Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[eFestivals]

There's a lot that's been said about the sad incidents in Norway last Friday, including by some that the guy is "a terrorist".

But is he really a terrorist? Or is he a nutter with a gun much like those people that go on the rampage killing random people, as happened in Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria, as well as fairly regularly in the USA?

Whichever one you plump for, what is it that makes him that and not the other?

[jump]

I see him more as a nutter who wanted to be a terrorist, didn't he leave a manifesto and try to build a network before he went on a rampage?

[Uncle Liam]

Nutter.

He's in the same realm as the nail bomber, David Copeland.

Terrorism is designed and carried out for a political cause. This Brevnik guy had political beliefs, but his goal last week was to kill as many people as possible. I dont think it was a reaction to anything in the way 9/11 was, or 7/7 was, or was it designed to extract concessions like so many IRA or ETA actions were. Its just one guy, pissed off and f**ked up, causing as much destruction as he could.

[G-Stud]

The guy's a headcase and a c***. He wanted to be a some kind of martyr for a 'cause' that is in his head. Wannabe-terrorist.

[t8yman]

Strictly nutter IMHO, he has no way of guaranteeing the ongoing fight for his "cause". No network, no other cells. He just appears to have stewed in his own juices for years, and to have finally flipped in quite a remarkable and admittedly- meticulously planned fashion.

[Benj]

There's a lot that's been said about the sad incidents in Norway last Friday, including by some that the guy is "a terrorist".

But is he really a terrorist? Or is he a nutter with a gun much like those people that go on the rampage killing random people, as happened in Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria, as well as fairly regularly in the USA?

Whichever one you plump for, what is it that makes him that and not the other?

[The Nal]

Terrorist and a nutter. I agree with Benj.

[eFestivals]

All terrorists are nutters

including Nelson Mandela too?

He's the easy example to show that they're not all nutters. If you believe that a group is using violence as the only option open to them (as can reasonably be said for SA at that time) for a rightful cause then it becomes morally justifiable in exactly the same way as war can be morally justifiable.

[eFestivals]

It's like the situation in Libya

"William Hague has said the UK will recognise the Libyan rebel council as the "sole governmental authority"

it's only because (now) we don't like Gaddafi. If it was a leader we were supporting (for whatever reason...), we'd be condemning the rebels for what they're trying to achieve.

One mans revolutionary is another mans freedom fighter... who decides?

well, I'm happy for anyone to substitute the words 'freedom fighter' for 'terrorist' in the question and words above, if there's actually anyone here of that view.

I'm interested cos I've not really been able to decide which one of terrorist(freedom fighter )/nutter he is - there's aspects that make both work. But since I started this thread I've realised that I should have perhaps included a third option of 'something else', cos I've now thought of something else - and that's 'political assassin'.

While he doesn't fit that any better, he probably fits it just as much. I'd say he failed to be that by his failure to properly target the victims that really would have mattered, if his aim was to bring about a political change of direction.

Edited July 27, 2011 by eFestivals

[the_hedge]

He is just a c*nt!

[the_hedge]

yea well... there's a few of them around. It doesn't really explain much though....

[Ed209]

This was a premeditated act of terror as a means of pressing his own political agenda. That makes him a terrorist in my book. Of course he's also a f**king nut-job, but the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I went for terrorist because they seemed to be lagging in the polls.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

what constitutes a nutter?

a lot has been said about how methodical, and calm he was through the whole thing. Does that negate him being mad?

I think people are getting bogged down by what mental state he's in. He did what he did... that's all that matters. Apart from how the authorities might treat him - and there's every chance they won't know for sure - what difference does it make?

It's easier for people to make sense of what he did if they put it down to madness, but even then, it won't really explain why he did what he did. He could be as normal as normal ever is, just a level headed man, with an unwavering certainty that Europe is going in a direction that is 'wrong'.. I'm sure there are some people out there who have a certain amount of sympathy and/or empathy with what he did.

How many people here think violence is justifiable if the goal is important enough?

Glenn Beck (the nice man who likened the labour youth camp where the killings happened to the Hitler youth...), is he mad..?

or just as scary as Anders Breivik?

link here

"who does a camp for kids that's all about politics?"

he does...

[Banana Co]

Due to his political views I would say he is a terrorist and a violent w*nker. The fact that his lawyer has said that he is insane really pisses me off, he clearly just wants to rise against his country. If he is seen as insane it implies that he can be treated but he is clearly intentionally violent.

[lost]

voted terrorist though maybe quite sustainable to suggestion..

[Ed209]

plus he'll (presumably) get a shorter and lighter sentence...

but again, calling him a violent w*nker is both dismissive (as to what he's done) and just over simplifying things. I know plenty of violent w*nkers, but I wouldn't put them in a similar category as this guy

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Apparently under Norwegian law he can't spend any longer than 21 years in jail anyway. I think there will be some campaigning to get that changed

Edited July 27, 2011 by Rufus Gwertigan

[rexclark]

Nutter. He may well have believed he was some kind of hero but really he's just another complete nutter.

[Banana Co]

Nutter implies that he is insane. I believe that his genuine thoughts were reflected through his violence and that he is a violent and racist extremist.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Nutter implies that he is insane. I believe that his genuine thoughts were reflected through his violence and that he is a violent and racist extremist.

[grumpyhack]

Voted Nutter - except that's too simplistic. What makes someone a nutter or a terrorist is another whole debate. I don't know enough about the man's background or life experiences to really form a judgement. But the trial may provide some insight/answers.

[Banana Co]

mmm. But then put that into the context of him saying "Come out and play children" whilst laughing. Now one could say that he was just having a good time, but I would hazard a guess that shooting kids as a recreational pursuit is a little barking. Thats just my personal view btw.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I would say it's pretty mad as well but the fact that this poll only allows the two options Nutter and Terrorist suggests to me that a lot of people think he is simply insane or ill and he can be treated. Whereas I believe that he is mainly an extremist.

[lifelessfool]

I voted terrorist as although I'm not well read up on the subject was it not an attack on civilians with political motives, i.e. an attack on western politics? It could fall in both categories as he clearly didn't try to change the system. I find the terrorist/freedom fighter debate really interesting as it is usually left for state officials to decide what falls where. What I despised most and what I think this attack highlights is naive view on terrorism, it was assumed this was an attack by a middle eastern group before facts even came out and many media outlets were willing to speculate before reporting any facts.

[Snufflebutt]

Apparently under Norwegian law he can't spend any longer than 21 years in jail anyway. I think there will be some campaigning to get that changed