Is More To Come?

[Padre]

Anders Behring Breivik's actions are completely evil and how heart-rendering is the grief and suffering being borne by so many in Norway.

But it is also a sign that the actions and demands by some Islamic extremists and terrorists in Europe will be met by anti-Islamic extremism and terrorism. Although the victims were fellow Norwegians, it is being reported that Breivik's primary focus of hatred and fear are Islamists, and the youth of the Norwegian Left (camping on the island) were secondary objects of Brevik's hatred but somehow a "justifiable" target in his perverted thinking. It seems to be his (crazy) tactical equivalent of any of the hundreds of Muslim bombers' tactics of killing many innocents alongside their main or real target.

Is this the beginning of a 'tit for tat' that will escalate? I hope not, but not impossible.

In France, maybe elsewhere, the reaction to an increase in the European Muslim migration and presence, and the bringing of the cause of Islam to Europe, has been a political one (eg. banning the burqa), but the terror in Norway may be a sign that we will now see violent reaction and perhaps the predicted 'War of Civiliazations' and on European soil, not seen since September 11 1683 (Vienna).

 

[Seehund]

I don´t think so. The significance for the rest of Europe will not be large. It could lead to a temporary loss of popularity for the far right, but long-term repercussions for the far right are unlikely since these parties have begun tempering their platforms in order to attract a wider constituency.

 

[senojekips]

The man must be certifiable, so I'm reserving my judgement for the moment.

Personally I'd like to see him doused in petrol and set on fire, but then again, I always was an old softie, and petrol's too damned expensive anyway.

 

[MontyB]

Anders Behring Breivik's actions are completely evil and how heart-rendering is the grief and suffering being borne by so many in Norway.

But it is also a sign that the actions and demands by some Islamic extremists and terrorists in Europe will be met by anti-Islamic extremism and terrorism. Although the victims were fellow Norwegians, it is being reported that Breivik's primary focus of hatred and fear are Islamists, and the youth of the Norwegian Left (camping on the island) were secondary objects of Brevik's hatred but somehow a "justifiable" target in his perverted thinking. It seems to be his (crazy) tactical equivalent of any of the hundreds of Muslim bombers' tactics of killing many innocents alongside their main or real target.

Is this the beginning of a 'tit for tat' that will escalate? I hope not, but not impossible.

In France, maybe elsewhere, the reaction to an increase in the European Muslim migration and presence, and the bringing of the cause of Islam to Europe, has been a political one (eg. banning the burqa), but the terror in Norway may be a sign that we will now see violent reaction and perhaps the predicted 'War of Civiliazations' and on European soil, not seen since September 11 1683 (Vienna).

I am not sure who would be involved in a "tit for tat" retaliation here unless the Norwegian Labour Party decide to go after right wing extremists which I think is unlikely.

This is not a case of one religion or ethnicity going after another as the guy involved was attacking his own in both cases.

 

[mmarsh]

Anders Behring Breivik's actions are completely evil and how heart-rendering is the grief and suffering being borne by so many in Norway.

But it is also a sign that the actions and demands by some Islamic extremists and terrorists in Europe will be met by anti-Islamic extremism and terrorism. Although the victims were fellow Norwegians, it is being reported that Breivik's primary focus of hatred and fear are Islamists, and the youth of the Norwegian Left (camping on the island) were secondary objects of Brevik's hatred but somehow a "justifiable" target in his perverted thinking. It seems to be his (crazy) tactical equivalent of any of the hundreds of Muslim bombers' tactics of killing many innocents alongside their main or real target.

Is this the beginning of a 'tit for tat' that will escalate? I hope not, but not impossible.

In France, maybe elsewhere, the reaction to an increase in the European Muslim migration and presence, and the bringing of the cause of Islam to Europe, has been a political one (eg. banning the burqa), but the terror in Norway may be a sign that we will now see violent reaction and perhaps the predicted 'War of Civiliazations' and on European soil, not seen since September 11 1683 (Vienna).

Yes but in France (and most recently Belgium) its done legally through legislation. Having lived under the Nazi boot, the French have no tolerance for right-wing extremists.

I'd also bring up another point you didn't mention. Some of the most ardent anti-Islam people here in France are in fact other moderate Muslims. Some of them are so radical you'd think they were members of the Front Nationale (the extreme right party).

 

[84RFK]

I am not sure who would be involved in a "tit for tat" retaliation here unless the Norwegian Labour Party decide to go after right wing extremists which I think is unlikely.

This is not a case of one religion or ethnicity going after another as the guy involved was attacking his own in both cases.

Like France, Norway suffered under the nazi occupation, and we have next to no tolerance for the extreme right-wing sypathies found in some movements.
Most of the groups and movements who opose immigration from third world countries are thus hampered by the fact that they have elements of right-wing extremism, and or neo-nazis in their midst.
That leads to the disgust from the public opinion, and the interest of the police.

Now we see that Anders Behring Breivik, allthough clearly extreme right-wing, had no connection or sympathies towards nazi-ideology or fascism at all.
His claims seems to be a strong Christian faith, zionism, and hatred towards everything to the left of the right-wing politics.

The Freemasons quickly cut his ties to them as soon as they discovered that he was a freemason, some right-wing netbased forums had a busy job cleaning up, while other obscure netbased forums are suddenly "out of order" at the moment.

In addition to Breiviks atrocities bringing up the disgust of the world, he is an embarrasment to some established and well respected communities in the western world.

Any acts of retaliation from political groups in Norway is quite unlikely, there could be some left-wing protest organizations using Breiviks actions as an excuse for going after skin-heads on the streets, but that also seems a bit far fetched.

In search of something to write, some newspapers fronted a demand for tougher gun-control and limited access to fertilizers.
That would off-course only affect hunters, sportsmen and farmers, since criminals are prone to get what they want anyway.

And a tougher surveilance wouldn't do much good either, as a spokesperson from the Police Security Service stated yesterday, Breivik had gone into isolation in order to not be detected by the police in any way, and unless the police was allowed to monitor every private home in Norway 24/7 there was no way that they could have discovered his plan what so ever.

It was just after he was arrested that a search through the databases produced a report of Breivik buying som small amount of chemicals from Poland.

 

[Del Boy]

He also expressed an admiration of, and aspiration towards, the political establishments of South Korea and Japan.

Aljazeera has finally categorised him as "A fundamentalist Christian with right wing leanings", while his lawyer believes him to be insane.

 

[84RFK]

Seems like I have managed to misqoute the "spokesperson" from the Police Security Service..

It was actually Janne Kristiansen, the leader of PST (Norwegian Police Security Service) who appeared on TV yesterday, and among the things she said was:

"Not even Stasi-Germany, wich we wouldn't like to be compared to, could have stopped him."
She was refering to the otherwise deadly efficiency of the secret police in former communist East-Germany.

"The only thing would have been a chip inside peoples brains. That is not the country we want to have, it is not the way Europe is."
She was talking about any possible countermeassures.

"I don't think any of us could imagine it. We know there are some few twisted minds in Norway, but this is more extreme than anyone can imagine."
The PST didn't foresee the possibility that the first terrorist-attack on Norwegian soil should be comitted by a hvite boy, fairly sucsessfull, and from the right side of the town, with unclear political motives.

In a comment to a newspaper she refers to the attacks on the government quarters and the youth-camp on the island as: "extremely calculating and coldblooded."
And she is quoted: "One could say this is evil incarnated."

Except from the purchase of 0,3 kg. of seemingly harmless chemicals, that could turn poisonous is misused, from Poland where it is used as a perfectly legal additive to meat, they have no info on Breivik in their files prior to the terrorist attack.

As she also stated: "He led a double life, with two totally different identities."

Not to be misstaken for schizophrenia, as he was fully aware of his actions all the way, and it was simply a choice he made to avoid being detected.

 

[roamsk]

Just a technical correction/observation re. relationship between mental illness and legal responsibility: one can very well have a mental disorder but at the same time KNOW right from wrong and be fully capable of planning and appreciating the consequences of one's actions, thus still being fully prosecutable under the full extent of the law. Not all mentally ill people are necessarily disorganised, NOR should they be exempt of legal responsibility if they meet criteria for having legal capacity in the course of planning and carrying out their actions. To me, as presented so far, from the very first moment, this guy KNOWINGLY planned his actions in cold blood, without showing any qualms, or any hesitations, and also carried out his actions in a very organised manner. I do not care if he could be diagnosed as a schizophrenic, bipolar, or plain psychopath or 2 out of 3, or even all 3 for that matter...all signs point that he HAD legal capacity, that he KNOWINGLY planned and carried out a horrific criminal terrorist act, thus he is fully responsible in front of the law.

Furthermore, I understand the reasons behind keeping some or all of the legal proceedings private instead of public, (one of which possibly being not giving him a public platform for his distorted views, plus also possibly impeding further investigation into possible network ties, as recently alluded to in the media), nevertheless, I would still like that further useful and beneficial public education by reputable and trusted legal and forensic experts take place and continue in the mass-media in regards to these definitions which seem at times so vague: the definition of mental illness, the definition of legal capacity, of legal responsibility, and also maybe the relationship between mental illness and aggression. I personally think it is Ethical to actually CLARIFY and correctly define issues for the general public, even if some may fear that some data may end up stigmatising non criminal people who may carry a mental illness diagnosis. I always feel that clarification is better than obscurity and actually helps destigmatisation of mental illness in the long run, helps build more effective programs to deal with violent offenders, helps develop the forensic expertise of the psychiatric experts who work in prisons with inmates who may carry diagnoses of mental illness, and overall can only benefit society in the long run. I only wish that this could happen, but I am afraid it will not.

 

[rattler]

Why is it that every muslim perpetrating a crime of this type, killing people indiscriminatedly for a "political" or "religious" reason is instantly dubbed a "terrorist" but any white, blond Christian doing the same thing is instantly dubbed a "nut case"?

Food for thought, methinks.

Rattler

 

[Del Boy]

Well, you have a point; of course they are all nut cases in fact.

 

[Seehund]

Why is it that every muslim perpetrating a crime of this type, killing people indiscriminatedly for a "political" or "religious" reason is instantly dubbed a "terrorist" but any white, blond Christian doing the same thing is instantly dubbed a "nut case"?

Food for thought, methinks.

Rattler

A tenacious prejudices so prevalent in all media and among many politicians that the automatic reaction is to identify Islamism and terrorism, despite the fact that Islamists are behind a much smaller part of the terror than say. separatist movements.

 

[roamsk]

More clarifications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

(please read carefully...it IS a work in progress even among the "nut case" experts).

I have also looked up definitions of "terrorism" in various languages on wikipedia. I think it is good that the Norwegian page seems to be quite concrete in describing this term. I haven't had the time to go through all of it, but if I find something interesting worthwhile mentioning I will report it.

In general, I tend to think along the lines of: let us not confuse the usage of the word "terrorism" at a the common street corner or cafe gossip level, with the one used in various more or less politically independent mass-medias, with the one used in actual national or international courts of law. Plus, the more we learn about it, even us, "non-experts", the better shall we afterwards also be able to define the issues in front of the people we are most trying to impress during our next coffee klatsch interchanges ! (very important: not making fun of anyone else here, just of myself !)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coffee+klatsch

 

[Del Boy]

A tenacious prejudices so prevalent in all media and among many politicians that the automatic reaction is to identify Islamism and terrorism, despite the fact that Islamists are behind a much smaller part of the terror than say. separatist movements.

It would be interesting to see comparison numbers of major murderous terrorist attacks and campaigns world-wide in this century.

 

[Seehund]

It would be interesting to see comparison numbers of major murderous terrorist attacks and campaigns world-wide in this century.

Well, I can give you the numbers from 1968 to 2009.

In that period 40,128 cases of terrorism was recorded worldwide. 3,187 were committed by Islamic groups, 36,941 were committed by groups that are not related to Islam. Two-thirds of these was by leftist groups.

Just to put it in perspective.
From 1968 to 2006 there were 119 attacks by PFL. During the same period ETA performed 418 attacks.

Source: Database of RAND Worldwide Terrorism Incidents.
http://www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/terrorism-incidents.html


Did someone cry wolf ?

I make a distinction between Islam and Islamism – are they not, in fact the same? The short answer: I focus on what has happened over nearly fourteen centuries, not on scriptures. From this vantage point, there is no question that Islamism is one way of approaching the religion but not the only one or even the dominant one. Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution.

Rather than rail on about Islam's alleged "evil," it behooves everyone - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - to help modernize this civilization. That is the ultimate message of 9/11. It is much deeper and more ambitious than Western governments presently seem to realize.

 

[roamsk]

@Seehund: I may be wrong, I am NOT at all good at "philosophising", nor at using complicated abstract words, (I personally tend to want to look up in the dictionary even the more concrete words I may use, just to make sure that I am using the right ones)...but I am nevertheless going to say it, and just raise it up for further debate maybe: however "cold-war-ish" and even simplistic and maybe politically incorrect "black and white" this may sound...I still think that the bottom line IS a war of ideologies, (I am obviously also not forgetting basic economic competition for food and various markets, but that will always be going on and is immutable)...on one hand the rule of civil/common law, and on the other hand the rule of religious law.

Recent neuroscience tells us that hyperreligiosity is pathological. To put religious law above all sounds pretty pathological to me, or at the very least obscurantist, non-modern, & primitive.

I do NOT like people who glorify pathology, and pathologisation for any sort of reason, (including merely "artistic"). They just make me uncomfortable at gut level feeling, even as I TRY and TRY my best to be impartial, and understand their point of view too, and support democracy, etc.

But one has to DRAW the bottom line somewhere against pathology, psychopathy, and plain madness. In a civilized democratic society in times of peace this role is performed by the Police and the Courts of Civil/Common Law, AND in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In undemocratic countries and also in authocratic countries or groups governed primarily by religious type laws human rights are NOT respected. Someone has got to stand up and draw a line.

I realize I am talking a bit tangentially off topic. I respect Islam as a religion. But Islamic states have adopted Islam as the ideological foundation for their political institutions. I do not like countries governed by religious codes of law. They displease me, they make me uncomfortable. And I am well aware I am not "world leader", and I do not aspire to be "world dictator"...but ETHICALLY someone has got to draw a line and say "this is right and this is wrong", and someone has got to say "this is better" and "this is NOT so good"..because if everything and everyone is all right and equal and free to do as they please, then you really have anarchy, then busloads of civilians get killed, mayors assasinated, buildings destroyed, whatever. One cannot just allow, in the name of a misunderstood "tolerance", "freedom", or even a misunderstood form of "relativism", sick mad people and psychopaths to infringe on everyone else's Human Rights. And, at global level, you cannot just have 1 Cop + 1 Neuropsychiatrist to deal with them all ! You nead teams and coallitions AND the common/civil International Law on your side.

 

[Del Boy]

I tend to agree with Roamsk's point re ideologies, whilst I feel that Seehund's response did not actually fit the question I posed earlier, interesting though I found the Rand org.

Regarding ideologies, radicalism can only exist with the complicity of the moderate majority. This is a big problem for host countries, imposing as it does hostile and alien cultures, unfortunately, rather than any semblance of integration.

 

[MontyB]

Regarding ideologies, radicalism can only exist with the complicity of the moderate majority. This is a big problem for host countries, imposing as it does hostile and alien cultures, unfortunately, rather than any semblance of integration.

That is a bit of a cop out though as people should not be immigrating to countries with the expectation that those countries will change to meet their requirements, in some respects we in the west should be taking a leaf out of the more despotic nations play book and simply refusing entry to people not wanting to play by our individual nations rules (lets be honest here how far would I get by trying to demand Iran or Saudi Arabia adjust to suit me).

As I have told more than one whinging pom if you don't like it here I am more than happy to drive you to the airport.

 

[Padre]

As more of Breivik's writings emerge, it appears he is in fact an anti-religion secularist but who, when it come to religion in Europe prefers Christianity to Islam. The New York Times, et al, are mistaken in calling him a Christian (in the sense of a believing Sunday worshipping Christian with faith in Jesus). He calls himself a Christian in his 1,500 word manifesto (#2083) but a Christian by culture rather than doctrine.

Breivik is very clear that you don't even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:

Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

Answer: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.

He goes on to say that a "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" is "everything we DO NOT want," and a "secular European society" is "what we DO want."

"It is enough," Breivik says, "that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist."

Worth mentioning as the media are portaying him as a "fundamentalist" Christian, as they are keen to do so in order to Christian-Bash.

The new York Times was quick to label him anti-multicultural and a fundamentalist Christian - as they did with Timothy McVeigh who was in fact an atheist. I remember the NYT never mentioned the religion (Muslim) of the Fort Hood mass murderer Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

Breivik's philosophy and actions were atrocious and evil but he was not fundamentalist Christian.

 

[lvcabbie]

[Okay, let's see if I can start this all over again - had it almost done when I hit the wrong button and lost it all]

"Terrorist" to me is a label affixed by the media in order to explain something to the uneducated masses who are compromised of the brain-deal who lack their intelligence.

It all depends on what side you are as to whether or not someone or some group are terrorists.
The the Nazis, any group opposed to them were terrorists - including partisans in most of the occupied countries. To the English, Scots were one time terrorists.

So, is it possible to find another term that is more descriptive? And, if so, why would we need to?

Is a young, uneducated person who straps bombs to his/her body to kill themselves in the name of their religion a terrorist? Or simply a poor fool who has been indoctrinated by elders who wish to use him/her for their own desires/goals?

The psychopath in Norway is not a "terrorist". He's a sick piece of garbage, a murderer. I understand Norway has their own laws as established by the majority of the country - and I respect that. But, IMHO, this is a case were the Law of Moses should be used - an eye for an eye!!!