Christian far right gunman slaughters the innocent

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:34 am

BBC News - Home

BBC News - Norway's far right not a spent force

No doubt some will say he is insane. But then isn't every religious extremist?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:26 am

From what I read, so far. Religion seems to have had little to do with it.

But you are right that extremists, religious and otherwise, are usually insane.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:37 am

I'm sure there's a useful context for the word "insane", but discussing this chap (or, indeed, extremism religious or otherwise) isn't it. Angry, perhaps. Unreasonably so, quite likely. Insane is a valueless word, it's routinely applied (for example) to every head of state, dead or alive, that We (for any given value of We) disapprove of. That's the sense in which it's applied to this fellow too. It offers no insight whatever.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:36 am

I prefer 'nutter'

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:15 pm

Ths is so sad.. all those poor kids.. trapped with no where to go.

the world is such a fecked up place

Noway.. my heart goes out to you..

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:15 pm

spot;1362992 wrote: I'm sure there's a useful context for the word "insane", but discussing this chap (or, indeed, extremism religious or otherwise) isn't it. Angry, perhaps. Unreasonably so, quite likely. Insane is a valueless word, it's routinely applied (for example) to every head of state, dead or alive, that We (for any given value of We) disapprove of. That's the sense in which it's applied to this fellow too. It offers no insight whatever.

Just because the word has been overused does not make it less applicable to such situations.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:55 pm

LarsMac;1363032 wrote: Just because the word has been overused does not make it less applicable to such situations.

I agree with you entirely. What makes it less applicable is the absence of medical relevance to the person the label's being hung on, whether it's Kim Il Sung or Timothy McVeigh.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:13 am

While spot is correct that the man in question is not by medical definition insane (so far as is yet known), I am entirely happy to use Bruv's less technical but perhaps more accurate word, "nutter".

I have not yet seen any link with religious extremism - so far all the reports I have seen talk of far right white supremacists with links to international neo-nazism. There is very little practical difference, but let's not clobber the religious fundies until the evidence appears.

Let's just remember our political nutters are every bit as revolting as their religious nutters.

And poor, poor Norway. It feels to me like someone bombed Christmas.:-1

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:35 am

Nutter's good. I'm horrified that Norway of all places - or any of Scandinavia - has been blitzed like this. Which if you consider what the Vikings did to England is a very turn-the-other-cheek response perhaps, but it's no less heartfelt.

As to what he is, the Christian bit was a comment by a police spokesman early on and doesn't mean a great deal as far as I can see. Oslo Bombing: Anders Breivik Confesses to Releasing YouTube Video, 1,500 Page 'Declaration of Independence' - International Business Times gets lots of facts into a small space. It says the chap in custody made a youtube video mentioning a document which went onto the Internet a few hours earlier with his pictures at the end and a diary of his last few months. The document is 1500 pages long and uses (as you'd expect) a pseudonym. I see no reason to believe he stole the main work and tacked on his own pages, for one thing his English is better than mine and it all feels self-consistent. So, a literate mass killer.

I know what puzzles me about this, though it won't be a popular observation. Private individuals may not, under penalty of law, do what he did. Governments, within the law, can and do. Try as I might I can't see anything to distinguish their moral positions. Far more women-and-children bystanders have been killed, for example, by remote drone pilots in Pakistan in the last five years than this chap killed yesterday, but the remote pilots get medals for it instead of opprobrium. They'll probably even end up with bravery medals for not being brave and theatre medals for not being in theatre too. They had their objective which wasn't the bystanders, but the bystanders are considered disposable rubbish (all the pretense of "we try to avoid them" or the irrelevance of "we didn't intend to kill them" doesn't detract from the guarantee that those numbers of women-and-children bystanders are bound to die if you use drone planes that way). I'm sure yesterday's killer had an objective too, and those he killed were as much in the wrong place at the wrong time as the drone pilots' victims.

So, I blame the one as much as I blame the others. If I could prevent only one class of killing it would be the one with the higher death toll - that perpetrated in Pakistan. It's no less morally repugnant than what happened yesterday in Norway.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:38 am

Blowing up politicians? Well we've all wanted to do that once or twice ....but killing children ....and he didn't just go on a shooting spree he dressed up in a police uniform and called them/ gathered them around him ...Now that's just effing evil!!!

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:31 am

I've just remembered the connection with Christmas - they give us the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square each year as a thanks for help in WW2. (And having just checked it's from the City of Oslo on behalf of Norway to the City of London on behalf of Britain:))

Cheers for the "Christian" angle. No doubt more will come out. Agree it's secondary, so far, in this case. At least the links between these schools of thought are very clear and explicit.

I tend to be suspicious of any moral position as neat and tidy as the one you express. Life tends to be messier. One major difference between the two is the government involvement you see as irrelevant. If we all make life and death decisions on the spot based on our own personal moralities and act on them, the consequence is anarchy, rapidly followed by tribalism or its modern equivalent, gangsterism, because our personal moralities are all slightly different no matter how orthodox we may be. So we invest much of our morality in not so much our government but our society, and our government acts on behalf of our society.

This gives the soldier of the government a framework of morality - our collective morality - within which to operate. This is clearly shown by the fact that soldiers themselves are aware when breaches of that morality occur - simplistically put, for our soldiers, you shoot at the bloke shooting at you but not at non-coms. War, any war, no matter how necessary, is a breach of morality. I consider this war necessary (an opinion as unpopular as yours, oh master of the position of the minority of one

) and am tainted by the immorality that goes with it. Even if I'm not exactly chuffed with the incompetence with which it has largely been conducted.

The alternative - and we are in the hypothetical world of what if and I think, here - if we had not got involved, is that we would be fighting the same war on our streets to a much greater extent and would have many more Islamic Fundamentalist states declaring full blown military jihad externally. So involvement in Afghanistan is the least bad option that was available.

Or we could have adopted a morally pure position, said war is wrong, and let the Americans deal with the issue on their own. After 9/11 the USA was going to act, so we could have just stood aside and let them do the dirty work. Personally I find that an abhorrent position and am glad we didn't take it.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:38 am

Should be another thread really, but on the same theme re. drones, Afghanistan etc.

It's a chicken and egg type situation, we are using drones because of 9/11 ?

We are 'in' Afghanistan because of 7/7 ?

I have always asked why 9/11 ? Why 7/7 ?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:53 am

That region (and I mean the whole Middle East) has never been stable any more than the Balkans unless locked down in some sort of Empire. It isn't locked down in an Empire, so it is unstable.

Unstable regions are breeding grounds of extreme ideologies, whether Serbian ethnic cleansing or Al-Qaeda atrocities. We can't change history and they want to destroy us. I'm not keen on letting them.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:47 am

Clodhopper;1363100 wrote: Unstable regions are breeding grounds of extreme ideologies, whether Serbian ethnic cleansing or Al-Qaeda atrocities. We can't change history and they want to destroy us. I'm not keen on letting them.

Oddly, the Norwegian fanatic we're discussing (I've been looking through the 1500 pages) says just that.

As for the "Christian" tag, I'm coming to the opinion that it's justified. Here's a taster:Marxism is somewhat as crippling as Islam on a civilization so I do not expect we will see

a change in direction until we, the conservative visionaries, have seized military and

political control. Spiritually bankrupt nations without civilizational visions are nothing

more than devastated wastelands of meaningless noise and excessive consumerism,

which alone, has no way of satisfying the individuals longing for something greater than

the feeding of his or her ego. The cultural Marxist elites of Western Europe will never

admit to these facts and they will say that they are in fact allowing Church communities

to operate freely. But what kind of Church survived decades of Marxist assault? Firstly,

the forced ordination of female priests ravaged the very fundament of the Church, which

planted enough Trojans for the European Church to be ridden by internal reforms leading

to the Church we see today. The European Labour Church is now completely stripped of

any and all influence and has been molded to suit the Marxist agenda. Especially the

Protestant Church has been molded into becoming its very own cyanide pill.

The first assault was reforms which involved the forceful ordination of women as priests

and bishops. As we all know, women’s emotionally unstable nature quickly lead to the

propagation of gay marriage, the ordination of gay priests, ignoring chastity, ignoring

peoples duties in relation to procreation, the support for mass-Muslim immigration and

even the inter-religious dialogue with the Muslim community. This dialogue is in fact no

more than a formal discussion for the terms of total surrender. The divine architecture,

richly decorated with sculptures of our most famous and beloved champions and martyrs

of the church (who fought past Crusades against Jihadi invasions) has been replaced with

the Marxist style red-bricked bunker style churches, which has as much appeal as a

public toilet. The divine interior of our beloved churches has been stripped of everything

dignifying and replaced with empty concrete walls with perhaps one single abstract

mosaic of something that may or may not resemble a cross.

Celebration of Christmas and Easter is now considered offensive to Muslims so it is now

inappropriate to actually say; Merry Christmas. Instead we must say; Happy holidays…

And people still doesn’t get it? It can’t be said clearer than this; the Western European

cultural Marxist regimes want you to abandon God and the Church. Perhaps you should

take the hint already. Because as soon as you acknowledge that there is a very real war

being waged by the Marxists through their deliberate objective of completely

deconstruction the European Church, the sooner you can rush to its defense.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:15 am

As I said......a nutter.

But nutter is too dismissive, if he aligned himself to any major group, with or without their permission, would the group share blame for his actions ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:54 am

Whether someone is a terrorist seems to depend on whose side you think they are on Follow the money and you might find who is behind all the international terrorism but it's a web without a centre. Right wing christian terrorism (see hitler rise of) is hardly a new thing and seems to be making a come back. In his statement the bits about marxist cultural elites - in the states it is liberal elites - you can find in main Kampf or just about any right wing web site or literature. (david duke?, pat robertson?)all that's missing is the bit about the global banking conspiracy but that's because the banks aren't owned by jews any more and after the holocaust you can't hate them so the muslims will do instead. God forbid we should all just get along with one another.

This guy is no different from the one who walked in and shot michelle gifford or the oklahoma bombers and who attacks abortion clinics at the behest of right wing christian websites calling for action against a more tolerant world to bring everybody back to god. the christian bit is more a feature of western right wing extremism. There's even a russian and a mongolian nazi party would you believe.

‪Nazi Revival In Mongolia‬‏ - YouTube

stumbled across this, interesting

‪World Wide Rise in Nazi & Nationalist‬‏ - YouTube

With an impoverished economy and mass discontent people in the past looking for someone to blame turned upon outsiders, nowadays - who knows? We are a much more global society than we realise and people who are educated and travel a lot tend to be less susceptible to prejudice and extremism, on the other hand paranoia doesn't have to be real for it to have an effect.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:06 am

He has apparently plead Not Guilty because he was saving Europe.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:59 pm

No no he's admitted killing everybody He says he's guilty in those terms (which of course is enough for the courts ) but he also says he's not guilty of a crime. he's looking for a soap box using the justice system. I think there should be a closed court so no one can hear his rants.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:56 pm

I'm quite sure an open court is a far better answer to demonstrate his folly. The initial month of sequestration is just to stop him sending potential orders to his non-existent organization. Yes I'm sure it's non-existent, but I'm content that the court should arrange against the possibility. I'm delighted the judge went into detail regarding the defendant's claims though, just to show that the closed nature of the proceedings wasn't in order to silence his statements.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:11 am

Have been thoroughly distracted by the Test match and am not remotely up to speed on this or anything else. Will come back to it as and when. This is going to run and run, I think. About time the far right got a serious looking at.

if he aligned himself to any major group, with or without their permission, would the group share blame for his actions ?

I think the answer is, "It depends."

I don't blame the RSPCA for the actions of Animal Rights extremists, because the RSPCA doesn't preach that sort of violence (as well as condemings the actions). But in this case, the far right does preach this sort of action within its core groups as it always has, even though its leaders have gone the suits not boots route which has fooled a fair few.

Oddly, the Norwegian fanatic we're discussing (I've been looking through the 1500 pages) says just that.

What? That Al Qaeda wants to destroy "the West"? I didn't think there was much doubt about that.

I would like to point out that agreeing with a nutter that there is a problem is not the same as agreeing either with his definition of that problem or with the nutter's solution. Which I most certainly do not. Delightful as the idea of removing the BNP from the gene pool is.

I'm quite sure an open court is a far better answer to demonstrate his folly.

Yeah. Get it out there where we can rip it to shreds.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:16 am

It's easy to overlook the part religion plays in far right ideology. We even have a pope trying to start the myth that Hitler was an atheist and people buy in to it even when the main target of his hatred was clearly a religion blamed for the killing of christ. His anti-semitism has followers in many of the corridors of power. The nazi party were a manifestation of an attitude and ideology that has never really gone away, in germany the politicians tried to use it for ther own ends and found they had a tiger by the tail.

I think the US has potentially a bigger problem than we do in europe.

Norway attacks focus attention on US right-wing extremists - US news - Security - msnbc.com

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Key Findings

(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific

information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,

but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about

several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first

African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and

recruitment.

— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups

during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry

out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic

downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability

to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing

extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and

government authorities similar to those in the past.

— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first

African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new

members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal

through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and

adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),

and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or

rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a

single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:00 am

Well, Hitler certainly wasn't a Christian in any conventional sense of the word and rejected Jesus' teaching as namby pamby. It seems there was even some effort to create a new Aryan religion (I suspect based on Hitler as Messiah and Mein Kampf as the Bible), though thankfully it never got anywhere. There was some really weird stuff going on in Nazi Germany and I think we'll never quite know what was true and what rumour. But some of the really weird stuff is true.

If you include the new East in Europe - the Baltic States, for example - they have much more serious far right problems than we tend to be aware of. I think it's partly a reaction to Russian Communist domination. But it means there are comparative safe havens within Europe where the far right can organise and operate. David Duke's "degree" is from an Ukrainian University.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:28 am

Clodhopper;1363244 wrote: Well, Hitler certainly wasn't a Christian in any conventional sense of the word and rejected Jesus' teaching as namby pamby. It seems there was even some effort to create a new Aryan religion (I suspect based on Hitler as Messiah and Mein Kampf as the Bible), though thankfully it never got anywhere. There was some really weird stuff going on in Nazi Germany and I think we'll never quite know what was true and what rumour. But some of the really weird stuff is true.

If you include the new East in Europe - the Baltic States, for example - they have much more serious far right problems than we tend to be aware of. I think it's partly a reaction to Russian Communist domination. But it means there are comparative safe havens within Europe where the far right can organise and operate. David Duke's "degree" is from an Ukrainian University.

In the conventional sense? Christians have been arguing about that one for centuries. It used to be conventional Christian wisdom that burning heretics at the stake was good for their immortal souls and the soils of those terrorised in to submission and no doubt you are well familiar with all the atrocities meted out by Christians on each other and anyone else they fancied. I don't know what denomination he is but protestant is just as bad as catholic when it cmnes to preaching hate. . It was a pope that first made the jews wear a yellow star and live in ghettoes for their own protection. True Christians don't do bad things is a statement that doesn't stand much examination and will probably start a fight about what a true Christian is - like is it one that kneels to pray or merely bows their head or prays to an idol instead of to god.

Read mein kampf for yourself - or just skim through it. He thought he was doing god's work. However much later apologists for the catholic church might like to rewrite history they gave him their blessing in his struggle against the godless marxists and liberals and turned a blind eye to genocide even after they knew for certain what was going on. So did many of the protestant churches Pastor Martin Niemöller, whose words have gone down in history, supported them to begin with as they went after the godless.

If you read his statement - even in this country there are people changing churches over the ordination of women priests and who deplore the decline of the "right" kind of social values and want see homophobia and the right to condemn others who don't live as they do as a god given right. He's just an extreme manifestation of the same attitudes that they hold. The method might be deplorable but a lot will agree with the intended goal.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:23 am

Bruv;1363104 wrote: As I said......a nutter.

But nutter is too dismissive, if he aligned himself to any major group, with or without their permission, would the group share blame for his actions ?

Clodhopper;1363239 wrote:

I think the answer is, "It depends."

My point being the whole Muslim world is condemned for the acts of a few Muslim nutters.

Or is this different ?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:45 am

Is everyone in Norway armed?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:05 am

Bruv;1363254 wrote: My point being the whole Muslim world is condemned for the acts of a few Muslim nutters.

Or is this different ?

Most people realise that muslim fanatics aren't really representative of their religion or world any more than Christian fundamentalists are of theirs. Look at those who are most vocal in condemning the muslim world and call for a crusade against terrorism. Perhaps this will make the more rational reconsider the next time they applaud and cheer someone calling for holy war. Personally I think all religious nutters are insane, left to them we would all be at war. What can you say to someone that believes god is on his side?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:42 am

flopstock;1363257 wrote: Is everyone in Norway armed?

Norway appears to be second ranked by percentage of households owning guns.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:53 pm

flopstock;1363257 wrote: Is everyone in Norway armed?

What relevance does that have?

The most heavily armed population in europe is switzerland, both norway and switzerland still have military conscription. Both have very low levels of gun crime.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:23 pm

gmc;1363262 wrote: Personally I think all religious nutters are insane, left to them we would all be at war.
Excuse my puzzlement, but I thought we all were.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:51 pm

gmc;1363274 wrote: What relevance does that have?

The most heavily armed population in europe is switzerland, both norway and switzerland still have military conscription. Both have very low levels of gun crime.

It was a request for information only. I had someone here wonder how he was able to go on for an hour and a half if every household over there is armed.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:06 pm

flopstock;1363293 wrote: It was a request for information only. I had someone here wonder how he was able to go on for an hour and a half if every household over there is armed.

It was an island camp for children. Probably not many firearms around. That is why the yellow-bellied li'l peckerwood chose the target. He wasn't planning to be a martyr.

At least the Muslim whackos are willing to take the final step. You gotta respect that.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:50 am

flopstock;1363293 wrote: It was a request for information only. I had someone here wonder how he was able to go on for an hour and a half if every household over there is armed.

as larsmac says it was a childrens camp why would anyopne be carrying a gun. It's not like the states where carrying handguns is habitual and the guns are kept to hand it's mainly rifles kept for hunting or in the case of switzerland in case of invasion. I've never actually been to the states but the level of fear you all seem to have about being attacked by one another and the need to have a weapon is quite literally foreign to most Europeans. Not that we're any less violent we just don't have the same culture and history.

Being British it's a cultural shock seeing the police carrying guns at airports never mind when you go abroad and they all have them.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:41 am

I said: Well, Hitler certainly wasn't a Christian in any conventional sense

You replied: In the conventional sense? Christians have been arguing about that one for centuries.

Which is replying to something I didn't quite say. Any conventional sense is trying to suggest that Hitler was not Christian in a way any mainstream Christian sect would recognise as Christian, even if a few of the odder ones might.

I have tried to read Mein Kampf, but find it very difficult. Apart from the contents, one actually feels soiled by physical contact with it. I have seen enough to recognise it as a political manifesto, among other things, and as such it is designed to appeal to the electorate, which WAS fairly Christian. Worth noting, too, that it was written while Hitler was in prison and making the decision to achieve power via the ballot box after his failed Munich revolt. It was designed to get people to vote for the Nazis and reassure them that Nazi values were German values. It worked.

I will have to have another go at it, sometime. But I really don't want to.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:06 am

Clodhopper;1363334 wrote: I said:

You replied:

Which is replying to something I didn't quite say. is trying to suggest that Hitler was not Christian in a way any mainstream Christian sect would recognise as Christian, even if a few of the odder ones might.

I have tried to read Mein Kampf, but find it very difficult. Apart from the contents, one actually feels soiled by physical contact with it. I have seen enough to recognise it as a political manifesto, among other things, and as such it is designed to appeal to the electorate, which WAS fairly Christian. Worth noting, too, that it was written while Hitler was in prison and making the decision to achieve power via the ballot box after his failed Munich revolt. It was designed to get people to vote for the Nazis and reassure them that Nazi values were German values. It worked.

I will have to have another go at it, sometime. But I really don't want to.

I know what you mean. I waded through das kapital as well and that's even worse. To many at the time though it was like a bible, people went to war because of belief in that man. Too many people believe what they are told without checking the veracity for themselves. One of the things I like about this forum is the number of times I have to rethink some of the things I thought to be true because some poster or other has made me think about things in a different way.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:53 am

Clodhopper;1363065 wrote: While spot is correct that the man in question is not by medical definition insane (so far as is yet known), I am entirely happy to use Bruv's less technical but perhaps more accurate word, "nutter".

I have not yet seen any link with religious extremism - so far all the reports I have seen talk of far right white supremacists with links to international neo-nazism. There is very little practical difference, but let's not clobber the religious fundies until the evidence appears.

Let's just remember our political nutters are every bit as revolting as their religious nutters.

And poor, poor Norway. It feels to me like someone bombed Christmas.:-1 Well, just to set the record straight, this lone killer had no links to the far right In Britain despite some gutter press tabloids desperately searching for the most remote connection. Although some revolting member of the EDL did pop up In the Daily Mail claiming his Anti-Muslim ranting on his blog Inspired this loner to gun down Innocent children. More a case of the EDL wanting much needed publicity. The EDL moron completely contradicted himself In that the gunman did not shoot Muslims, something he would have done If Inspired by a semi-literate rantings of the EDL.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:54 am

LarsMac;1363309 wrote: It was an island camp for children. Probably not many firearms around. That is why the yellow-bellied li'l peckerwood chose the target. He wasn't planning to be a martyr.

At least the Muslim whackos are willing to take the final step. You gotta respect that. Excuse me ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:57 pm

oscar;1363747 wrote: Well, just to set the record straight, this lone killer had no links to the far right In Britain despite some gutter press tabloids desperately searching for the most remote connection. Although some revolting member of the EDL did pop up In the Daily Mail claiming his Anti-Muslim ranting on his blog Inspired this loner to gun down Innocent children. More a case of the EDL wanting much needed publicity. The EDL moron completely contradicted himself In that the gunman did not shoot Muslims, something he would have done If Inspired by a semi-literate rantings of the EDL.

No he went after the left, hitlers first target of choice. Fascists have always been more afraid of liberals and the left wing than the fuzzy wuzzies. I think it's due to their feelings of intellectual inadequacy.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:10 pm

gmc;1363766 wrote: I think it's due to their feelings of intellectual inadequacy.

Just couldn't resist could you? :p :yh_devil:yh_think:yh_youkid

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:34 pm

oscar;1363767 wrote: Just couldn't resist could you? :p :yh_devil:yh_think:yh_youkid

Nope.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:44 pm

gmc;1363768 wrote: Nope.

It Is actually less than 24 hours since my return and you've started....

By the way... could you please resurrect your thread on Scottish Independence? It's not coming up on my search.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:38 pm

LarsMac;1363309 wrote: It was an island camp for children. Probably not many firearms around. That is why the yellow-bellied li'l peckerwood chose the target. He wasn't planning to be a martyr.

At least the Muslim whackos are willing to take the final step. You gotta respect that.

oscar;1363748 wrote: Excuse me ?

Hi, Oscar. Welcome back, BTW.

I was just pointing out that the Western whackos that want to somehow advance their pet cause by killing people (mostly innocents, at that, I might add) could take a lesson from the ones in the East who are usually willing to die for their cause.

I tire of having to deal with the nutcases blathering about whatever cause the think was worth killing for, trying to justify there pathetic lives by ruining the lives of others.

They don't deserve to have their say after such horrible acts, IMHO.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 1:03 am

LarsMac;1363778 wrote: Hi, Oscar. Welcome back, BTW.

I was just pointing out that the Western whackos that want to somehow advance their pet cause by killing people (mostly innocents, at that, I might add) could take a lesson from the ones in the East who are usually willing to die for their cause.

I tire of having to deal with the nutcases blathering about whatever cause the think was worth killing for, trying to justify there pathetic lives by ruining the lives of others.

They don't deserve to have their say after such horrible acts, IMHO.

He's a christian, if you commit suicide it is a mortal sin and you do not go to heaven so you will never see a Christian blowing themselves up in the name of their religion, only the godless muslim does that. In olden days suicides were buried in unhallowed ground and there was no funeral rite.

Post by **spot** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:00 pm

I'm slightly puzzled:Lacoste has reportedly asked Norwegian police to prevent mass killer Anders Breivik wearing the brand in court. The French clothing label wrote to Norway's police authorities to make the request, Dagbladet newspaper reports. Far-right extremist Breivik has admitted killing 77 people during bomb and gun attacks in July.

Breivik - who has reportedly said Lacoste is his favourite brand - has been pictured wearing the label since his arrest.

BBC News - Lacoste brand 'seeking Anders Breivik clothes ban'

What basis would the owners of this designer label have for making such a request? Anders Breivik is evidently the sort of person who appreciates their labelled menswear to the point of buying it. He's not in court accused of exhibiting poor dress sense.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:16 pm

gmc;1363821 wrote: He's a christian, if you commit suicide it is a mortal sin and you do not go to heaven so you will never see a Christian blowing themselves up in the name of their religion, only the godless muslim does that. In olden days suicides were buried in unhallowed ground and there was no funeral rite.

Well, if he thinks that matters, after destroying the lives of so many, I suggest he may be in for a surprise.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:17 pm

spot;1368897 wrote: I'm slightly puzzled:Lacoste has reportedly asked Norwegian police to prevent mass killer Anders Breivik wearing the brand in court. The French clothing label wrote to Norway's police authorities to make the request, Dagbladet newspaper reports. Far-right extremist Breivik has admitted killing 77 people during bomb and gun attacks in July.

Breivik - who has reportedly said Lacoste is his favourite brand - has been pictured wearing the label since his arrest.

BBC News - Lacoste brand 'seeking Anders Breivik clothes ban'

What basis would the owners of this designer label have for making such a request? Anders Breivik is evidently the sort of person who appreciates their labelled menswear to the point of buying it. He's not in court accused of exhibiting poor dress sense.

I can see their point.

I would not want any association with him.

It probably is drawing down their sales in the Muslim neighborhoods around France.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:12 am

I note Anders Breivik has just started a full-time degree course studying political science at Oslo's university, something he could have done with considerable advantage before rushing to the defence of the European Church - he might have discovered alternative, more productive, ways to attempt change.

Anders Breivik accepted at Norway's University of Oslo - BBC News

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:35 am

The far right is not the Christianity I know and follow.