Norwegian Terrorism

[Voronwë the Faithful]

At the risk of being accused of violating Godwin's Law (which I don't think I am doing, or I wouldn't make this post), that description reminds me of descriptions that I have seen of Hitler, particularly the "raises issues with Christians for their soft-heartedness." Hitler used Christianity when it was convenient to do so, but he most certainly was no Christian.

[vison]

He certainly wasn't a Christian by any standard anyone here on this forum would agree with.

On the other hand, there are a number of prominent politicians right now who claim loudly and repeatedly to be Christians, but who are almost as far off the mark as is possible.

While some "leftists" might indeed go "too far", the reported preachings of Jesus would not support for one second any of those people - such as Mr. Perry and Ms. Bachmann.

[Túrin Turambar]

I’ve seen no evidence that Breivik was motivated by religion. His aims were separate from what beliefs he held, if any. There were plenty of PLO militants who, despite being Muslims, were were essentially secular (as opposed to Hamas, Al-Qaeda, etc). There are practicing Christians in the far-right nationalist community, although for many of them Christianity is shorthand for something to do with traditional European cultural heritage. Many are neo-pagan for apparently similar reasons.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact, and Papal involvement in the Holocaust is a stain that the church will never erase. And as a (lapsed) Catholic, I'm glad of that... the swifter all religions are consigned to the superstitious garbage bin, the better...

The Nazis, on the other hand, were Neo-Pagans; bent on creating a Germanic history tied up with 'Volk'. Pretty crazy, but not that far removed from waving the Tricolour or Stars and Stripes. These flags embody ideals that don't really stand up to scrutiny.

It's nice to acknowledge the secular nature of Palestinians. Even better is to acknowledge that they are not solely Muslim. The PLO was never a Muslim organisation. Unfortunately, the ineffectiveness of secular parties has allowed the religious factions gain credence. Who to blame?

Breveik was not religious. However, like so many, he was/is anti-religious; specifically, anti-Muslim. He was defined by what he isn't. And this is, sadly, so common.

I live in a city in Britain, and the area I live in is predominantly Muslim. The shops (or some of them) shut for an hour on Friday. Should I be indignant?

No. I'll wait to spend my cash. It's easy, being multicultural. Better than subscribing to this ridiculous, murderous, uniculturalism... I think.

[Túrin Turambar]

Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact, and Papal involvement in the Holocaust is a stain that the church will never erase. And as a (lapsed) Catholic, I'm glad of that... the swifter all religions are consigned to the superstitious garbage bin, the better...

The Nazis, on the other hand, were Neo-Pagans; bent on creating a Germanic history tied up with 'Volk'. Pretty crazy, but not that far removed from waving the Tricolour or Stars and Stripes. These flags embody ideals that don't really stand up to scrutiny.

I would say the reverse. The Nazis were mostly Christian along a similiar split to the existing Catholic-Protestant ratio in German society at the time, while Hitler himself was far more Neo-Pagan/whatever he thought up himself.

[axordil]

I would call Nazi ideology secular nationalist mysticism. Secular, because it's not theistic; nationalist, because duh; and mystic, because of the heavy layering of symbolism everything was given. Much of that symbolism was taken from pre-Christian Germanic themes (see: swastika) but without any use of the polytheistic paganism that went with it back in the day.

As to the membership, I agree with L_M: the rank and file stayed Catholic or Lutheran, or at least as Catholic or Lutheran as they were before.

Breivik seems very much caught up in something like the former: his Christianity is cultural, not theological, an excuse for exclusion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I split off the side discussion about Religion and Science

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Not crazy then?

It does make me wonder... when is multiple killing crazy? Was Paul Tibbets crazy...?

[vison]

Paul Tibbets?

You're kidding, right? Why would you drag that name into this thread?

Whatever observations you might have otherwise made about Brevik have been rendered meaningless after that.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Paul Tibbets?

You're kidding, right? Why would you drag that name into this thread?

Whatever observations you might have otherwise made about Brevik have been rendered meaningless after that.

vison, I make no judgement. I am simply inviting judgement. Breivik has been deemed sane. Therefore his heinous act stands on its own "merit". As does Tibbet's, or any other act that results in the multiple deaths of innocent people. I am sure there are distinctions. I merely invite those distinctions to be made.

ETA Just to clarify, I am not claiming the two events are equivalent; I am questioning what makes them different.

[axordil]

It's a valid question. War involves killing a lot of people, a lot of innocent people, and always has. Even the "best" wars are humans at their nastiest.

There may be no moral difference between a mass murderer and the dropper of bombs on cities, but I believe there is an ethical difference. The innocents being bombed know they are at war. They know they are, to one extent or another, targets. It may not be right--I would never argue it is--but it is understood by all parties involved.

The victims of a self-proclaimed warrior such as Breivik do not have that understanding. No one other than Breivik gave their consent for them to be targets.

Does that matter? Who's to say?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It's a valid question. War involves killing a lot of people, a lot of innocent people, and always has. Even the "best" wars are humans at their nastiest.

There may be no moral difference between a mass murderer and the dropper of bombs on cities, but I believe there is an ethical difference. The innocents being bombed know they are at war. They know they are, to one extent or another, targets. It may not be right--I would never argue it is--but it is understood by all parties involved.

The victims of a self-proclaimed warrior such as Breivik do not have that understanding. No one other than Breivik gave their consent for them to be targets.

Does that matter? Who's to say?

Breivik killed children. Did the many more children who died in Hiroshima know they were at war?

[River]

The ones old enough to know anything most likely did.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

The ones old enough to know anything most likely did.

Hmmm... this raises a number of issues. In Law, criminal responsibility is age related. What does this mean? I would posit that criminal responsibility is predicated on the age of the perpetrator, and although there is disagreement on the actual defined age, there is a cut-off. As such, those under that cut-off might express familiarity with "war", but their understanding of it would be insufficient to negate their innocence, and I would confidently state that there were more so defined innocents in Hiroshima than slaughtered by Breivik.

So... if Breivik is a monster, why isn't Tibbets?

[axordil]

To be a good soldier, one must first be turned into a monster. If one is lucky--very lucky--one gets turned back when the war is over. That is the debt society owes those who do awful things on our behalf, or at least at our behest.

Breivik is not any more monstrous, he's simply unsanctioned. This is not a mere philosophical distinction. He usurped the place of society, and society's interlocutor, government, and took it upon himself to become a killer where no killing was asked for. No one deemed the awful things he did necessary except him.

In wartime, the armies of monsters a society conjures from its citizenry (or subjects) have dispensation to do the gravest wrongs possible in the name of the society. Does a society have the right to do so? Take that up with society.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

To be a good soldier, one must first be turned into a monster. If one is lucky--very lucky--one gets turned back when the war is over. That is the debt society owes those who do awful things on our behalf, or at least at our behest.

Breivik is not any more monstrous, he's simply unsanctioned. This is not a mere philosophical distinction. He usurped the place of society, and society's interlocutor, government, and took it upon himself to become a killer where no killing was asked for. No one deemed the awful things he did necessary except him.

In wartime, the armies of monsters a society conjures from its citizenry (or subjects) have dispensation to do the gravest wrongs possible in the name of the society. Does a society have the right to do so? Take that up with society.

A "good" soldier? Or an effective soldier? Words are important. There are many "good" soldiers shelling Homs at this time, are there not? Are they absolved they're actions? Should the SS Viking division be absolved because their monstrous actions were sanctioned? As such, is sanction simply a red herring?
Breivik, this sane man, had, and has, a logical, finely tuned ideology, that those he slaughtered were complicit in the degradation of Norwegiam society. He was a defender of a democratic purety that was being eroded by naive "do-gooders" who were sleepwalking into Islamism. His self sacrifice was a wake-up call.

Is he not a hero? His means are different, but his desired outcome is the same as conflict in... insert your country here...

[River]

I think what ax is getting at is, in war, the culpability goes not to the ones who pulled the trigger but their commanders.

Breivik decided to be the entire chain of command all the way down to the foot soldier. It's all on him and him alone.

[axordil]

From the point of view of those with the armies, good and effective are the same thing when it comes to soldiers. Within that context the reason why they are doing monstrous things is not relevant.

Within the larger context of how justified the wars and the causes involved are, the reasons become relevant, though not always clear. I'm happy some wars turned out the way they did: the American Civil War, WWII. That doesn't mean the victors were pure of heart or their cause unblemished by lower impulses, it means they were better than the losers.

Most wars are less clear in their moral dimensions. But using heavy weapons on your own people is always going to look bad, no matter what justifications one has or invents, unless they are shelling you as well.

And what River said.

[axordil]

Oh and for what it's worth, Breivik was by definition not sane at the time of the shootings. Normal, sane people are reluctant to kill people they can see outright. A tiny fraction of combat infantrymen in WW II actually attempted to use their weapons to kill known enemies. Most fired in the general direction of where fire was coming from. That's why the US military revamped its training methods, because they weren't getting the monsters they needed.

I highly recommend the book Killology by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, on what you have to do to people to turn them into killers, and the problem of what you do with them when you no longer need them to kill.

[nerdanel]

Oh and for what it's worth, Breivik was by definition not sane at the time of the shootings. Normal, sane people are reluctant to kill people they can see outright.

Ax,

I'm interested in this argument - can you spell it out further? Are you contending that no person who deliberately kills another that they can see outright in front of them is sane at the time of the killing? In other words, the only plea ever should be NGI: no murderer was sane at the time of their crimes (however competent they may present as being after the fact)? If this is not your argument - and I know people who would make that argument - what is your limiting principle?