Norway: terrorist or nutter?

[sifi]

If he was an Islam he'd be a terrorist. But because he's White, he's a nutter.

[Banana Co]

If he was an Islam he'd be a terrorist. But because he's White, he's a nutter.

[sifi]

How? It was an observation as to what some of the papers have been saying.

The Bombay shooters were terrorists. Similar impact to this guy who is apparently a nutter.

Edited July 28, 2011 by sifi

[Banana Co]

How? It was an observation as to what some of the papers have been saying.

The Bombay shooters were terrorists. Similar impact to this guy who is apparently a nutter.

[//ross]

I completely agree with Sifi - If this guy happened to be a muslim then he would be labelled a terrorist whether he acted alone or not, and this debate wouldn't be happening.

Breivik said he carried out the attack because he opposed the government, and has a great deal of info to back that up (he has devoted most of his adult life to preaching right wing, extremist views; he has a 1500 page manifesto, etc) Whether he is a nutter or not is out of the question (I'd say many murderers are) - he is a dictionary definition terrorist who happens to be white and Norwegian, and it's all confusing to the daily mail readers cause us westerners are all good and stick together to fight the bad brown men.

[lost]

trying to find definitions of 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' is interesting, in that there doesn't seem to be one.

using some of the definitions, most religions could be termed terrorists

"systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal"

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

lawful or unlawful is irrelevant, seeing as the laws would be determined by religious beliefs as often as not

[jump]

I still see him as nutter who committed a terrorist act/wanted to be a terrorist. Excuse the shit analogy but if a man had a fantasies about the devil one day and killed someone becuase of it by definantion he would be a Satanist despite not being established in the role before hand but to me he'd still be a nutter which is the same with this guy as he seems to only found intrest in this recently when he went broke and only sent out his manifesto 90mins before his attack.

I do think people's preception of a terrorist has changed though as when I was 10-15ish it use to be the IRA/irish but if you mention a terrorist to me now an image of a muslim/Al Qaeda would pop in my head first.

[sifi]

Daily Mail? Terrorists aren't all necessarily Muslims. Your wording was terrible.

Edited July 28, 2011 by sifi

[sifi]

I think it's a reference to your namesake's policy on Iraq.

Edited July 28, 2011 by sifi

[worm]

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

Edited July 28, 2011 by worm

[worm]

like politicians..?

Edited July 28, 2011 by worm

[worm]

when they're (some leaders) bombing innocent civilians in another country, it seems to me they've removed themselves from much emotional involvement.

Edited July 28, 2011 by worm

[brighteyes]

Fine blog in the Telegraph regarding the source of Breivik's madness... ONLY JOKIN ITS A PIECE OF SH*T

anders-breiviks-father-has-a-lot-to-answer-for/

[Kowalski]

Both

[The Nal]

Not only is he a terrorist/nutter (delete as required) but hes a plagiarist of the highest order too

Edited July 29, 2011 by The Nal

[jump]

Morrissey has given his thoughts on the matter, 'We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown with 97 dead, though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald's and Kentucky Fried S*** every day.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019849/Morrissey-Norway-Breivik-massacre-compared-McDonalds-KFC.html?ITO=1490

[rexclark]

Morrissey has given his thoughts on the matter, 'We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown with 97 dead, though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald's and Kentucky Fried S*** every day.'

http://www.dailymail...C.html?ITO=1490

[rexclark]

Morrissey...?

what's the point?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

If this has sparked a storm of protest like the DM says, how come we are just hearing his comments now when the concert was on the 24th? Is it because no one actually gives a shit what Morrissey says anymore??

[eFestivals]

A sociopath is defined by their emotional detachment from other people - they just don't care.

so all people of the right are sociopaths then, because they don't care about the impact of their money making on others.

The way I see it, a non-mad terrorist, much like a soldier, would still feel for other people.

would they really? Or would they feel that those others had to die for what that soldier sees as "the greater good"?

Surely if anyone is in a "him or me" situation then there's no consideration of the impact on 'him'? It's massively over-ridden by the desire of self-preservation, meaning that all that matters is 'me'.

All the while a sociopath and psychopath don't even recognise what they've caused.

then it's definitely the case that people of the right are sociopaths. If they do recognise the impact of their doings (which few do, at least to the full extent) then they certainly don't care enough about that to stop doing it.

[rexclark]

And we're off.

[eFestivals]

And we're off.

nah. There's no argument to be had if worm sticks to his normal of-the-right line. He claims that there is no impact onto others from money-making, and by the denial of there being an issue he gets to prove his own "don't care" line for sociopaths and so prove that it's the default for those of the right.

But that aside, I was taking the piss anyway. The people who love labelling others with concepts usually apply those concepts so inconsistently that the labels and concepts become meaningless.

Which is, funnily enough, the exact thing which caused me to start this thread in the first place. You can't be a terrorist unless there's a preceding declaration of the coming terror - terrorism is by definition something that someone is already in terror from.

[Budweiser]

Absolute nutter.

Obviously wasn't getting laid.

[feral chile]

so all people of the right are sociopaths then, because they don't care about the impact of their money making on others.

would they really? Or would they feel that those others had to die for what that soldier sees as "the greater good"?

Surely if anyone is in a "him or me" situation then there's no consideration of the impact on 'him'? It's massively over-ridden by the desire of self-preservation, meaning that all that matters is 'me'.

then it's definitely the case that people of the right are sociopaths. If they do recognise the impact of their doings (which few do, at least to the full extent) then they certainly don't care enough about that to stop doing it.

[feral chile]

like politicians..?