Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[russycarps]

that's not how he sees it though, and, as we've agreed, he isn't alone. He sees it as him having a higher regard for a life-style that he believes in.

like lots of wars really

[eFestivals]

I think the acquitted part was just posturing on his behalf. He was just demonstrating that he rejects the court and what the court stands for. He doesnt recognise it's powers to charge him. It's not uncommon, as tonyblair says.

You're not getting what I'm saying.

I realise that people like him often don't recognise that the court has the moral right to try him for his actions, but the simple fact is that he's able to recognise that it IS trying him for his actions.

A recognition that he is being tried by that court would also have him realise that acquittal isn't possible when he's admitted carrying out those actions, and those actions are defined as crimes within all of the same things that brings the court into being.

So he shouldn't "expect" to be acquitted. He might want to be acquitted but that a different thing. If he "expected" the court to acquit him then it follows (given his admission of carrying out those actions) that he'd not be before the court in the first place.

I dont think we can take this as the proof of any madness he may or may not have.

I disagree.

We can disagree with a court having that power over us, but a rational mind accepts that it does have that power over us and similarly accepts what the consequences of that power are.

[russycarps]

You're not getting what I'm saying.

I realise that people like him often don't recognise that the court has the moral right to try him for his actions, but the simple fact is that he's able to recognise that it IS trying him for his actions.

A recognition that he is being tried by that court would also have him realise that acquittal isn't possible when he's admitted carrying out those actions, and those actions are defined as crimes within all of the same things that brings the court into being.

So he shouldn't "expect" to be acquitted. He might want to be acquitted but that a different thing. If he "expected" the court to acquit him then it follows (given his admission of carrying out those actions) that he'd not be before the court in the first place.

I disagree.

We can disagree with a court having that power over us, but a rational mind accepts that it does have that power over us and similarly accepts what the consequences of that power are.

[eFestivals]

I was reading the other day, about how many people have google searched for "breveik manifesto" or the like. It was millions and millions.

The exposure his views have got from doing this is VAST. You can understand why he looks so smug.

I've not searched for it myself, but I might have done if the inclination had grabbed me enough.

But just because I might have searched for it and read it doesn't mean that I'd suck it up, and I think it would be a huge mistake to think that reading it would influence many who did read it to change their minds about the general theme that's driven him.

My interest would be curiosity about what he believes his exact motivations to be and nothing more, to gain a greater understanding about people and not his cause. I don't think it would be any different for nearly everyone that read it.

At the end of the day it's nothing different to reading a juicy crime story in a Sunday tabloid - reading those sorts of things doesn't have everyone rushing out and doing the same. It's not any cause for concern.

He might be looking and feeling smug with people seeing or reading what he's about, but his smugness is hugely mis-placed.

[eFestivals]

I dont reckon he actually expected to be acquitted though. I think he's just grandstanding in front of the world's media.

Of course, if he does actually think he is going to be acquitted then I'd tend to agree that he's a nutter!

the thing is, I don't see how him saying he expects to be acquitted changes that grandstanding or makes him seem more righteous to any 'followers' who might be attracted to his cause - it just makes him seem like a nutter.

So I'd say that if you're right about the first part it still makes him that nutter, because he'd be doing it thinking it gives him some sort of advantage or benefit, when I don't see how anyone of any point of view can buy into that. Even those people who might agree 100% with everything he's done will be thinking he's not going to be acquitted.

[eFestivals]

but it's quite likely that even he doesn't expect to be acquitted.... the same as the leaders getting tried for war crimes probably didn't.

What else would he say?

If he was sane and pulling everything about his situation together, he'd be saying he wants to be acquitted while recognising that he won't be. The fact that he's saying he expects to be acquitted says to me that he's not grasping everything about his situation.

It's saying that he believes he's in a war and that his country is with him in that war - but the fact of him being in court gets to show that the country is not with him in that war.

[The Nal]

He's now saying if he is found guilty, then the death penalty should be applied... which Norway doesn't have.

It begs the question, what would the most appropriate punishment be?

Edited April 18, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

He's now saying if he is found guilty, then the death penalty should be applied... which Norway doesn't have.

It begs the question, what would the most appropriate punishment be?

a holiday in Saudi Arabia?

[eFestivals]

For the murder of 77 people? Throw away the key.

He did say one thing that made perfect sense - that the maximum 21 years is "pathetic". It is.

21 years for killing 77 people?! 3 months in jail per person killed?!

People have been in jail longer for not paying their car tax.

my Mum's had nearly three times that time cos she married my dad.

[russycarps]

After 21 years if the Norwegian courts consider him still to be a danger to the public he can be kept in prison indefinitely.

[Ed209]

I don't see the logic in his argument. He states he is against the islamification and multiculturism of Norway, because he once saw his mate get punched in the nose by a muslim.

Then to take a stance he attacks "his own" people, the one's he's trying to protect from this so called multiculturism.

Another important point is - if this was rational and logical, and not totally mental, then there would at least be other people who agreed with him, like with most terrorists. They're part of a group of people who feel they have a valid point to make. The collection of people with like minded views removes the idea that they're individually mental. THis guy is on his own - a loner - a nutter

[kaosmark2]

I don't see the logic in his argument. He states he is against the islamification and multiculturism of Norway, because he once saw his mate get punched in the nose by a muslim.

Then to take a stance he attacks "his own" people, the one's he's trying to protect from this so called multiculturism.

Another important point is - if this was rational and logical, and not totally mental, then there would at least be other people who agreed with him, like with most terrorists. They're part of a group of people who feel they have a valid point to make. The collection of people with like minded views removes the idea that they're individually mental. THis guy is on his own - a loner - a nutter

[Ed209]

Wasn't he attacking the ones that were letting the muslims in? He wasn't wanting to attack muslims and islam worldwide, he wanted to attack the people who were opening Norway up to their influence. Wasn't that his reasoning?

[The Nal]

'his own' people, the ones who accept a multicultural society, are the enemy...

[Ed209]

'his own' people, the ones who accept a multicultural society, are the enemy...

I'd like to say you're right, but unfortunately I don't think you are. There are anti-muslim, anti-multi-culturalism, anti-anything-that's-different-to-what-I'm-used-to groups all over the place

[kaosmark2]

What I don't get, how are the two mutually exclusive? The idea that terrorists aren't all whackjobs seems weird to me.

[russycarps]

I think it's dangerous to assume that people with whom we strongly disagree must have some kind of physical mental defect.

[kaosmark2]

I think it's dangerous to assume that people with whom we strongly disagree must have some kind of physical mental defect.

[kaosmark2]

if you go down the road of assuming all terrorists are mad, it's just a dead end with no understanding of what they want and what they'll do to get it

[russycarps]

Agreed, but people who think the best way is to just kill a random selection from a group of people are pretty nutty.

[The Nal]

If he wasn't nutty before he certainly is now.

Can't do anything but destroy someones mind, killing that amount of people.

[russycarps]

If he wasn't nutty before he certainly is now.

Can't do anything but destroy someones mind, killing that amount of people.

[eFestivals]

What I don't get, how are the two mutually exclusive? The idea that terrorists aren't all whackjobs seems weird to me.

From George Washington all the way to Nelson Mandela gets to prove that what is a terrorist and what isn't merely depends on which side of the fence you're viewing things.

If the Nazis had invaded Britain in WW2 there was an underground army of resistance set up and ready to go - which would have been considered terrorists by the new rulers of this country.

But there's a big difference between having a political aim via violence (which is all a terrorist is at its root) and the likes of Breivik. The aim has to be purposeful and the targets useful in that purpose.

While I'm sure there's some twisted logic for Breivik with his choice of targets, from all angles that I can see there's nothing purposeful with that choice, and they take him no closer to his aims. He'd have had a better aim and more purpose by bombing a random shopping centre and killing random people than he will have done by killing some of the more politically aware kids within Norweign society as he did.

[The Nal]

that albert pierrepoint fellow killed over 600 people didnt he? his mind wasnt destroyed by it. The human mind is more than capable of killing people.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

If he wasn't nutty before he certainly is now.

Can't do anything but destroy someones mind, killing that amount of people.