Bomb in Oslo

[ChrisE]

i quite clearly did not say all white people. i said, "white people"; meaning in general white people more often get their panties in a bunch over these issues than others.

WTH are you talking about? There are members of many groups in the world that have prejudice against other groups. We can play the "why is X scared of X" all day long. What does that prove, other than humans in their most basic undeducated form, are tribalistic?

 

[Cerberus]

i quite clearly did not say all white people. i said, "white people"; meaning in general white people more often get their panties in a bunch over these issues than others.

That's still a generalization and most likely an incorrect one. Racism is by no means exclusive to, or even particularly common with white people.

 

[ChrisE]

If your equal opportunity drivel weren't smacked with the subjectivity that comes with the apologist, then maybe you can be taken more seriously.

I apologize for nothing, including the nutjob in Norway. I will let that remark from you slide for the sake of not getting banned.

You want to paint with a broad brush and equate fundamentalism across the board. I ask you to get persepective in terms of scope. Of course it is not surprising to me that you cannot do that.

 

[rhubroma]

fundamentalism of any stripe, whether religious, political or whatever, is immune from rational discourse as no amount of reality can penetrate their beliefs.

while there are fundamentalist islamists in the world, do not confuse that with "islamo-fascism". which is just some made up bull puckey to scare white americans into fighting wars overseas, using the poor and unemployed, financed through debt, for the profit of defense contractors.

The confusion you speak of, as it applies to me, doesn't exist, since my point about Islam-fascism was ironic.

An irony, in light of the Oslo tragedy, which has a terrible significance for the West.

 

[gregod]

WTH are you talking about? There are members of many groups in the world that have prejudice against other groups. We can play the "why is X scared of X" all day long. What does that prove, other than humans in their most basic undeducated form, are tribalistic?

That's still a generalization and most likely an incorrect one. Racism is by no means exclusive to, or even particularly common with white people.

you are both correct that racism exists in all societies amongst all races. and i was not trying to imply that whites are more racist than other races. however, those two words, emmigration and multiculturalism, seem to be used as buzzwords to upset white people most. i have visited and lived in many countries and in this admittedly limited and anecdotal experience i have only heard white people complaining about those two things.

 

[gregod]

The confusion you speak of, as it applies to me, doesn't exist, since my point about Islam-fascism was ironic.

An irony, in light of the Oslo tragedy, which has a terrible significance for the West.

i see. my bad.

 

[rhubroma]

I apologize for nothing, including the nutjob in Norway. I will let that remark from you slide for the sake of not getting banned.

You want to paint with a broad brush and equate fundamentalism across the board. I ask you to get persepective in terms of scope. Of course it is not surprising to me that you cannot do that.

Explain to me then the substantial difference between Oslo and New York.

Your appalling lack of objectivity and inability to see clearly, Chris E, only demonstrates a paranoia and fear in regards to the external, which you unsuccessully attempt to cover-up through a caustic and derisive aggression, your only defense.

I'd have expected more from a hard guy such as yourself.

 

[ChrisE]

Explain then the substantial difference between Oslo and New York.

Your appalling lack of objectivity and inability to see clearly, Chris E, only demonstrates a paranoia and fear, which you unsuccessully attempt to cover-up through a base and derisive aggression.

I'd have expected more from a hard guy such as yourself.

Who said there is any difference between those two acts? I never said that, nor do I believe that, so put down that strawman you are trying to use to divert the debate.

You want to compare religions who have a % of members who claim to follow each religion, perpetrating and promoting violence. I ask you to follow up your claim with facts when comparing the depth of the problem in each. You cannot and will not because it busts your opinion which invariably revolves around slamming the US, so you resort to your typical gibberish and ad hominems.

You claim this is a look-in-the-mirror moment for the west. Maybe so, but what will change? The answer to that is nothing will change. People have been doing shyt like this for thousands of years in the name of their religion.

 

[rhubroma]

Who said there is any difference between those two acts? I never said that, nor do I believe that, so put down that strawman you are trying to use to divert the debate.

You want to compare religions who have a % of members who claim to follow each religion, perpetrating and promoting violence. I ask you to follow up your claim with facts when comparing the depth of the problem in each. You cannot and will not because it busts your opinion which invariably revolves around slamming the US, so you resort to your typical gibberish and ad hominems.

You claim this is a look-in-the-mirror moment for the west. Maybe so, but what will change? The answer to that is nothing will change. People have been doing shyt like this for thousands of years in the name of their religion.

Mine was simply about objectivity, but this is evidently something of which you have no familiarity with.

While it isn't my fault that Christian fundamentalism has developed most agressively and has had a not marginal political role in the United States.

And it is a stupidity which has now reached a global significance. Oslo is proof of this, whether you like it or not.

More than a wake-up call, it's merely time for the West to recognize its own radical movements, which are no less lethal than those beyond its civilization.

The only difference is that we embraced so called progress, left the Middle Ages behind, etc.

 

[gregod]

...

You claim this is a look-in-the-mirror moment for the west. Maybe so, but what will change? The answer to that is nothing will change. People have been doing shyt like this for thousands of years in the name of their religion.

i fail to see why this is a "look-in-the-mirror moment for the west" (rhubroma's words), and perhaps you do as well. norwegian society did nothing wrong and a paying for the ideology of those who want to limit the freedom of others for their own misguided reasons.

 

[ChrisE]

Mine was simply about objectivity, but this is evidently something of which you have no familiarity with.

While it isn't my fault that Christian fundamentalism has developed most agressively and has had a not marginal political role in the United States.

And it is a stupidity which has now reached a global significance. Oslo is proof of this, whether you like it or not.

More than a wake-up call, it's merely time for the West to recognize its own radical movements, which are no less lethal than those beyond its civilization.

Objectivity? I am sure every time somebody blows something up or kills in the name of their religion you have the same outrage. You take advantage of this situation to slam the west. Objectivity escapes you, not me.

Yes, christian fundamentalism has just emerged globally because of the political climate in the US. Timothy McVeigh was 20 years ago, the crusades were a thousand years ago.

I really expect more from you, on your laptop sipping wine in the cafes of Rome with your faux educated persona displayed daily in CN forums. Your sense of perspective and knowledge of history in terms of fundamentalism is strikingly obtuse.

 

[rhubroma]

i fail to see why this is a "look-in-the-mirror moment for the west" (rhubroma's words), and perhaps you do as well. norwegian society did nothing wrong and a paying for the ideology of those who want to limit the freedom of others for their own misguided reasons.

Those were not my words. Read more carefully.

 

[gregod]

...
While it isn't my fault that Christian fundamentalism has developed most agressively and has had a not marginal political role in the United States.

And it is a stupidity which has now reached a global significance. Oslo is proof of this, whether you like it or not.

...

while their views are abhorrant, in a free society people have the right to hold such opinions. besides, the overwhelming number of people who hold such ideas never resort to violence. the failure is not society's, but those near him who did not or could not stop him.

 

[gregod]

Those were not my words. Read more carefully.

hahaha. again, my bad.

 

[rhubroma]

Objectivity? I am sure every time somebody blows something up or kills in the name of their religion you have the same outrage. You take advantage of this situation to slam the west. Objectivity escapes you, not me.

Yes, Timothy McVeigh was 20 years ago, the crusades were a thousand years ago.

I really expect more from you, on your laptop sipping wine in the cafes of Rome with your faux educated persona displayed daily in CN forums. Your sense of perspective and knowledge of history in terms of fundamentalism is strikingly obtuse.

Your first phrases are contradictory.

In fact I'm outraged by all violence associated with faith, whatever that faith might be.

That in no other country within the so called civilized West has religion entered so forcibly into the social fabric and political culture as in the US, is merely reality. I'm simply aware of this, having lived in Europe for so long, which, generally speaking, has become more secularized. Whereas the most fanatical and bizarre Christian sects have, since the XIX century, always arisen out of America. This is just modern history.

I'm therefore not biased in this, but merely factual. And the weight the superpower has had in spreading such sects, especially over the last half century, through an aggressive and well financed missionary activity, has been decisive in their global success.

Get informed, Chris E, and spare me your lame US apologies. Your sarcastic conclusion, moreover, that "Christian fundamentalism has just emerged globally because of the political climate in the US," merely demostrates a basic incomprehension of what I said and the issue brought up. The Oslo horror provides time for reflection in terms of a problem with a much broader scope that's internal, however this might make you uneasy.

 

[ChrisE]

Your first phrases are contradictory.

In fact I'm outraged by all violence associated with faith, whatever that faith might be.

That in no other country within the so called civilized West has religion entered so forcibly into the social fabric and political culture as in the US, is merely reality. I'm simply aware of this, having lived in Europe for so long, which, generally speaking, has become more secularized. Whereas the most fanatical and bizarre Christian sects have, since the XIX century, always arisen out of America. This is just modern history.

I'm therefore not biased in this, but merely factual. And the weight the superpower has had in spreading such sects, especially over the last half century, through an aggressive and well financed missionary activity, has been decisive in their global success.

Get informed, Chris E, and spare me your lame US apologies. Your sarcastic conclusion, moreover, that "Christian fundamentalism has just emerged globally because of the political climate in the US," merely demostrates a basic incomprehension of what I said and the issue brought up. The Oslo horror provides time for reflection in terms of a problem with a much broader scope that's internal, however this might make you uneasy.

You and I hold similar views on abhoring violence based upon religious funamentalism. I would assume that our religious views in general are pretty consistent with eachother.

I don't apologize for the US. Please point out where I have done that and I will back off from that opinion. Take your time, it will be a difficult search.

I have merely pointed out that in modern times the volume of terrorist acts committed in the name of christianity pale compared to some other religions. That is a fact, no matter how you want to spin out of that. I have also pointed out that these issues have existed over history, and will continue regardless of the outrage or the reflection that incurs.

You, on the other hand, use this despicable act to shed light on an issue that has always existed, regardless of religion. And, you do it in such a way to slam the west and specifically the US by equating depth of modern fundamentalism in all religions as being equal, or moreso with christianity since the US is majority christian. Thus, the evil US is the ogre behind christian fundamentalism or violence towards others in the name of that religion. Last time I checked Yugoslavia was not in America, for example. Your position is transparent, and I call you on it. Sorry to bust your bubble, and your pathetic use of this tragedy to spew your hatred for the US is frankly despicable.

That is why your screaching cannot be taken seriously because it has no perspective and it is blatantly biased and prejudiced. You filter each act in the world through your hatred for the US, and it makes your arguments comical to those that care to pay attention. The red meat you throw to redtriviso on a daily basis will need to be chewed up elsewhere since he is now banned. Gregod looks like he is hungry.

In addition, 24 hour news and the internet tends to amplify these movements in the modern age, but they have existed for ages. Good thing CNN didn't exist in the 60's....I can't imagine the doomsday scenario you would predict and "reflection" the US would need if every bigot had a microphone jammed in his face and was on youtube daily.

 

[rhubroma]

You and I hold similar views on abhoring violence based upon religious funamentalism. I would assume that our religious views in general are pretty consistent with eachother.

I don't apologize for the US. Please point out where I have done that and I will back off from that opinion. Take your time, it will be a difficult search.

I have merely pointed out that in modern times the volume of terrorist acts committed in the name of christianity pale compared to some other religions. That is a fact, no matter how you want to spin out of that. I have also pointed out that these issues have existed over history, and will continue regardless of the outrage or the reflection that incurs.

You, on the other hand, use this despicable act to shed light on an issue that has always existed, regardless of religion. And, you do it in such a way to slam the west and specifically the US by equating depth of modern fundamentalism in all religions as being equal, or moreso with christianity since the US is majority christian. Thus, the evil US is the ogre behind christian fundamentalism or violence towards others in the name of that religion. Last time I checked Yugoslavia was not in America, for example. Your position is transparent, and I call you on it. Sorry to bust your bubble, and your pathetic use of this tragedy to spew your hatred for the US is frankly despicable.

That is why your screaching cannot be taken seriously because it has no perspective and it is blatantly biased and prejudiced. You filter each act in the world through your hatred for the US, and it makes your arguments comical to those that care to pay attention. The red meat you throw to redtriviso on a daily basis will need to be chewed up elsewhere since he is now banned. Gregod looks like he is hungry.

In addition, 24 hour news and the internet tends to amplify these movements in the modern age, but they have existed for ages. Good thing CNN didn't exist in the 60's....I can't imagine the doomsday scenario you would predict and "reflection" the US would need if every bigot had a microphone jammed in his face and was on youtube daily.

I used this despictable act to bring attention to a contmporary issue, which, however, has its historical roots, which I have no reservations about viewing.

The proportion of terrorim arising from third world countries - which, by the way, does more violence within Islam than outside - and that coming from the rich West by our own fundamentalists, leaves no comfort or consolation for the victims of Oslo.

 

[ChrisE]

I used this despictable act to bring attention to a contmporary issue, which, however, has its historical roots, which I have no reservations about viewing.

The proportion of terrorim arising from third world countries - which, by the way, does more violence within Islam than outside - and that coming from the rich West by our own fundamentalists, leaves no comfort or consolation for the victims of Oslo.

Yes, it leaves no comfort. This discussion between us has evolved in such a way that this should not be forgotten, and that is not anybody's intention.

The rise of violence can be attributed IMO to many factors, and religious fundamentalism that turns to violence is prevalent amongst the stupid and ignorant. People have to learn to not do these things and be able to reationalize the world; civility is not inherent in our DNA IMO.

World economics, globalism, defeatism, tribalism, bigotry, etc all play a part if people are not willing or unable to adapt. The "unable" part of that is where the debate is, and the unwilling should just be wrote off for what they are, dealt with, and the civilized amongst us must be prepared to deal with this when it arises. It will not change.

 

[thirteen]

Me neither.

nor me... and listening to those who survived breaks my heart. how can it not scar you seeing your friends shot in cold blood?

 

[Anonymous]

Your first phrases are contradictory.

In fact I'm outraged by all violence associated with faith, whatever that faith might be.

That in no other country within the so called civilized West has religion entered so forcibly into the social fabric and political culture as in the US, is merely reality. I'm simply aware of this, having lived in Europe for so long, which, generally speaking, has become more secularized. Whereas the most fanatical and bizarre Christian sects have, since the XIX century, always arisen out of America. This is just modern history.

I'm therefore not biased in this, but merely factual. And the weight the superpower has had in spreading such sects, especially over the last half century, through an aggressive and well financed missionary activity, has been decisive in their global success.

Get informed, Chris E, and spare me your lame US apologies. Your sarcastic conclusion, moreover, that "Christian fundamentalism has just emerged globally because of the political climate in the US," merely demostrates a basic incomprehension of what I said and the issue brought up. The Oslo horror provides time for reflection in terms of a problem with a much broader scope that's internal, however this might make you uneasy.

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You live in ****ing Italy. I don't know if you are aware of the centuries of "mission pushing" your adopted country along with France, Germany, Spain, England, etc, etc, etc had prior to this horrific movement you are talking about, but I suggest you get informed (yea, I know you already are, but you didn't let contextual reality get in the way of making a bull**** point, so why should I?).

I realize you are evangelically atheistic, but I haven't seen where men, given any particular motivation, are not willing to slaughter others in the name of ______________. And I know it sucks for your point, but you can put atheism on that line.

Using that incident to proselytize your lack of religious beliefs is ridiculous. Preposterous actually. I suggest stepping back and thinking before toting your cross out for everyone to see when something like this happens. You can play philosophical twister all you want, but that guy was ****ing insane, and I don't know if you know anything about mental illness like that, but it has ****-all to do with any thought process attachment to any philosophy, and has everything to do with a chemical imbalance that allows and many times pushes a human to drop the bounds of morality (regardless of how it is derived) and slaughter other people.

Absurd post of the year.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, it leaves no comfort. This discussion between us has evolved in such a way that this should not be forgotten, and that is not anybody's intention.

The rise of violence can be attributed IMO to many factors, and religious fundamentalism that turns to violence is prevalent amongst the stupid and ignorant. People have to learn to not do these things and be able to reationalize the world; civility is not inherent in our DNA IMO.

World economics, globalism, defeatism, tribalism, bigotry, etc all play a part if people are not willing or unable to adapt. The "unable" part of that is where the debate is, and the unwilling should just be wrote off for what they are, dealt with, and the civilized amongst us must be prepared to deal with this when it arises. It will not change.

"The rise of violence"? Seriously, both of you guys need to study history a bit more. We are in no way experiencing an unprecedented amount of violence in relation to any time in history. We are just able to broadcast it better.

Both of you seem to miss something: People kill people. People would find reasons to kill other people in your perfect atheist world just as much. An atheist utopia is just as unrealistic and ignorant of human nature as any religious utopia. The fact that you guys do not see your relation to fundamentalists is amusing for sure.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Is there any evidence that this guy was motivated by his "faith" to do this? From what I can gather he may have been a right-leaning Christian, but there seems be a larger indication that the guy was a madman, well beyond any faith he practiced.

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You live in ****ing Italy.

I understand your reaction, but tone it down some. As an aside, I'm pretty sure he lived in the US for a number of years, and seems to keep pretty up with issues here.

I don't think there's that much rise in violence either. Certainly not compared to the annuls of history. The world is just much more wired and connected.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

We have no evidence as of yet that religion was in any way a motivating factor. He was a religious person, but until further information becomes public I will hold my fire on talking of religion's role in the tragedy. Given that the targets of his attacks were political (government ministries, Party youth rallies), targeting the Arbeiderparti, I'd say that of the description of him, the "right-leaning" is more important to the attacks than the "Christian".

 

[gregod]

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. You live in ****ing Italy. I don't know if you are aware of the centuries of "mission pushing" your adopted country along with France, Germany, Spain, England, etc, etc, etc ....

by "mission pushing" are you refering to the crusades? or are you refering to the numerous foreign excursions that countries currently are engaging in, such as norway's involvement in the bombing of libya? or are you talking about something else?

"The rise of violence"? ....

since most conflicts are local, i suspect you are correct. however, with the rise of relatively fast and easy global transport it is within the realm of possibility that it could have led to an increase in the number of ongoing military conflicts. one other reason for the perception of increased violence is the rise in the number of civilian deaths relative to military deaths. with the advent of drone technology there is virtually no risk to military personnel while the fights are within densely populated areas.

Is there any evidence that this guy was motivated by his "faith" to do this? From what I can gather he may have been a right-leaning Christian, but there seems be a larger indication that the guy was a madman, well beyond any faith he practiced.


....

so far there doesn't appear in anything that i have read that his religion had anything to do with his actions. that said, shouldn't it have prevented him from taking such heinous actions?

 

[The Hitch]

while there are fundamentalist islamists in the world, do not confuse that with "islamo-fascism". which is just some made up bull puckey to scare white americans into fighting wars overseas, using the poor and unemployed, financed through debt, for the profit of defense contractors.

I dont know how this discussion reached this as i havent read most of the thread, but since it has, ill take a few minutes of my time on this point.

What is wrong with the term "islamo-facism". It reffers to the fact that there are similarities between islamic fanatics and Fascists. As far as im concerned if one examines the ideologies of both one is hard pressed to find 2 belief systems that are more similar.

First of all they dont even avoid the comparison. Many extremists in the middle east treat Hitler with reverence.

Only 2 types of people deny the holocaust. European fascists and Islamic extremists.

Like fascists, islamic extremists are very racist and engage in genocide against other ethnic groups.

They also worship the warrior class, preaching that soldiers recieve a higher status in society and in heaven, which is the main point of fascism. The word comes from Fasci italiani di combattimento which was a group at whose meetings abu hamza would not seem out of place.

Mussolini wrote a very long, and even slightly impressive essay saying that without war life would be unbearable and wouldnt work, a love of war only since matched by Bin Laden and Zarqawi.

Both are great imperialists. In modern history the only 2 groups to seek actively to take over the world have been the Nazis and the islamic extremists.

Perhaps most importantly, they both share a loathing of modernisation and look to the past for all answers. Old law, old views on homosexuality, old views of the role of women, old class systems. Believe life was simpler worked better in the past. Mussolini looks to the Roman Empire. Bin Laden looks to the Ottoman one.

In fact i see a lot of similarities with Euro facists, and Islamic extremists. Their ideologies are almost identical.

Am i trying to scare white Americans into fighting when i make these comparisons?

Why cant i use this term Islamo Facism, which seems to me to be a pretty good description of what groups such as Jamal al Islamia or Alquaeda are?