the rest of Europe, though.
When you can do nothing what can you do?
User avatar
Lalaith
Lali Beag Bídeach
Posts: 15724
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Rivendell

Post by Lalaith »

Yes, honestly, when I first heard about something, it was only a car bomb at that point. My first thought was, "I wonder who's responsible for that." Although, I suspected it was someone angry at the government about something (given the location of the attack). I didn't think Muslims or any particular group. In fact, I was trying to figure out, "If it's an international thing, why Norway and why the Norwegian government?"

When I heard about the shooting at the camp, it seemed a bit clearer that it was some sort of domestic terrorist. That being the case, why would I be surprised that a white Norwegian was responsible?

As River said, we've seen it here in America, and it doesn't surprise us beyond the normal amount of surprise (and dismay and horror) that anyone would do such a thing.

I will admit that I am surprised to find out there is a right-wing movement in Norway or the rest of Europe.
Image
User avatar
Pearly Di
Elvendork
Posts: 1751
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: The Shire

Post by Pearly Di »

Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:There is one final aspect of the news coverage of Anders Breivik that I find significant, and I have hinted at it earlier; there is almost a "reverance", or grudging respect, for the efficacy of his plan. Here is the blonde haired, blue-eyed, "Aryan" Übermensch. Even in their condemnation, the media "praise" him.
I'm not so sure about that, myself. I do agree with a lot else of what you say about him, including his chilling coherency.
A step back is, I feel, required, and Michael Moore, for all his crass distortions, would seem to be right. "Whitey" is, and has always been, the problem.
I'm not one for denying the historical reality of white privilege. But I would add a caveat: racial prejudice in itself is not a 'whitey' only problem, as demonstrated by the vicious ethnic hatreds unleashed in the Balkan conflicts (European against European) and Rwanda (African against African).
Ghân-buri-Ghân wrote:And I reckon in my own country, the stereotypical "Daily Mail" set will be finding this whole story "troubling" to report. Anders Breivik is simply the "wrong" villain!
The Daily Wail doesn't seem too inhibited about that this morning, Ghân ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... mists.html
Lalaith wrote:I agree with vison and holby.

Sane people, people in their right minds, do not commit mass murder.
And yet Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all guilty of mass murder, which they committed without any moral qualm. I don't think any of these dreadful dictators were exactly 'insane'. And the senior Nazis who got their just desserts at the Nuremberg Trials were not criminally insane and such a defence would have been rightly dismissed.

Closer to home, serial killer Peter Sutcliffe's plea of criminal insanity was rightly rejected at his trial in 1981.

I agree with Ghân. Breivik is not insane. He knew what he was doing and planned it with clinical precision, just as Hitler planned the genocide of the Jews with the same clinical precision.
Lalaith wrote:As River said, we've seen it here in America, and it doesn't surprise us beyond the normal amount of surprise (and dismay and horror) that anyone would do such a thing.
I will admit that I am surprised to find out there is a right-wing movement in Norway or the rest of Europe.
There've been Neo-Nazis in Germany for years, Lali. :( Yes, it's an underground movement, yes the German govt tries to keep tight tabs on these people ... but they exist, all right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14244165

Here in the UK we have our own versions: the British National Party and the English Defence League -- and Breivik of course is claiming a link with both. :shock:

But I didn't know about Aryan supremacist groups in Scandinavia until I read Stieg Larsson's novels ... and it isn't fiction, because Larsson (a journalist) investigated these groups whilst he was still alive.
Last edited by Pearly Di on Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
ToshoftheWuffingas
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm

Post by ToshoftheWuffingas »

I hear an American media personality considered the children killed on the island were equivalent to Hitler Youth.
<a><img></a>
User avatar
Pearly Di
Elvendork
Posts: 1751
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: The Shire

Post by Pearly Di »

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:I hear an American media personality considered the children killed on the island were equivalent to Hitler Youth.
Who said that?! :shock:

( :x )

ETA: Found your man.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... youth.html

:roll:

Nul points, Mr Beck, for shameless promotion of Godwin's Law.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
User avatar
axordil
Pleasantly Twisted
Posts: 8999
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
Contact:

Post by axordil »

People without consciences or empathy can function quite nicely in society, actually. Some end up as CEOs instead of more common forms of criminal.
User avatar
Inanna
Meetu's little sister
Posts: 17726
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:03 pm

Post by Inanna »

I agree with almost everything PearlyDi said - Brevik is not insane. It is not insanity to meticulously, rationally decide that the death of X people will further your point, cause etc. And why try and put him as "insane", I don't recall anyone insisting terrorists are insane - they are simply called terrorists.

Regarding the right-Europeans - yes, they've been around for a long time. When I lived in Germany for a few months, I was categorically warned about "skinheads", how to stay away and so on. In fact, I did not find Europe very comfortable to live in, as an Indian.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
User avatar
Lalaith
Lali Beag Bídeach
Posts: 15724
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Rivendell

Post by Lalaith »

Well, let me clarify. I don't mean insane in the clinical sense of the word where he could be found incompetent to stand trial. I mean insane in the sense of the word that he's not a sane, right thinking person, nor were Stalin, Hitler, or Lenin, nor were the terrorists who attacked the US in 2001. I suppose ax is right, maybe I should say "amoral," "without conscience or empathy," "sociopath," etc. To me, there's a point you pass, the point where you think it's acceptable to kill lots of people, that takes you out of the place where you can be considered sane. If there's a better word to use there, then I'm open to hearing it.


ETA:

(As a Christian, I'd use the word "evil," but I know some here don't like that term.)
Image
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46243
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Personally, I think that evil is an appropriate description.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
tinwë
Posts: 2287
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 am

Post by tinwë »

Insane? No. Crazy? Yes. Batshit crazy? You betcha.

This is largely just semantics. "Insane" is a technical medical term for a person who cannot distinguish between reality and illusion (among other things). "Crazy", in this case, is more of a colloquialism for a person whose actions are outside the acceptable norm.

I don't think Anders Breivik is insane in the clinical sense, but I certainly do think he is crazy. And evil.
User avatar
Dave_LF
Wrong within normal parameters
Posts: 6817
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
Location: The other side of Michigan

Post by Dave_LF »

IMO, it is we moderns with our horror at killing and our belief that it is almost always (or even always) wrong who are the anomalies in this regard. People have behaved like this all though history, and in many times and places a man who managed to go off and kill scores of the others all by himself would be rewarded and idolized instead of being put in prison. Most of us don't want people like Breivik in our societies these days, but this type of personality and behavior are well within the range of normal human variation. Stop it, but don't be shocked by it, and definitely don't dismiss it as just the work of a lunatic.
User avatar
Pearly Di
Elvendork
Posts: 1751
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: The Shire

Post by Pearly Di »

Inanna wrote:Regarding the right-Europeans - yes, they've been around for a long time. When I lived in Germany for a few months, I was categorically warned about "skinheads", how to stay away and so on. In fact, I did not find Europe very comfortable to live in, as an Indian.
I'm sorry to hear that, Inanna. :(
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Personally, I think that evil is an appropriate description.
So do I.
Dave_LF wrote:IMO, it is we moderns with our horror at killing and our belief that it is almost always (or even always) wrong who are the anomalies in this regard. People have behaved like this all though history, and in many times and places a man who managed to go off and kill scores of the others all by himself would be rewarded and idolized instead of being put in prison.
Examples?

And didn't earlier, agrarian societies at least have some kind of rough justice for people who perpetrated serious crimes within or against the community?
Most of us don't want people like Breivik in our societies these days,
You don't say. :shock:
but this type of personality and behavior are well within the range of normal human variation.
I don't accept that. It doesn't shock me to be told what cruelties we are capable of, but crimes like these are still aberrations, not the norm, and they should be seen as such. Historically, they might be quite 'normal', but you can't tell me that everyone has this exact capacity.
Stop it, but don't be shocked by it, and definitely don't dismiss it as just the work of a lunatic.
Our capacity to be shocked and disturbed by such crimes is what helps us progress morally as human beings. If we weren't shocked by the slaughter of nearly 100 young people, that would be pretty disturbing. We should be shocked by it, while we work to stop it.

Some things you can never forget ... like hearing about the massacre of the Dunblane schoolchildren whilst I was in America, or turning off the TV because I couldn't bear to listen to the coverage of the trials of the child killers of little Jamie Bulger.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
User avatar
Dave_LF
Wrong within normal parameters
Posts: 6817
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:59 am
Location: The other side of Michigan

Post by Dave_LF »

Pearly Di wrote:
Dave_LF wrote:IMO, it is we moderns with our horror at killing and our belief that it is almost always (or even always) wrong who are the anomalies in this regard. People have behaved like this all though history, and in many times and places a man who managed to go off and kill scores of the others all by himself would be rewarded and idolized instead of being put in prison.
Examples?
Examples of individuals who were rewarded and idolized for killing their enemies? Any warlord ever. Most political leaders before the modern era (and more than a few within it). Most of the heroes from the Old Testament (many of whom are still held up as heroes today).
And didn't earlier, agrarian societies at least have some kind of rough justice for people who perpetrated serious crimes within or against the community?
Sure, but it's not a crime to kill the others. In the modern world, we and the others live side-by-side in the same cities and countries, which confuses the heck out of people like Breivik (significantly, this arrangement is precisely what he was railing against). But the psychology is still the same.
but this type of personality and behavior are well within the range of normal human variation.
I don't accept that. It doesn't shock me to be told what cruelties we are capable of, but crimes like these are still aberrations, not the norm, and they should be seen as such. Historically, they might be quite 'normal', but you can't tell me that everyone has this exact capacity.
Saying that this capacity is within the normal range of variation doesn't imply that everyone or even most people have it. Just that it's something that's out there and that should be expected to crop up from time to time, without any help from demons and without having to say the universe doesn't make sense. If anything's shocking, it's that these things happen so seldom, given our history as animals, primates, and even as humans.
Post Reply