NSFW Episode 30: Oslo Bombing, Amy Winehouse

16rl:

The guy is nuts, I downloaded his manifesto to see how f*cked the guy was... the book is HUGE and rambles on about how everyone is a communist, that we should remove imigrants etc etc. From page 1414 to 1472 he describes his journey, how he planned the attacks etc etc. He started planning the attack since almost 10 years (!!!)

Quote: "I have just completed the “explosives research phase” and have summarized several new chapters for the compendium. My rifle application came through and I have now ordered a 800 Euro silencer specifically created for automatic and semi-automatic rifles. The Ruger Mini 14 costs about 1400 Euro including a customized trigger job from the gun smith. I will have to buy a new stock with picatinny rails (400 Euro) and 30 bullet factory mags (60 Euro per mag) from a US supplier. I have now cleared out all of the information (evidence) from the previous phase and changed my hard drive once again. I am now ready to start the chemical acquirement phase…!:-)"

I read the planning phase of his manifesto and I was shockedby the sheer coldness of his observations. This guy was acting like he was buying eggs from Stop & Shop.

He isn't nuts, not by a long shot.

eokpar02:

Virginia Tech 4ever:

The difference between Islamic terrorism and "Christian fundamentalist" terrorists is actually sanity, which, besides sheer volume, is fundamental in describing the difference between the two. The Oslo terrorist, for example, is more like a Charles Manson type than an Osama bin Laden type; he believed, insanely and completely irrationally, that murdering a bunch of people would spark a European civil war that would last for decades. That's irrational, delusional, and it marks him as borderline criminally insane, like Charles Manson a la the Helter Skelter and the looming "race wars".

Virginia Tech, I would advise you to actually read his manifesto. This guy is nothing like Charles Manson and is far more akin to Osama Bin Laden or a war criminal. Read the planning phase of his manifesto. He wasn't hearing voices or seeing dead people. He set a goal and methodically carried it out. His lawyer already admitted that his client understood the gravity of his actions. That isn't a crazy person.

Osama wanted to kill Americans on 9/11 so we would invade Afghanistan and be defeated. Not entirely crazy given that the Mujahideen forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan. This guy wanted to assasinate the government and wipe out the next generation of Labor Party Leaders so social conservatives would take power. Not exactly crazy.

How is he criminally insane for thinking that a small action could lead to a civil war? A small action lead to World War 1 (the shot heard around the world). This guy isn't insane. He is antisocial and obviously very callous. That is a far cry from being insane.

Huh? Dude, what are you talking about? Charles Manson based his cult on the idea of Helter Skelter and the coming race wars. The very point of murdering white people was to spark the inevitable race war between whites and blacks. Manson and his followers knew full well what they were doing, too, which means they're not legally insane, but merely insane by a common person's standards. In the same way, Brevik was well aware that he was murdering people but that doesn't discount his irrational delusions that by murdering a bunch of kids that a civil war in Europe would be sparked. What I'm saying is that Islamic terrorism has rational reasoning. In fact, Islamic terrorism has quite rational and proven reasoning. As I've already pointed out, they were correct in their calculus with Spain and they were correct in much of their calculation with the United States--and if your irrational goal is a global caliphate then wearing the world's sole superpower down and intimidating and wearing down the western world, a rational scheme, well financed, well supported scheme has been put into place for achieving a long-term goal.

The World War I comparison is absurd! We're talking about the assassination of a foreign head of state (by all measures an act of war in any age), not the murder of 15-year-olds by a fellow citizen. There's no logic in it. There's no rational thought to it. Comparing Islamic terrorism, which has the support of tens of millions of people, financing of governments and a rational, long-term goal, to acts of a lone nut job is poor at best.

[quote=down on the upside]prior to this posting I actually respected the posts you would make on the political topics, but I have to say the above post is by far one of the most disappointingly ignorant things I have read on the internet and I’ve read msnbc’s comments section. Both Osama Bin Laden and Anders Behring Breivik share a delusional mindset revolving around one disgusting act of terrorism inciting a global revolution that fit’s their respective opinions and perspectives. The fact that one man’s perceived strategy is more effective than the other has nothing to do with the fact that both ideologies are completed demented. Eddie’s comparison is actually spot on. It isn’t a statistical anomaly, the vast majority of acts of terrorism are not committed by Muslims, most are committed by Hispanic Americans, followed by communists with even Jewish extremists ranking higher than Muslims.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terr… http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/ http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/[/quote]

What you're saying makes absolutely zero sense. Eddie's comparison was to say that Christian radicals are just as dangerous as Islamic radicals. While that may be true in a one to one comparison, the fact is that so-called Christian terrorists commit terrorism in statistically anomolous numbers. You can count the number of non-abortion related "Christian" terrorist attacks on one hand in the last 20 years. You could count the number of Islamic terrorist attacks globally on 1 hand from the last 4 weeks. I'm sorry that you have to point to communist/jewish terrorists to refute my point about comparing white Christian terrorists to Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists.