Skip to main content

Breivik
Anders Behring Breivik (Scanpix Norway/Reuters)

The New York times has an extensive report on the fertilizer that fed the roots of Anders Behring Breivik's extreme anti-Islamic fervor, the extremism that led him to mass murder of children. Much of the substance that fed his beliefs came from the extremist right in America.
In the document he posted online, Anders Behring Breivik, who is accused of bombing government buildings and killing scores of young people at a Labor Party camp, showed that he had closely followed the acrimonious American debate over Islam.

His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture. [...]

The revelations about Mr. Breivik’s American influences exploded on the blogs over the weekend, putting Mr. Spencer and other self-described “counterjihad” activists on the defensive, as their critics suggested that their portrayal of Islam as a threat to the West indirectly fostered the crimes in Norway.

Mr. Spencer wrote on his Web site, jihadwatch.org, that “the blame game” had begun, “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.” He did not mention Mr. Breivik’s voluminous quotations from his writings.

The Gates of Vienna, a blog that ordinarily keeps up a drumbeat of anti-Islamist news and commentary, closed its pages to comments Sunday “due to the unusual situation in which it has recently found itself.” [...]

Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik’s actions was “ridiculous.”

“If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists,” she wrote.

Ah, yes, it's the fault of Muslims that a crazy person read Geller's and others extremist anti-Muslim screeds and acted on them by killing dozens of children. If radical Islam didn't exist, then Breivik wouldn't have been provoked, or something. It's not just Geller using this kind of twisted logic, as Media Matters' Simon Maloy points out. "Even though no Muslims were involved, they are still working hard to make sure Muslims share the blame."

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:20 AM PDT.

Also republished by Muslims at Daily Kos, July 22nd, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe the guy was just batshit crazy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Laslo, augustin, Boogalord, hester

    (not in a legal sense, just in a human sense) and we should leave it at that.

    Or, more productively, figure out how to avoid the policing failures that compounded this tragedy.

    •  He was part of a movement (26+ / 0-)

      that is full of similarly batshit crazy people. The 9/11 attackers were also probably somewhat psychologically fragile. So what.

      If the fall of the house of Murdoch is a tragedy, it is the feel-good tragedy of the century-James Wolcot

      by beltane on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:30:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what? we can't stop that type of thinking (0+ / 0-)

        Nor should we try - it's the price of "freedom"

        What we can do is take some common sense steps to stop either situation from happening, or at least causing the extent of havoc that it did.

        •  We can't stop the thinking (26+ / 0-)

          but maybe we should consider that sane, rational people can do evil things. To pretend that people like Pam Gellar are basically decent folks in need of a little Prozac is naive.

          If the fall of the house of Murdoch is a tragedy, it is the feel-good tragedy of the century-James Wolcot

          by beltane on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:45:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you consider this guy to be a sane rational (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boogalord

            person, we're simply worlds apart on this issue.

            •  He took these ideas (6+ / 0-)

              and acted on them. Indeed I think that the issues he was most concerned about tend to lead to mass killings eventually.

              Enoch Powell an early English manifestation of anti immigrant politics for example predicted: "rivers of blood" because of Pakistani immigration. His intent was both a threat to Pakistanis and a warning to Labour opponents.

              A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

              by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:00:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  you seem (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MKSinSA, capelza, Shockwave, kyril, Aunt Martha

              to be having some difficulty reading and understanding beltane's comments.

            •  There are millions (7+ / 0-)

              who are convicted of heinous crimes which one can deem the product of a deranged mind.  Sure -- some of them are clinically deranged.  It is the legal definition of insanity that usually at stake.  Breivik may not be found legally insane.  Geller is not legally insane, nor are a high percentage of RW Christian fundamentalists who are hell bent on causing damage.

              Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

              by gchaucer2 on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:39:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  People Like POWER, Embrace Propaganda To Get It (0+ / 0-)

              Don't over think this.

              It's all so clear to me now. I'm the keeper of the cheese. And you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.

              by bernardpliers on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:42:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Freedom (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JDsg, lysias, mcmom, kyril

              I don't think anyone is claiming that repugnant people like Spencer and Geller aren't protected from printing or saying what they believe. That freedom doesn't give them the right not to own the actions of people that act on their hatred. Especially when the perpetrator is quoting their work as his motivation and rationalization for an attack on innocent kids.

              This guy doesn't sound crazy at all. This guy sound like another fringe right asshole that has come out of the woodwork because we aren't allowed to question ANYTHING conservatives believe because they are always the victims. Every right wingers actions can be rationaized away by calling the perpetrator crazy or by saying liberalism made us do it.

              Conservatism is based on hatred of others to promote self importance. It creates enemies because its basic tenents aren't acceptable to most. It needs enemies to thrive. Conservatism creates people like Breivik. they need people like him. They hope they don't go to these extremes not because killing people they hate is bad but because it gives them PR problems.

              •  Yes, true enough (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Boogalord
                This guy sound like another fringe right asshole that has come out of the woodwork because we aren't allowed to question ANYTHING conservatives believe because they are always the victims.

                BUT, how many people fit into this category?

                2? 200? 20,000?  ALL of Mr. Limbaugh's 20,000,000 listeners?

                And of those 20,000,000 - how many actually snap and do something like this?  

                Which is the point I'm making - there are usually strong biological constraints against this type of behavior - when something goes this badly awry, and such a huge level of abnormal behavior occurs - the chances are MUCH HIGHER (based on simply statistics if nothing else) that a biological or biochemical basis played a much large role than a political stimulus.

                Otherwise, all of us progressives, and even the very marginal progressives that dominate this site - would all long since be dead.  Very long ago.

          •  Well... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JDsg, taylormattd, beltane, MKSinSA, kyril

            One of the features of the American Taliban is a steadfast refusal to see that many of the problems of today are a direct result of the policies that they themselves advocated and implemented in the past decade.  This guy did what he did, in part, because he found a supportive audience for his ideas and thought that the publicity sparked by his actions would inspire others.

            To counter him, we need to confront others who he seemed to think persuadable, and ask them to look inside themselves and their writings.  Many of them aren't smart enough to have the capacity for deep thought and introspection.  Many of them are too lazy to do so.

            But a shock like this could be the catalyst needed to make someone wonder.  And if some of those rightbloggers and tea partiers see themselves in Breivik, and turn away from hateful rhetoric and towards doing actual useful good things, there's a very small silver lining to this horrible cloud.

            •  if this guy was a raging leftist (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roadbed Guy

              i'm not sure you guys would be so quick to damn leftist ideology.

              sure rightwingers are nuts. but it takes a special kind of crazy to execute dozens of children with shotgun blasts to the head.

              not saying that rightwing anti-Islamists shouldn't take any kind of heat for this, or that they shouldn't be subject to scrutiny. they should. fuck em. but when stuff like this happens we would all do well to remember that there are fucking crazy murderers on both sides of the aisle, and even though politics can trigger it, there's probably some underlying biological factor that lays the foundation for such acts

              •  What needs to be addressed (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Boogalord, kyril, JDsg

                What needs to be addressed is violent and eliminationist rhetoric.

                It's not uncommon to see a poster on free republic advocate the nuclear option when talking about middle eastern issues, or mention their personal gun collection when talking about racial tensions.  This kind of talk should be confronted and the poster shamed, no matter which side of the political spectrum they stand on.

                It happens here at kos, still, thank goodness.

              •  How often do raging leftists do this? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nina Katarina

                We have plenty of crazies. From the anti-vax nutters to the Truther brigade, God knows we have our share of people whose reasoning is...shall we say, not firing on all cylinders. But they almost never do anything remotely like this.

                On the right in recent years, we have:
                - 9/11
                - Various other Al-Qaeda attacks
                - Abortion clinic bombings
                - George Tiller
                - The UU church shooting
                - Oslo
                - Oklahoma City
                - Anthrax
                - I feel like I'm missing several

                On the left, we have:
                - That one guy who flew his private plane into a federal building in Texas. Maybe.

                And leave the (left and right) totalitarian regimes that grew out of the particulars of early 20th-century global sociopoliticoeconomic dynamics out of this, please. We're talking crazies triggered by extreme political views, not megalomaniacs creating and taking advantage of them.

                Something about left-wing ideologies doesn't seem to encourage mentally-unstable people to commit mass murder. Or, conversely, something about right-wing ideologies does. I think it's time for people on the right to examine that.

                "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

                by kyril on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 04:50:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  We can counter it with discourse (7+ / 0-)

          craziness not countered is left to fester and spread

          Which side are you on?

          by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:53:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We contest that thinking (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          capelza, kyril

          we expose it as bigotry.  We expose the individuals as hypocrites.  Simple.

          If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

          by jhannon on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:29:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  we CAN stop that type of thinking (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MKSinSA, wiseacre, capelza, lysias, kyril

          or perhaps is better put that we can slow that type of thinking and acting. Look what happened to the militia movement when McVeigh blew up the federal building. That movement was riding high and becoming more and more popular as the MSM reported their every move. Then BANG and it no longer was viewed as something good, its popularity dwindled away and mainstream thought turned against it.

          If we continue to push the meme that the blatent Islamophobia movement shares the blame for Norway just like McVeigh did the militia movement we can darken the publics view of them.

          Now is the best time to push back and expose their hypocrisy and ugly racism.

          America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

          by cacamp on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:31:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Milton Friedman also in the mix! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JDsg, LynChi, LNK, kyril

        Marcy Wheeler found this:

        The economist Milton Friedman, along with F. Hayek, is one of the villains of Naomi  Klein’s book. According to her, Friedman has stated that “only a crisis — actual or  perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” Friedman believes that during a  crisis, we only have a brief window of opportunity before society slips back into the “tyranny of the status quo,” and that we need to use this opportunity or lose it.

        This is actually sound advice and in my view the strategy Western survivalists should follow. When I first started writing as Fjordman I focused on how to “fix the system.” I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the system cannot be fixed. Not only does it have too many enemies; it also contains too many internal contradictions. If we define the “system” as mass immigration from alien cultures, Globalism, multiculturalism and suppression of free speech in the name of “tolerance,” then this is going to collapse. It’s
        inevitable.

        The goal of European and Western survivalists — and that’s what we are, it is our very survival that is at stake — should not be to “fix the system,” but to be mentally and physically prepared for its collapse, and to develop coherent answers to what went wrong and prepare to implement the necessary remedies when the time comes. We need to seize the window of opportunity, and in order to do so, we need to define clearly what we want to achieve. What went wrong with our civilisation, and how can we survive and hopefully regenerate, despite being an increasingly vulnerable minority in an often hostile world?

        In Breivik's Manifesto.

        Her post on Emptywheel is worth a close look as she ties Chicago, Norway, and the Shock Doctrine  together.

      •  The Oregon teabaggers? Brown shirts. nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nulwee, Shockwave, kyril
      •  Jonah Goldberg successfully got people thinking (18+ / 0-)

        that liberals are fascists by completely muddying the waters, lying, and pulling shit out of his ass.  He did this by lying about liberal criticism of certain despicable values as fascist when the words he was (not) looking for are either totalitarian or authoritarian.  Further, widespread disapproval of robbing the poor to give to the rich isn't "totalitarian" at all, if the Jonah Goldbergs of the world are not being dragged out of their houses and shot by the government in charge.  This fine distinction seems to have escaped him, however.  (No one said he was bright.)  

        For the record - liberals believe in democracy, not in the anti-democratic totalitarian authoritarian political systems known as fascism (when perpetrated by elites) or communism (when ostensibly perpetrated by the masses but carried out by elites).

        Those who think that one class is more fit to govern than others are elitists well on the road to fascism, and guess which party that describes - not the Democrats!

        To recognize fascism is the first step in taking it seriously.

        Which side are you on?

        by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:52:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So I guess you're calling rightwingers (10+ / 0-)

      batshit crazy.

      Well at least we agree on something.

      Or, more productively, figure out how to avoid the policing failures that compounded this tragedy.

      Or, more productively, figure out why this guy had "dum dum" bullets that are designed to cause the most internal damage possible and why ANYONE should be allowed to possess these, or why they are even allowed to be produced, which compounded this tragedy.

      Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

      by Methinks They Lie on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:41:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This being a US based website, I'm not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nina Katarina

        sure why you're even bringing up the ammunition issue - my understanding is that having that type of stuff is a basic human right.

        I was more referring to fixing more tractable issues, such as this: Norway police admit to taking 90 minutes to reach island after shooting began - you read that and just have to say WTF!!!!

      •  those bullets are not hard... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        to press yourself.  So outlawing the sale of them will in no way stop people as determined as this guy from using them.  Its crazy to blame this on a bullet especially with absolutely no evidence that these bullets played a role in any additional deaths.  That opens up the counter argument... if one counselor had a concealed weapon and was trained appropriately how many lives could have been saved?

        •  If your comment had a handlebar, a seat, and two (7+ / 0-)

          wheels it could be a bicycle.

          "The attack on the truth by war begins long before war starts and continues long after a war ends." -Julian Assange

          by Pierro Sraffa on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:12:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh really? (8+ / 0-)
          Its crazy to blame this on a bullet especially with absolutely no evidence that these bullets played a role in any additional deaths.

          You might want to talk to one of the attending physicians in Norway about that:

          Poole, a surgeon for 26 years at the hospital, said the bullets were "hyper-fragmentable" and produced confusing pictures on X-rays.

          "It's caused us all kinds of extra problems in dealing with the wounds they cause, with very strange trajectories," he said. "The effect they cause inside the body is like a thousand pin pricks."

          Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

          by Methinks They Lie on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:28:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It might be worse than that (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MKSinSA, Methinks They Lie, JDsg, zinger99

            there are rumors he loaded the bullets with 100% nicotine, so that anyone who got hit, even if they survived the initial trauma, would eventually die from the poison released into their bodies. I hope and pray this is not true. There are no words for that kind of evil.

            Will work for food
            Will die for oil
            Will kill for power and to us the spoils
            The billionaires get to pay less tax
            The working poor get to fall through the cracks
            -James McMurty

            -9.75/-8.26

            by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:44:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I wonder how many... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JDsg

            bullet wounds this guy has treated in his years as a surgeon in Norway.  I bet he has seen less in all his years than I have in a decade in ERs in New Orleans, Birmingham,al and Jacksonville,FL.  Back to the point.  Those bullets are not hard to press yourself... I would say much easier than making a bomb out of fertilizer.  This guy wrote a thousand page rant... he wasn't short on time.  He could have easily pressed these himself.

            That surgeon did not say that additional deaths were attributed to the bullets... its impossible to know what would have happened had those people been shot with different bullets and it is retarded to argue otherwise.  I have seen a lot of dead people that got shot with regular old bullets.

            •  I would just quit now while you're "ahead." (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ask, zinger99, verdeo
              I wonder how many...

              bullet wounds this guy has treated in his years as a surgeon in Norway.

              [...]

              That surgeon did not say that additional deaths were attributed to the bullets... its impossible to know what would have happened had those people been shot with different bullets and it is retarded to argue otherwise.  I have seen a lot of dead people that got shot with regular old bullets.

              (nice, emphasis mine)

              You have no idea what you're talking about now do you? You're arguing now that he could have killed 80+ children with "regular old bullets" and just because he used exploding bullets doesn't mean he couldn't have killed as many kids so we shouldn't talk about the exploding bullets even though the professionals in Norway are saying that treating the survivors has been harder because of the exploding bullets and just because no one has specifically stated that additional deaths were caused because of the exploding bullets we cannot conclude as much given what the surgeons are saying about the exploding bullets and the type of damage they cause.

              Wow.

              You got me on that one.

              I'll just back away slowly now.

              Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

              by Methinks They Lie on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:59:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kyril

                treating the wounded is also likely harder because they don't see as many bullet wounds but nobody is suggesting they just need to allow more guns so they see bullet wounds more frequently.  When I was at Charity in New Orleans French and Swedish medical students/residents would often have a month rotation in the ER and surgical suites so they could see bullet wounds.

                What I am saying is that limiting access to these bullets likely would not have changed this guys actions one iota.  He could have easily pressed these himself.  That is my point.  I realize that in certain situations these bullets are more harmful while at the same time in certain sitations they are less harmful.  

                You really need to re-read what I originally typed.  I said limiting access to these bullets in the retail environment would not have meant this guy would not have easily been able to make them himself.

                •  common pro-gun argument (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joe Bob

                  if we ban these bullets that make it easier to kill people, it won't stop people from killing people with guns. therefore, we should continue to allow these bullets that make ti easier to kill people be sold.

                  no, that doesn't make sense. just because people will make meth illegally doesn't mean that we should just make meth legal for that reason.

                  i know Norway is a whole different animal than the US, i just felt like pointing out that part of your argument.

        •  So the answer to violence is.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Methinks They Lie

          more violence.

          Good one. Thank you.

          •  well... (0+ / 0-)

            the answer to someone mass murdering is to kill them.  Yes.  It ends the mass murder.  Are you seriously so naive you think someone should have just tried to reason with the guy?  If you had a gun in that situation would you have just sat there?  

            If you actually think that someone there having a gun and being trained appropriately is a bad idea then you are beyond help.  Please tell the president he does not need to be protected by guards with automatic weapons because violence is not the answer... for any american to say they are opposed to violence is a joke anyway.  Especially anyone associated with either of the two major political parties which BOTH engage in illegal and unethical wars that cost hundreds of thousands of lives....

            •  Yes, kill him, and then he can really be a martyr (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              capelza

              will surely solve the problem

              Will work for food
              Will die for oil
              Will kill for power and to us the spoils
              The billionaires get to pay less tax
              The working poor get to fall through the cracks
              -James McMurty

              -9.75/-8.26

              by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:59:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  ha. (0+ / 0-)

                I am sure if your kid was on that island you would be saying "man, I am glad nobody was able to take this guy out and make him a martyr".  What an ignorant response!  

                •  Actually (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  zinger99, verdeo

                  if that was my child I would not be functioning right now. I would be curled up in a fetal position. I would probobly eat a gun. Do you think as a mom I haven't been physically ill thinking about what the mothers of these children are going through right now? I have had nightmares for 4 days straight. That is some cynical bullshit to insinuate I don't care about the families feelings just because I don't think that killing him is the right response. I also know that the odds are high that most of the parents, being labour party members and living in a country like Norway, do not believe in the death penalty and killing him would do nothing but compound their pain. It is not going to bring any of those children back. It will solve nothing but satisfy bloodlust for people like you.

                  Will work for food
                  Will die for oil
                  Will kill for power and to us the spoils
                  The billionaires get to pay less tax
                  The working poor get to fall through the cracks
                  -James McMurty

                  -9.75/-8.26

                  by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:13:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so you are admitting... (0+ / 0-)

                    that if given the option of someone on the island taking him out mid-rampage or letting him finish you would rather the latter?  I am not talking about court imposed death penalty, I am talking about stopping him in his tracks.  I don't agree with the death penalty but I wish when this guy started killing people someone would have shot him.  Those are completely different things.  Are you serious?

                    •  I responded below (0+ / 0-)

                      I did misunderstand your point. In the comission of a crime, absolutely. I would have done it myself if I was there and I was carrying.

                      Will work for food
                      Will die for oil
                      Will kill for power and to us the spoils
                      The billionaires get to pay less tax
                      The working poor get to fall through the cracks
                      -James McMurty

                      -9.75/-8.26

                      by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:28:42 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  oh ok. (0+ / 0-)

                        Yeah I started to think you were either not serious or misunderstood.  I was pointing out that blaming the bullets is as silly as hyper-gun folks stating that this all could have been averted if all those kids were given guns.....  The truth is somewhere in the middle.  I just hate when stuff like this happens people suggest that this guy, who was obviously EXTREMELY determined, could have been even slightly foiled had bullets that are easy to make at home been unavailable for retail sales....

                •  You don't know how this poster would respond (0+ / 0-)

                  in that situation and you have no right to assume you do.

                  What an ignorant response!

                  No, to assume that someone thinks the way you do is ignorance. Just because you would want vengeance does not mean this poster would.

                  SO stop with your projections.

                  k?

                  Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

                  by Methinks They Lie on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:16:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Its not vengeance to want your... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kyril

                    kid to not be killed.  You are right I don't know what they would want.  I was just assuming giving the choice of a crazed gunman being shot and killed or your kid being killed by that gunman most sane people would choice the gunman being killed.  I am sorry if that leap of logic was too much for some on here.  

                    •  Are you talking about shooting him (0+ / 0-)

                      to stop him from committing the crime? During the commission of the act?

                      Because that is another story entirely.

                      Will work for food
                      Will die for oil
                      Will kill for power and to us the spoils
                      The billionaires get to pay less tax
                      The working poor get to fall through the cracks
                      -James McMurty

                      -9.75/-8.26

                      by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:22:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  uh yes. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kyril

                        that is exactly what I was talking about.  I said if someone on the island had a gun and had shot him it would have ended the violence.  My initial comment was in response to someone saying the bullets were an issue.  I stated that a similar line of reasoning could be used to show the lack of guns on the island was an issue.  

    •  His was a political action (8+ / 0-)

      so it is worth examining his political ideology.  Now, I wouldn't want to impute legal or even moral responsibility for the American hate-mongers, but i do see this as a chance to examine their views on their own terms.  To wit:

      1.) is terrorism the exclusive province of Islam?
      2.) is terrorism any more or less hateful or dangerous when practiced by Muslims?
      3.) is Thor here any more or less representative of anti-Muslim bigotry as bin Laden is of anti-Western bigotry?  Or of Norway persons/Muslims?

      the answer to each confirms what we already knew -- stereotyping based on religion is hateful and should be attacked on its own terms.  that it might lead to the consequence of assigning blame that looks to be 100% wrong only adds to the inhumanity of such stereotypes.  

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:51:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But perhaps there was more to it than that (5+ / 0-)

        Human beings - even those who profession is to kill - have a deep aversion to killing:

        My own long-held assumption, in this case, was that the rise of PTSD in Western armies was mainly due to a major change in the way they trained their troops. Before 1945, like all the other armies, they just trained soldiers to shoot. After 1945, they started training their soldiers to kill people. The change was triggered by a discovery that General S.L.A. Marshall made during the Second World War. He sent out teams to interview American infantry companies immediately after combat, with a guarantee that each soldier’s testimony would remain absolutely confidential – and he learned that up to ninety percent of those American infantrymen had found it impossible to kill enemy soldiers.
        They did not run away, they may even have shot their weapons into the air – but they simply could not look down the sights and kill another human being. At the last moment, they became conscientious objectors.

        Marshallhad stumbled upon the single most important fact about the modern battlefield: most of the soldiers present were not really taking part in the battle. Moreover, this secret refusal to kill could not be solely an American trait, or else the US Army would have lost every battle it fought against the Germans and the Japanese. In fact, it was true of every army that fought in the Second World War.

        link

        In cases where this inhibition has gone dramatically awry, there is often a biological, not a political, basis. For example, here's a recent article from The Atlantic: The Brain on Trial that among other things describes how Charles Whitman (the University of Texas Tower  shooter) was suffering from a brain tumor.

        Just saying, instead of the rampant speculation over the political motives of this guy, I submit that it is just as likely that he may have been suffering from some underlying biological condition.  Just in case anyone cares to really get to the bottom of his behavior - as opposed to engaging in feel good anti-anti-Islam rants . . ..

        •  Yearly MRI's then? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beltane, wiseacre, kyril

          This raises an interesting point.  Identifying and encouraging the warrior in the soldier is the modern military's goal.

          But most of these killers, are not suffering form brain tumors or other obvious disorders.

          Spec Ops soldiers are rarely psychopaths either.   The nut cases are weeded out very efficiently. What you are often left with in these self selecting volunteer units are cold calculating professionals. Some are driven mad, by what they witness and do later on, yet the best ones are able to cooly disassociate themselves from their actions through ideological commitment or devotion to unit and country and the expectation of retirement in their 20s or mid 30s from active combat.

          Even the disturbed convicts in the Einsatztruppen couldn't murder civilians for very long without breaking down (thus the mechanical gas chambers). And many of them were from mental wards. The sane ones like Eichmann were able to function better when asked to exterminate Jews.

          A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

          by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:21:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, the failings of (0+ / 0-)

            WW2 were corrected, namely

            In World War II we taught our soldiers to fire at bullseye targets, but that training failed miserably because we have no known instances of any soldiers being attacked by bullseyes.

            So to solve that problem, the military invested a lot of effort in teaching kids to kill  to the point that in Vietnam ~ 90% of our soldiers were not averse to "shooting to kill"

            •  Here's another possible explanation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril

              Most of the US military in ww2 who actually killed Germans and Japanese were in planes or tanks. Also:

              a) crew weapons like artillery, mortars and bombers had done the serious damage and many German units were decimated by the time they came into contact with US infantry.

              b) Surviving German or Japanese soldiers were often driven into bunkers that were then methodically blasted by explosives engineers or flamethrowers.

              c) German & Japanese  infantry rarely presented themselves as targets for rifle fire (smart cookies) relying on their own crew weapons. Additionally If they fired on US units the radioman would call in teh vast array of fire support from artillery, mortar or planes and blast resisting German positions.

              d) There was a maxim I recall: Riflemen can't be replaced but bullets and bombs can.  The US army by that time was already finding ways to avoid being in sight of enemy troops and relying on enormous crew mounted firepower.

              SLA's study has a few holes in it.

              A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

              by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:59:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  He says he was using steroids and stimulants (6+ / 0-)

          for "stamina" and "motivation".

          Which brings up an interesting defense angle.  As he took more and more steroids, did they cause a "roid rage" that led him to commit violence?  Prosecutors had better be able to counter that theory.

          Plus, a lot of his manifesto is violently anti-feminist.  He calls his divorced mother a feminist and says he grew up in a matriarchy that "feminized" him.  Hmmm.  Does this have anything to do with his expressed need to be a warrior and champion against feminism (which he considers to be part of cultural Marxism)?  Since he mowed down the next generation of "cultural Marxists" in his eyes?

          Every time a Tea Partier calls a liberal a Marxist or communist I think of this.  Even J. Edgar Hoover, the old commie-terminator, admitted in writing that liberalism had nothing to do with communism.

          Which side are you on?

          by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:31:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would consider this to be an explanation, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hester

            not a defense:

            Which brings up an interesting defense angle.  As he took more and more steroids, did they cause a "roid rage" that led him to commit violence?  Prosecutors had better be able to counter that theory.

            •  Legally it could be a defense (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril

              at least here in the US.  Here for a conviction you have to have "mens rea" a guilty mind, along with "actus reus" a prohibited act.  If you don't, for example if you're raging drunk and didn't know you hit anyone, but you killed them, you might be convicted of criminally negligent homicide rather than first degree.  Or you might get off.

               If Breivik was having a reaction to steroids there is an argument that he didn't have mens rea.  If he hadn't been taking steroids and stimulants, would he have done this?  I tend to think yes, because his manifesto indicates this was a long-planned event.  But still, in the hands of a good defense attorney, all you need is a reasonable doubt.

              Which side are you on?

              by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:09:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Also (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LNK, kyril

            He saved his greatest hate not for the current prime minister but for the female former prime minister, who was scheduled to speak at the island on Friday.

        •  Some violence has a biological basis, no (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nina Katarina, kyril

          argument from me on that.  And some psychologists, and most certianly the legal system, have not been attuned to that.  However, violence also has a strong cultural component.

          Do you think that everyone in the lynch mobs of the 20's had a brain tumor?  Or that the reduction in lynchings has been correlated with a reduction in medical problems in the brains of white Americans? No, it's been the result of the Civil Rights movement, and a combination of teaching/preaching/organizing that made many people come to regard racist violence with aversion, along with a change in law enforcement, which made racist violence risky to the perpetrator.

          Various kinds of bigotry encourage and provoke the human capacity for irrational violence. Most people spreading the bigotry are not metally damanged, and are not disturbed to the point that we can label them as insane.  They do have an unhealthy level of ego-investment in their racial/national/religious identity, or they're cynically exploiting their identity for personal gain. They are quite willing to go on spreading violence-encouraging bigotry while taking no responsibility for the results.

          There will occasionally be people disturbed enough that they kill no matter what we do to prevent it.  But there's a lot of killing that will happen or not happen depending on whether we teach and organize against the bigotry that encourages it.  

          We don't have to censor or give up freedom of debate. But we as a culture need to bring anti-Islamic paranoia into the category of attitudes that are regarded by reasonable people with aversion.

          •  You are conflating two completely separate (0+ / 0-)

            issues here - mob pyschology and the actions a single individual.

            I don't remember that 1920's lynchings so much, but have followed the frequent riots in Canada to be aware that you really can't compare the two situations.

            In any event, the "mind/thought crime" type of paranoia exemplified by this diary reminds me of the more hysterical anti-pornography types out there who (against ALL EVIDENCE) blame pornography for sex crimes.  And believe me - and there's probably no one who is more against pornography than I am -  so I am very loathe to admit that - but the data is that data!

        •  ninety percent of American soliders couldn't kill? (0+ / 0-)

          how did we win the war?

  •  A direct quote: (42+ / 0-)
    "We, the European Revolutionary Conservatives know very well that it will take many years, even decades before we successfully manage to consolidate to a degree where we can seize political and military power in the first Western European country. In the US, the Tea party movement is one of the first physical, political manifestations which indicate that there is a great storm coming."

    THIS needs to get out as far and as wide as possible.  We must MAKE the media use this headline:

    "Norwegian shooter credits TEA PARTY MOVEMENT".

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:28:17 AM PDT

  •  I notice how no one is really yelling terrorism (41+ / 0-)

    I can't fail to notice and wonder is it because the perp is white.

    We've dodged a bullet or two, I'm remembering the MLK terror bomber and it's the same root cause.  

    "I honor the place in you where Spirit lives I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Truth, of Light, of Peace, when you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, then we are One." Namaste friends!

    by Adept2u on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:28:45 AM PDT

  •  Re: Spencer's lame statement (14+ / 0-)
    “as if killing a lot of children aids the defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, or has anything remotely to do with anything we have ever advocated.”

    Odd that he would leave out the bombing or his encitement of hatred that could lead to bombings of mosques during prayers where -- oh, I don't know, children might be present.

    They can't walk backwards away from their complicity.  And since they won't disappear and won't stop their hateful, dangerous screeds -- the next one is on them as well.

    It is one thing to dismiss the left blogosphere -- another to dismiss a national paper which paints them as who they really are:  dangers to society and domestic terrorists.

    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:30:52 AM PDT

  •  These commentators may not be responsible... (10+ / 0-)

    ...But they sure as shit are accountable.

    You can't bang on and on about weak willed libs and dhimmitude and the gathering hordes of islamofascists and expect "Militant Rugged Individualists" (MRI-Man)  not to act on those beliefs at some point.

    "Anti-immigration" stances and the: "clash of civilization" as war on terror were chosen as the modern conservative rallying cry because they are issues NO ONE can actually resolve short of violence and coersion. Not because they can be resolved by peaceful politics.  

    It's like anti-abortion politics, there is no real intention to even ban it. Just the intent to politically profit from moral disgust and emotion demagoguery.

    A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

    by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:31:41 AM PDT

  •  It has been revolting (23+ / 0-)

    to watch how Conservatives have reacted to this atrocity with a mixture of apologetics and victimization. Right-wingers must all have been born without the ability to take responsibility for their behavior.

    If the fall of the house of Murdoch is a tragedy, it is the feel-good tragedy of the century-James Wolcot

    by beltane on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:33:15 AM PDT

    •  Even while they bray that others need to take (11+ / 0-)

      responsibility for their actions...

      The hypocrisy and disconnect in most RW vitriol is so dizzying it positively makes me nauseated

      Which side are you on?

      by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:37:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (8+ / 0-)

      I have never been so disgusted in my life. The normal conservatives (who are a dying breed) are of course horrified and just as appalled as we are, but the wingers are pretty much in two camps- either sympathising with the fucking terrorist, or insisting he is actually a liberal.

      According to them, every terrorist EVER has been a liberal.

      Tim McVeigh was a liberal
      Terry Nichols was a liberal
      Eric Rudolph was a liberal
      Unabomber was a liberal
      Joe Stacks was a liberal
      Jared Loughner was a liberal

      And of course, Hitler was a big ole peace and love hippie dippy liberal.

      They are living in an alternate universe. There is no getting through to these people. They are so steeped in their ideology that anything that contradicts their twisted view of the world MUST be denied at all costs, because to accept it would mean facing the fact that they have wasted their entire adult lives worshiping disgusting, duplicitous liars who do nothing but use them for ratings and book sales.

      Will work for food
      Will die for oil
      Will kill for power and to us the spoils
      The billionaires get to pay less tax
      The working poor get to fall through the cracks
      -James McMurty

      -9.75/-8.26

      by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:05:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is the ideology... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SwedishJewfish, beltane, kyril

        ... That's how he was able to kill 100 people without batting an eye or apology.  This guy is like Eichmann. Banal, efficient ideological. He has no normal emotion like 'hate' or 'love' left in his soul.

        A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

        by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:24:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dehumanize the "other", then exterminate them (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MKSinSA, SwedishJewfish, Salo, JDsg, ask, kyril

          Nazis who exterminated the Jews during the Holocaust were trained to do so through the gratuitously cruel and violent dehumanizing treatment they gave their victims.  This was later revealed as part of the strategy that was needed to get people to exterminate other people like vermin.  I'm not speaking of those who were already sick sadists who needed no encouragement, but many of the rank and file.

          If Jewish victims hadn't been stripped, mocked, tortured, and their torture treated as amusing pastime, and instead they had been treated as human beings with rights and dignity, many of their captors could not have acted so viciously and inhumanly.  Thus the lesson and example of the Holocaust is a terrible and precious gift given to us by those martyred by the Nazis, a gift that we ignore and disrespect at our own peril.

          Moral:  any dehumanizing treatment or language by one group toward another group is a red flag that should be immediately addressed before it escalates.

          Which side are you on?

          by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:50:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Just because a maniac... (0+ / 0-)

    uses someones words as inspiration does not mean that they are guilty.  You have no right to not be offended but to start drawing lines between dots does not show causation.

    At the end of the day a large light is starting to be shown on a growing problem that many Europeans feel is real.  This guy is a total lunatic but to discount this issue as one that only racist and crazies care about is misguided and really just inaccurate.  

    •  When the events start to pile up, and when the (13+ / 0-)

      perpetrators start to all sound the same, you're allowed to "start drawing lines between dots."

      What's the alternative, keep letting this happen?

      Or attack the rhetoric and lies that these kinds of people latch on to and convinces them to act out these heinous crimes? And if you think they're not connected, you're not paying attention.

      Rightwing nutjob tries to kill people.

      Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

      by Methinks They Lie on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:49:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  on that same note... (0+ / 0-)

        would you want muslims directly linked to 9-11, spain bombings, london bombings, even though it was a common thread between all of those atrocities would you?  

        or would you want me, an avid environmentalist, linked to bombings by earth first or other rogue environmentalists?

        There is a growing problem in the opinion of many people in the EU.. much more so than the current climate in the states.  Look for extremely tough immigrant laws from those countries right around the corner.  This activity has been going on since the early 90s and is just now coming to a head.

        •  I see what you're saying and agree with most of it (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          S F Hippie, MKSinSA, cacamp, Joe Bob, kyril

          however, we cannot let this kind of atrocity pass into history without facing the facts:

          He was a christian fundamentalist.
          He was a rightwinger.
          He viewed the Teabaggers with envy.
          He viewed the republican party as an "American ally".
          He champions violent revolution.

          Last time I checked we have an entire TeeVee Network dedicated to ALL of these traits.

          would you want muslims directly linked to 9-11, spain bombings, london bombings, even though it was a common thread between all of those atrocities would you?

          No, I wouldn't. That's what this guy did.

          or would you want me, an avid environmentalist, linked to bombings by earth first or other rogue environmentalists?

          Again, no. But let's refrain from false equivalencies shall we? ELF sets fire to suburban construction sites, these rightwingers KILL 80+ FUCKING CHILDREN!

          Unbelievable. Just sheer, utter nonsense (sorry, it just is).

          Every election either the democrats lose or the republicans lose. But in every election there is always the same winner. And he drives a Mercedes.

          by Methinks They Lie on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:17:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They were! and muslim communities... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SwedishJewfish, MKSinSA, kyril

          ... in those nations were challenged and asked to explain things.  Many leaders walked up to the plate took the questions and then examined what they could do to help fix problems in their own community, debate extremists and tackle ideological problems. They didn't turn round and reflexively blame George Bush.

          A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

          by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:29:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your argument is ridiculous (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dss, SwedishJewfish, MKSinSA, JDsg, kyril

          To link all Muslims to the actions of terrorists is obscene.  

          To blam all Christians for the terror is NOrway would be obscene.

          Totally different from linking Spencer and others, who are daily haranguing against Moslems as jihadists, to the actions of someone who is CLEARLY INFLUENCED by their writings.

          If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

          by jhannon on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:40:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MKSinSA, kyril

          Mainstream environmentalism does not adopt violent rhetoric.
          Mainstream Islam does not adopt violent rhetoric.

          Mainstream conservatism DOES use violent rhetoric.

          There is no parallel here.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:49:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Immigration (9+ / 0-)

      Abortion, Clash of Civilization are issues chosen by the right PRECISELY because they can't be remedied by ordinary political means.  

      Resolving the influx of Mexican immigrants to the US can only be fixed to the satisfaction of a Tancredo or Minute man by building a wall and moat on that border guarded by armed men shooting down anyone who crosses.  There's no solution without violence.

      Likewise ending the influx of immigrants to Europe could only be achieved by similar means.

      Abortion can only be resolved to the satisfaction of anti-abortionists if the women who get it done die on the slab or go to jail for murder along with the doctor. There's no solution without the implicit violence.

      The war on terror  as a "clash of civilization" can only be resolved by bombing the shit out of Arabia, North Africa and the Middle East. It's a permanent war.

      The right has chosen issues that require a violent fix.  or a "fix of violence" depending on how you look at it.

      A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

      by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:52:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

        Although I am a fervent abortion rights supporter, mainly because I believe in science, I recognize that many sane people oppose abortion... albeit I feel they are misguided.

        I also realize that unchecked immigration is a problem.  Environmentalists often point to unchecked population growth as a concern and right wing idiots then paint all environmentalists as wanting to kill of people.  

        To recognize a problem, even if a reasonable/non-violent fix is not apparent, does not mean you support the violent solution.  I believe world population growth is a VERY SERIOUS problem.  However, I do not support killing off millions of people.  The world is not that linear... most of it is gray.  Don't believe that bullshit you just typed or you are just as bad as them....

        •  hmmm (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GCarty

          "Although I am a fervent abortion rights supporter, mainly because I believe in science, I recognize that many sane people oppose abortion... albeit I feel they are misguided."

          I'm not prepared to put women in jail for having an abortion. That's the only concern for me. If it were banned and enforced it would lead to lots of dead women and women rotting in jail. That would be a crime. It's not merely misguided to want to ban it. I'm not fervently in favour of abortion rights, I'm simply not in favour of jailing millions of women.

          "I also realize that unchecked immigration is a problem.  Environmentalists often point to unchecked population growth as a concern and right wing idiots then paint all environmentalists as wanting to kill of people."  

          There is no such thing as unchecked immigration. It is basic economics. People seek out cheap workers and people seek out work. Environmentalists can go overboard.  The underlying logic of the malthusian position is that: there will be a mass die off of the human population and the sooner the better. (it's a problematic ethical almost inhuman position)  Plenty of 'environmentalists' who latch onto population control are misanthropic.

          "To recognize a problem, even if a reasonable/non-violent fix is not apparent, does not mean you support the violent solution.  I believe world population growth is a VERY SERIOUS problem.  However, I do not support killing off millions of people.  The world is not that linear... most of it is gray.  Don't believe that bullshit you just typed or you are just as bad as them...."

          There isn't an obvious/reasonable humane fix for 'overpopulation'. The famine in Somalia for example. Lots of comments i've read in various forums say: "let nature take its course" "too many people live there" etc...which seems liek a pretty rotten response to me. I suggested that the starving be airlifted to Europe and America, a few days before the Breivik shooting, and a was yelled at by various people that we've taken in enough Somali people already. 'Overpopulation' is a rhetorical nail that always needs a hammer.

          A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

          by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:48:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  right. (0+ / 0-)

            there is not obvious fix for overpopulation that is not inhumane.  I said that.  But I still think it is a problem.  I know anti-abortion people that do not want to jail women.  TO BE CLEAR I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION-- but some say that any woman that gets multiple abortions and not in the case of incest, rape or genetic anomalies, would have to have some implantable device put in to effectively sterilize the woman so long as she had the device in. That does not mean you put anyone in jail nor does it mean that anyone gets killed.  I also know anti-abortion people that support no additional government assistance for any children that are born while on welfare and free IUDs/Implantable devices since the pill is so dependent on daily adherence and its efficacy is based largely on a strict dosing schedule.  

            Again I am not advocating these positions... I think if a woman wants to have 100 abortions she should have that right because I don't believe a fetus is the same as a human life.  HOwever, its dumb to say that because someone is anti-abortion they subscribe to all beliefs and lines of reasonsing that other anti-abortion people state.

            •  They have not actually thought it through... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Hind2

              ... if they want to ban abortion.  And that's being charitable. I doubt many banners have failed to understand the consequences of a ban. I tend to think that many banners understand that 100,000's of women would have to go to jail if it were banned.  

              If they try to persuade a woman not to have one, that's a completely different argument.

              A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

              by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:07:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I actually think... (0+ / 0-)

                it would be virtually impossible to prove spontaneous vs. purposeful abortions if they were made illegal and its pretty easy to find out what will assist in a spontaneous abortion.  So yeah we are on the same page that anti folks are naive and have not thought it through but I think 100,000s of women being jailed is a silly fear that would never be realized.  

                •  If it were seriously enforced. (0+ / 0-)

                  Which it wouldn't be. Of course.

                  rich girls would get whisked off to Spain to get them done and poor women would suffer. There would be 'retreats' for unwed pregnant mothers that would be virtual prisons awaiting adoption etc etc...

                  The consequences of enforcement would be too much to bear.

                  A Catholic, Jew, Muslim and Buddhist walk into Al Aqsa Mosque. Buddhist immediately exclaims: "excuse me I appear to be in the wrong joke."

                  by Salo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:31:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  what will happen (0+ / 0-)

                    is that women simply won't report their miscarriages.

                    "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" -Prof. Farnsworth

                    by terrypinder on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:32:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  ;lkj... (0+ / 0-)

                    Most conceptions end in spontaneous abortions.  If the life begins at conception and the implications for abortions were seriously enforced that would mean serial pregnancy testing for all women of child bearing age, a full investigation into all spontaneous abortions, ect. ect. ect.  It simply would not come to bear.  Also how would estates be split.  Would a conceived fetus have a right to ownership?  Since its illegal to give a kid cigarettes would it then be illegal to smoke while pregnant?  Could I write a fetus off on my taxes as a dependent even if it was spontaneously aborted?  Would welfare increases for additional children begin at conception since that is when life starts?

                    Your fears will never be realized.  Easy methods for inducing early spontaneous abortions would be impossible to distinguish from purposeful abortions.  

        •  you seem to have swallowed the lie whole (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JDsg

          Immigation to Europe isn't a "problem" in the way you and the Norway killer seem to believe. It's only a problem if you believe in racial "purity" and can't accept a multi-cultural society. Then you ask if we liberals want all the atrocities linked to Muslims without saying that you and the islamophobic movement already do link them to a particular religion... Muslims. Then in one sentence you link population growth to "unchecked immigration" as if the two were one problem.

          All in all you seem to have accepted the far right memes as some sort of given truths, they aren't.

          America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

          by cacamp on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:13:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The right and Islamic culture (0+ / 0-)

            Do you think some right wingers who claim that Islamic culture is offensively inferior to Western culture actually believe that it is dangerously superior?

            Superior in the sense that Muslims are less materialistic (and therefore more willing to have large families) and stronger in their beliefs (outright apostasy by Muslims is extremely rare even in Western countries).

      •  Couldn't the problem of Mexican illegals (0+ / 0-)

        be solved by either abolishing US farm subsidies or extending them to Mexico, so that the Mexican people concerned could find ways of making a decent living in Mexico instead of having to sneak into the United States?

    •  "a growing problem many Europeans (6+ / 0-)

      feel is real"

      I'm not sure what to even say about that.

      "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" -Prof. Farnsworth

      by terrypinder on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:03:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You don't think... (0+ / 0-)

        that the most rapidly growing political movements in countries like Norway and Sweden are nationalist right wing movements?  Whether you agree with their politics is not the issue but facts are facts.  Nationalism and anti-immigration is growing rapidly in europe.  

    •  The growing problem (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Methinks They Lie, wiseacre, verdeo, kyril

      is right wing extremist ideology,  whether it is a right wing islamist or a right wing christian nationalist. They are both fighting for space in the same sandbox. One cannot exist without the other. The people who make their living being bomb throwers, rhetorical or literal, whether they are on the Islam side saying all westerners are infedels and their women are whores, or on the western side saying all muslims are degenerates and terrorists who must be destroyed at all costs- are guilty. They know exactly what they are doing.

      And oh, the irony, that those same people and their apologists are the ones pointing the finger at LIBERALS- the only people who are begging for sanity, peace and tolerance, and saying that WE are the fucking problem. We will now have to accept the idea of our kids getting shot in the face with dum dum bullets unless we agree to capitulate to the demands of the intolerant.

      Fuck that. And fuck everyone who believes this, or sympathises with this TERRORIST, or makes excuses for him. WE are not the problem. You are.

      Will work for food
      Will die for oil
      Will kill for power and to us the spoils
      The billionaires get to pay less tax
      The working poor get to fall through the cracks
      -James McMurty

      -9.75/-8.26

      by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:31:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A growing problem ?? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dss, ask, kyril

      so you agree that the problem is what....too many immigrants in European countries? Multiculturalism?  

      The problem is not racism?  Troll elsewhere, please.

      If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

      by jhannon on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:37:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republished to Muslims at Daily Kos (9+ / 0-)

    The hatred preached by bloggers like Spencer and Geller, along with politicians like Cain and Gingrich, is a threat not only to American Muslims, but Muslims throughout the West.

    According to an article I read this morning, Breivik committed these atrocities simply in order to "advertise his manifesto".  He felt...correctly, it appears...that committing mass murder would give him a platform and interest people in what he has to say.  His manifesto largely plagiarized other manifestos, but that won't matter because these nuts don't read that much.

    Two questions:

    1) What can we do to stop the next Breivik before he strikes?

    2) Should the drivel put out by the likes of Spencer, Geller, Cain, and Gingrich be considered hate speech, and charged as such?

    Terror has no religion.

    by downsouth on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:40:27 AM PDT

    •  answer to both your questions, IMO (0+ / 0-)

      1. other then police work, I doubt there is much that can be done. I think the horror many are feeling will chill that (to an extent. We've yet to see another Oklahoma City, for example.)
      2. It'll never happen in the US.

      "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" -Prof. Farnsworth

      by terrypinder on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:59:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not surprised. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    downsouth, Aquarius40

    While the positive aspects of the global interconnectedness due to the internet can be seen in the Arab Spring, the negative aspects can be seen with this RW terrorist in Norway.

    That far more people all over the world now speak english also is a factor.

    And this kind of extremism is exactly what the reacvtionaries are looking for, in order to perpetuate the myth of the "clash of civilizations".

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 08:45:07 AM PDT

  •  American Roots of Breivik Terror (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kinak, LNK

    This is an important report and it's going straight to my Facebook page. Thanks.

  •  Douthat denies his own paper's connection.nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  the anti Muslim people are everywhere (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SwedishJewfish, JDsg

    as they try to make the guy into a Muslim mole or deny their words had an effect upon him but I note that they have not yet admitted the same thing about words uttered by Muslims; in their world, from the mullah's lips to bin Laden's ear proving to those of us who have spent a decade listening to their double standards that they have no intention of reflecting reality but instead project their own paranoia  

  •  NYTimes says Breivik has at least two cells (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kinak

    as I explained briefly in my diary here

    Which side are you on?

    by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:00:58 AM PDT

  •  The media... (6+ / 0-)

    Is trying to blame this on the UNIBOMBER.  The right-wing crazies never get scrutinized in this culture.

    [F]undamentalists pretty much fall under the same banner ie. "we cant control our junk" - LaFeminista

    by RichM on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:08:05 AM PDT

  •  Anti-Islamism has many friends, even here (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, cacamp, dss, No Preference, angry marmot

    In one of the theist/atheist pie fights, one of the anti-religion people decided to tout Islam as a religion that was dangerous to society.  He or she listed a few of the "usual claims."

    I pointed out that not only were these claims sweeping and unfair generalizations, but they could have been taken from the racist web site jihadwatch dot-com (no link from me!).  After a delay, the commenter came back and announced that he or she found that the web site contained a great deal of "important information."

    Diaries about Islam are often greeted with the most appalling bigotry and I have yet to see anyone disciplined for it.

    Being a fan of Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith is considered perfectly fine despite Harris' declaration that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." (Harris has "clarified" this statement, but hasn't managed to wiggle out from under the fact that he condones the murder of people for what they believe — or what you think they believe.)

    In my opinion, this community, as a whole, has no moral authority to decry other promoters of anti-Islam bigotry.  I applaud the individuals who speak out against it, but we — again, as a whole — have a bit of a credibility problem on opposing bigotry against people on the basis of their faith.

    Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

    by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:13:34 AM PDT

    •  So Sam Harris is guilty of murder now? (0+ / 0-)

      Sam has explained those comments, which are always taken out of context, again and again. And yet, it's not ok to take Quran quotes that command believers to kill/enslave infidels out of context.

      I applaud the individuals who speak out against it, but we — again, as a whole — have a bit of a credibility problem on opposing bigotry against people on the basis of their faith.

      I could apply the same statement to criticism of the tea party or the KKK or the John Birch society.

      Should we respect the KKK's beliefs that blacks are subhuman? Should we respect Holocaust deniers beliefs on history, or creationists beliefs on science and evolution?

      If your beliefs are terrible you should expect to be criticized. But for some reason if I call my beliefs religion and fall back on "faith," you can't criticize me.

      If I say that Medicare and SS are evil and should be abolished, along with civil rights, the dept. of education, and the EPA, I'm assuming that I'd get a lot of angry responses here. But apparently if I just made sure to say that my faith teaches me this things, it's all fine and good and you can't say anything back. That shouldn't happen.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:27:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  EPIC FLAIL (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dss, SwedishJewfish, No Preference, weasel

        That didn't take long.

        Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

        by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:32:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, indeed.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Red Pen, cacamp

          I find it tragic that the same feelings that exist on the far right exist here as well. I think that is what helped Bush get some much done in this area as there was truly bipartisan support.

          "I know the meaning of life. It doesn't help me a bit."

          by dss on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:46:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  have you said the same about Christianity? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Red Pen

        There are some very violent things about the three big faiths of the "Book". They want to "smite" people for various deeds and "stone" people for others, some quite minor. Luckily for us they've mainly stopped observing those biblical injunctions but each reserves the right to invoke them upon occasion such as killing abortion doctors.

        So you can take all three and say they're violent but to single out any one of them as violent is discriminatory and wrong. Exceptions for "faith" are strong in the constitution but kindly remember the exceptions work both ways. I can't kill you on behalf of my faith nor can you kill me on behalf of yours. Even though our two faiths may exhort us to do so.

        Using the Koran to denounce a whole people and their faith is wrong just as it is for the Christain bible.

        America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

        by cacamp on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:47:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really, wow indeed? (0+ / 0-)
          I find it tragic that the same feelings that exist on the far right exist here as well. I think that is what helped Bush get some much done in this area as there was truly bipartisan support.

          So I'm a republican asshole for being extremely upset and worried about the millions of muslim women being subjected to unimaginable horrors, misogyny, murder, torture, genital mutilation, forced veiling and other things too unspeakable to name.

          I didn't realize support for misogyny and the subjugation of women was now a mainstream progressive principle.

          But you are compassionate because of your white guilt which makes all of that violence and subjugation of women quaint and "cultural" because non-white non-American people are doing it.

          Here's a news flash - I care about what actually happens to muslims, especially muslim women. Muslims, especially women, suffer the most under political and/or radical Islam.

          Here is one example, in Malaysia, a "moderate" Islamic country that has a lot of freedoms. I know, because I've been there.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

          Even in Malaysia, this woman is being prevented from changing her religion even though the constitution supposedly guarantees freedom of worship.

          I guess the difference between you and me is I criticize Islam because I care about people like Kamariah Ali and countless other women living in muslim countries and muslim enclaves in non-muslim countries.

          You apparently care more about perceptions on DKos that people won't think you're somehow prejudiced, and if women have to suffer in the Muslim world so be it right?

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 11:55:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, and on this being the fault of atheists (0+ / 0-)

            We have just witnessed a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST murdering dozens of innocent children to start a holy war to stop the influx of MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS into Norway.

            And somehow Sam Harris and atheists in general are at fault here?

            If you want to see prejudice and bigotry against a religious (or non-religious) group, look no further than those comments.

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 11:58:35 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Obviously (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JDsg

            You don't care if people think you're prejudiced.

            Those acts of misogyny, by the way, are artifacts of the cultures in which they are practiced, not artifacts of Islam despite and conflation anyone wants to make.

            Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

            by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 04:55:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And those acts of misogyny are codified (0+ / 0-)

              and reinforced by religion, just as they were in Judaism and Christianity.

              Are you seriously telling me that in the case of the Malaysian woman who is NOT PERMITTED TO LEAVE HER RELIGION by an Islamic court, that Islam has nothing to do with it?

              That's what I worry about. If standing up for the rights of muslim women is racist or bigoted, I suppose I'm racist and bigoted then.

              Those acts of misogyny, by the way, are artifacts of the cultures in which they are practiced, not artifacts of Islam despite and conflation anyone wants to make.

              Easy example: A woman is raped in Saudi Arabia and the result is that she is sentenced to 100 lashes under their interpretation of Sharia.

              That should be a really, really easy example - is THAT interpretation of Islam a good thing for Muslim women? If you can't say that specific sentence and/or practice is bad, then I don't know what to say.

              When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

              by PhillyJeff on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 11:47:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I have (0+ / 0-)
          Using the Koran to denounce a whole people and their faith is wrong just as it is for the Christain bible.

          I'm not denouncing people. I'm denouncing ideas. I'm sure that most tea-partiers are not horrible people, and I certainly don't hate them. But their ideology is flawed, and has many dangerous consequences.

          Almost all muslims are good people, just as almost all people are good people. But the Koran, (and the bible, both new and old testaments) are horrible guides to morality and Muslim (or Christian or Jewish) practices and beliefs which are harmful should be open to criticism.

          Most muslims I'm sure don't believe in forced veiling or honor killing. Some certainly do. Must we now support, or not condemn the murder of innocent women (sometimes for the crime of being raped)? Do we need to find comparable Christian or Jewish practices, or can we simply say "the ideology that believes that honor killing is correct is bad ideology?"

          Again, most muslims don't agree with Honor Killing, but I'm not criticizing people, I'm criticizing ideas.

          have you said the same about Christianity?

          I was raised Jewish and it's pretty annoying and condescending that I'm some kind of racist crackpot after I nearly got disowned by my own family for going to Passover Seder and explaining how the Passover story should teach Jews of all people to treat the Palestinians with respect and love instead of fear and violence. But apparently I hate brown people right?

          Christianity is pretty bad as well with its pathological fixation on sex, immoral ideas of vicarious redemption and original sin, concept of hell which has terrified children (and adults) for centuries, and its generally militaristic nature over the years that has caused countless problems.

          It just so happens that Christianity and Judaism have for the most part moderated themselves in the sort of way that Islam has not. We have to see if Islam can do it as well, but pretending that Islam as practiced in many countries today is not problematic at all is ignoring reality. It's also condemning millions of people, especially women, to terrible circumstances.

          So you can take all three and say they're violent but to single out any one of them as violent is discriminatory and wrong.

          So I'm not allowed to say that stoning women to death for the crime of being raped isn't ok? Do you support such a sentence? Why do I need to find a comparable Christian practice.

          How about this to sum up. Am I allowed to criticize Christians who murder abortion providers without attacking Muslims as well?

          By this logic, this diary is discriminatory and wrong because it singles out a Christian fundamentalist crime without also attacking Jews and Muslims.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 12:10:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you're wrong, but still "allowed" to say stuff (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JDsg

            First you've tried to answer other comments by replying to me but I can only answer for what I say, you'll do better if you reply to the correct comment. Next no one so far has tried to disallow you from saying your stuff even though you mention being "allowed" several times. Folks just disagree with your blanket condemnations not with your right to be wrong in public.

            I think you're too hung up on peoples faith as a reason for their crimes. You use the word "Muslims" in your condemnations but then say most Muslims are good people. But you make no differenciation between the "good" Muslims majority's faith and the bad ones, you just condemn them all. So you are not criticizing ideas you're doing it to a whole faith even though you admit most or "almost all" don't do the things you criticize. You think you're making a point and perhaps somewhere you do but mainly you're missing the main point which is a few people doing wrong don't make the entire faith at blame. To be even handed in your condemnation you would have to praise the "faith" also because the majority are doing good.

            And no, Christianity and Judaism haven't "moderated themselves" when circumstances are reversed as the killers writings show or the abortions doctors murders show or the occupation of Palistine often shows when radicals seek revenge. All three revert to justifying their crimes by ascribing it to their "faiths", that's the nature of the people of the Book.

            America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

            by cacamp on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 05:14:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I haven't condemned a single person (0+ / 0-)
              . But you make no differenciation between the "good" Muslims majority's faith and the bad ones, you just condemn them all.

              I'm condemning ideas, not people. The doctrines of martyrdom and jihad are not particularly conducive to civil society. The misogyny that is built into the court systems and governments of many muslim countries is not conducive to equitable societies where women have the same rights as men.

              I haven't condemned a single person. The Christian doctrines of hell, original sin etc are also horrible ideas that have done untold damage in the past. I'm not sure why it's ok to criticize the Catholic doctrine that contraception is immoral, but it's not ok to criticize martyrdom and jihad, for instance.

              And no, Christianity and Judaism haven't "moderated themselves" when circumstances are reversed as the killers writings show or the abortions doctors murders show or the occupation of Palistine often shows when radicals seek revenge.

              Which I just criticized above if you even read my comment. But by and large Christianity and Judaism have moderated themselves over time. Christians for the most part are not killing witches, launching pograms against Jews or forcibly converting indigenous populations.

              But you make no differenciation between the "good" Muslims majority's faith and the bad ones, you just condemn them all.

              I specifically said that I'm not condemning a people, and most people of all races, religions, creeds etc are good people. People are not the problem.

              Most tea-partiers are good people. They're just honestly misguided, and are promoting ideas which are harmful and bad for an open society. By your logic, we should never condemn the policies of the tea-party or the Republican party or the John Birch society.

              Just 1 final question for you: Am I allowed to criticize this right wing Christian terrorist, and his right wing Christianist ideology, without attacking Muslims as well? I'm assuming that's ok.

              So why am I not allowed to say that institutionalized misogyny in many interpretations of Islam is a bad thing?

              When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

              by PhillyJeff on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 11:59:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yep, you're "allowed" and thanks for asking (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JDsg

                it's the rest of the bs that's objectionable to me. You're not condemning ideas you're condeming people. Why don't you praise the faith of "almost all" Muslims who you say follow their faith and don't do bad things? It's because you only want to condemn the bad actors and use their faith as your excuse.

                But whatever, even though you aren't telling the truth I'll "allow" you to continue since you ask so many times for my permission and you do it so nicely. Go right ahead :)

                America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

                by cacamp on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 05:54:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Robert Spencer (5+ / 0-)

    I emailed Robert Spencer 3 years ago denouncing his website. He then (without my permission) published my email on Jihad Watch.com and proceeded to attack me. Him and his racist clan (as is it Klan?) said some just unbelievable things. I still have my email correspondence with him.

    Robert Spencer is a through and through modern day fascist.

    •  I would forward those emails to law enforcement (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wiseacre, JDsg, Joe Bob

      ASAP.

      I was stalked by an anti-choice woman on another website and she somehow got a hold of my address and posted it online saying send a letter to the baby killer. She also called in a bomb threat at my workplace. Do not take chances with these people, they are crazy.

      Will work for food
      Will die for oil
      Will kill for power and to us the spoils
      The billionaires get to pay less tax
      The working poor get to fall through the cracks
      -James McMurty

      -9.75/-8.26

      by SwedishJewfish on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:55:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  pammycakes says, "don't blame me for being so (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Red Pen, Joe Bob

    irresistibly delicious."

    Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

    by rasbobbo on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:20:54 AM PDT

  •  Right wing terrorism means (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, SwedishJewfish

    that people need to think about rightwing and nativist movements the same way they think about extreme Islamicist movements. Not everybody involved in those movements is a terrorist, but the movements breed terrorism against civilians. I'm sure that's not news to the FBI.

    They have the right to discuss their nationalist racial desires or their desire to impose fundamentalist Islam, as the case may be. And we have to spend a ton of money trying to prevent violence in our countries.

    Pareto Principle: 20% of the people do 80% of the work.

    by jeff in nyc on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:24:30 AM PDT

  •  as a Jew (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karenc13, SwedishJewfish, The Red Pen

    As a Jew, I find racism against any religious group totally obscene.  One would hope (expect) any decent clergy to remind people of the holocaust, and to defend Islam.  Sadly, the instigators are often clergy--mysteriously.  Oh, yeah, history has a habit of being repeated.

    And to my fellow tribesman, if you hate--or fear--all muslims--you belong in hell.  Not being the target doesn't mean it should happen again.  It does mean that you have a special obligation to prevent anti-Islamic insanity.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:24:43 AM PDT

  •  Freepers are saying he was a Leftist (3+ / 0-)

    They are saying he was a Nazi, in that he was a Nationalist Socialist, who shot up a camp of International Socialists - essentially, a fight between members of the Left.

    There is also the frequently voiced opinion that this was actually a plot by the Muslim Brotherhood - or perhaps the Labor party itself.

    You see, it's almost impossible for such an attack to come from the Right - because the Right just doesn't do things like this. Only the Left does. This is according to Freepers.

    They say "cut back" - we say "fight back"!

    by Louise on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:33:21 AM PDT

    •  Love how they conflate "National Socialism" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JDsg, Joe Bob

      with Socialism.

      I guess they assume East Germany was a "Democratic Republic" as well.

      •  Here's a debate with a Freeper about definitions (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dartagnan, The Red Pen, Joe Bob

        They define "socialism" as any form of government that attempts to unite people to a common purpose, as opposed to balancing them in competition.

        Q: For the second half of the 20th Century, both Nazism and Fascism were viewed as ideologies of the Right. Nowadays the argument is made that Nazism, on the basis of its name and its mass nature, was an ideology from the Left.

        A: Correct, Nazism was purported to be from the right. It never was. Hitler worked closely with the communists early in his "career" and intended to take Germany using communist tactics. However, Hitler was in business for himself, and never intended to do the work and then hand over control to Moscow and the international communist party, standard procedure for communist expansion at the time.

        Instead, Hitler broke with the commies when he had enough power and went National Socialist, which was effectively National Communist with an important exception: Hitler kept the industrialists on efficiently running Germany's industry, he didn't kill them like Lenin and Stalin did. Result: Hitler controlled all private industry without crashing it like Russia did.

        Later Hitler took great pleasure in killing as many Russian lefties as he could, so lefties do kill other lefties, and always have.

        Finally some thinkers noticed that communism and Nazism have only minor differences in how they confiscate and use private property, (the key to class warfare and socialism), discovering that communism and Nazism are both leftist ideologies.

        Q: How do you classify Fascism? Is any mass movement now considered to be from the Left, because its is based on power from a united people?

        A: Fascism is also very closely related, again private property is confiscated because the needy masses have a "right" to it. We currently practice Fascism in the United States, certainly with General Motors, but also everyplace else we call "crony capitalism".

        The other symptom is government-corporate partnership where the government destroys the corporation's competition.

        It's not power from a united people, it's power from united looters, nothing more, and always from the left.
        Can tyrannies come from the right?  Certainly, history proves it, but SOCIALIST tyrannies can only come from the left.

        They say "cut back" - we say "fight back"!

        by Louise on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:48:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  People Who Say "Hitler Was A Leftist" = Nazis (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JDsg, Joe Bob

      That is their camouflage - they want to say everything Hitler said without anyone calling them on it.

      It's all so clear to me now. I'm the keeper of the cheese. And you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.

      by bernardpliers on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:47:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thoughts have wings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg

    is one of the foundational concepts taught in spiritual schools.  It is the reason compassion, love, harmlessness, kindness were taught by the one called the Prince of Peace.  All is one, and everyone is at some level effected by the plight and thoughts of others.  

    "After the environment, the understanding of energy is the top priority in the world now. For the first time in the history of the human race, people will become aware of energy in their lives.
    Although no one knows where this energy comes from, or where it goes after death, all experience it during their lives. In extreme cases, it is energy which goads a murderer to pick up a knife and kill another. Yet the murderer, unaware of that energy, wonders what forced him to act. In another extreme example, a yogi experiences a sudden surge of creative energy which pushes him into the unknown regions of life where psychic powers are available to him. But the yogi is not affected because his training helps him to remain detached. He is not possessed by the energy. Without this energy nothing can happen, and without it none of us can fulfil our destinies."
    World Teacher through an associate as reported by Share International

  •  it can happen here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, Joe Bob

    The Tides guy in SF is the obvious example. I've personally had some disturbing conversations regarding the ground zero community center (we'll hear about that again right after the conventions next year). Not disturbing in a "call the cops" kind of way, disturbing in a "Islam as a monolithic force bent on tribally swamping the US" myopia amongst people who should know better. In both cases, given the circles I run it, my (in this case disturbing) friends would be quick to take down someone like the Tides idiot and are politically between liberal and conspiracy theory left but the tribal protect-our-white-heritage intensity and single mindedness of the argument was strange. I pointed out that Islam isn't monolithic - readers of this site are probably aware of that - and that the Muslims I knew were happy to be in a country that prized tolerance and had open liquor stores - though in fairness some of them prescribe to some conspiracy craziness about the "Jews" (as usual).

    The lack-of-point to this rambling comment is: to all you activists who show your face at Netroots and in demos etc watch your back. Obama's second term is going to be a huge tribal hit for the white race types and they are trained to demonize the "liberals" and "Pelosi's shock troops" (picture, if you will, Code Pink in camo ...).

    (for a little added meta flame bait: there's a chance Obama's reelection will be a sigh of relief but a bitter term long disappointment to us liberals)

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:41:04 AM PDT

  •  why is the term Christian Extermist no used? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, terrypinder

    at least call him what he is.

    •  Because "Extermist" isn't a word (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wiseacre, Mariken

      ;-)

      Or, because his ideology isn't really representative of Christianity any more than it's representative of people in Norway.

      Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

      by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:06:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Although he called himself Christian (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Red Pen, Mariken, GCarty

        his manifesto had few references to Christianity - and what references were there mostly had to do with the Crusades.  

        In other words, Breivik was more about getting rid of Islam in the West, and not so much about about loving God and neighbor, not judging, turning the other cheek, and treating the least as you would treat Christ.

        Too bad the lesson of the Good Samaritan didn't make an impression on him.

        Which side are you on?

        by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:26:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me be a little clearer (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mariken, The Red Pen

          His focus on the Crusades of the Middle Ages, which were without question a Christian religious and political movement, seemed pragmatic, and he did not get into a lot of theological or biblical arguments about why a new Crusade was needed.  To him, the Crusades of old were undertaken to kick the Muslims out of Europe.  He did not dwell on any religious arguments for doing so, but rather cultural ones.

          He also took positions advocating a reuniting of Protestants and Catholics that most whom we call "Christian extremists" today would call anathema.

          Which side are you on?

          by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:40:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is kinda the problem with bending over (0+ / 0-)

            backwards to protect religion. I'm really not trying to controversial here, but it's just reality. He's telling you what he believes.

            Although he called himself Christian his manifesto had few references to Christianity - and what references were there mostly had to do with the Crusades.  

            This guy was motivated by a lot of things, some of which was Christian extremism. We're so loath to criticize faith, any faith, that we automatically ignore the faith-based motivations of people like this and try to ascribe another motive.

            He's telling you what he believes. Maybe it's a bizarre or non-traditional Christian ideology, but we need to listen to it carefully so we can see the signs of the next nut that believes this and tries to do the same thing. Maybe more mainstream Christians can reach these guys in the language of Christianity and get through to them. I really don't know. But ignoring it can't help things.

            He doesn't speak for all Christians any more than OBL spoke for all Muslims. But if we pretend he has no Christian motivation how do we speak out against and prevent the next abortion provider murder, or the next Christian Militia bombing?

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:12:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed - "Neo-Crusader" is better (0+ / 0-)
      •  this manifesto has the Knights Templar symbol (0+ / 0-)

        and most Muslims do not believe that extremist muslims are real Muslims, but it does not stop the term from being used.

        •  How about "Norwegian Extremist" then? (0+ / 0-)

          He's Norwegian.  While most Norwegians wouldn't consider what he did a part of Norwegian identity, the killer did.  He thought he was doing Norway a big favor.

          The modifier on "extremist," unloads a lot of baggage.  It should be used wisely.

          Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

          by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 11:25:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  is there a problem with the term Muslim extremist? (0+ / 0-)

            because in this case this nut bag is lumping all Christians in with his extremism, but people don't have any problem with using the term Muslim Extremist.

            •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

              1. The proper term is "Islamic Extremist."  I prefer the even-more-specific Islamist extremist.

              2. This term is only appropriate if the extremism is centered on Islam.

              Anders Behring Breivik identified as a Christian, but also made caveats about defending "Christian culture," rather than advancing Christian interests.  There are plenty of Christians that Breivik would happily shoot: Syrian Christians, Ethiopian Christians, Indian Christians and so forth.  He wasn't making a statement about Christians everywhere, just the Norwegian once.

              "Political extremist," "racial extremist," or "nationalist extremist," fit way better than "Christian extremist."

              Are there Christian extremists?  Sure, Scott Roeder could be called a Christian extremist, or Christianist extremist, if you would.

              Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

              by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 12:44:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  islam is still religon (0+ / 0-)

                I have no problem with the smearing a whole religion like Christianity as long as people feel ok to do it selectively for other religions.  Christian Extremists works the best for breivik.

                •  Yeah, that's sensible (0+ / 0-)

                  Not.

                  I have no problem with the smearing a whole religion like Christianity as long as people feel ok to do it selectively for other religions.
                  Are there any other ways in which you feel it's OK to be a jerk because other people are jerks or just that?

                  I'm curious.

                  Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                  by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 01:46:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  it is not being a jerk (0+ / 0-)

                    it is being fair.

                    •  You're not going to add "and balanced"? (0+ / 0-)

                      Seems appropriate.

                      Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                      by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 04:21:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  your sensitive to Christian Extremist (0+ / 0-)

                        but not Muslim Extremist.  You are not even going to pause to think about that one?

                        •  No (0+ / 0-)

                          I have no problem with Christian extremists being called Christian extremists, as I explained several responses ago.

                          "Christian extremist" is not really an accurate description of this guy.

                          I've had enough of your obvious agenda.  I'm not going to continue repeating myself.

                          Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                          by The Red Pen on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 04:30:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  knights templar symbol on his manifesto (0+ / 0-)

                            says otherwise.

                          •  * (0+ / 0-)

                            Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

                            by The Red Pen on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 09:10:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ignoring the Christian element to this doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                            help here.

                            "Christian extremist" is not really an accurate description of this guy.

                            He's an extremist who considers himself Christian and is motivated in at least some part by his Christianity. If that's uncomfortable to you I'm sorry, but it's reality.

                            I was raised Jewish, and of course I didn't want to believe it when Jewish extremists killed Rabin, or when Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians in prayer. But you know what, I have to admit that those people were motivated by extreme Judaism. Once we admit that, we can examine their beliefs and speak out against the really terrible beliefs they held. Hopefully this can lead to dialogue and prevent further attacks in the future.

                            As with most religions, very, very few Muslims or Christians resort to terrorism. But SOME DO. We need to honestly examine what elements of their interpretation of their religions may have contributed to their actions if we hope to learn anything from these horrible events and see what can be done to prevent them in the future.

                            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

                            by PhillyJeff on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:22:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Spencer is now using Helter-Skelter analogy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JDsg, capelza

    Manson stole and distorted Helter Skelter from the Beatles.

    How freakin' bankrupt.  I don't recall anything in Helter Skelter about the toxic influence of movie stars and heiresses.  Or why we need to defend ourselves against them.  Of course, my memory may be failing me.

    I'd say Spencer is not just a racist; he's also a coward who can't deal honestly with a crisis and can't even take a moment to think honestly about how racist rhetoric so often leads to violence.

    If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

    by jhannon on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:45:43 AM PDT

  •  Short Summary Of His Manifesto (6+ / 0-)

    Long version here

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Basically Ander's manifesto read exactly like Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" except he calls liberals "cultural Marxists." Nearly every wingnut cliche is in his manifesto.  

    He says "political correctness" has doomed western civilization, but he also says Christian should take up arms against anyone that insults their religion. So he advocates his own ruthless violent version of PC that involves killing anyone who disagrees, and that also sounds like like a radical Islamist. Criticize his movement, then his people have the right to exterminate you. How's that for "political correctness," Christian terrorist style.

    He's also drinking from the same well as TheBlaze and WorldNetDaily, focused on the global oppression of Christianity, and how we need to get out there and stomp those other countries flat.  

    He says he's not a Nazi, just a white separatist who want to kill half the Christians in the EU (the liberals), 75% of European Jews, and 50% of the Israeli Jews. He says he's not a racist because he wants to kill ALL liberals, not just brown ones.  Although he a Zionist who praises Isreal constantly, he still wants to kill most Jews and half of Isreal. This is on page 1163 of his manifesto.

    "..................So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists. Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, (Hitler) just targeted them all… So, are the current Jews in Europe and US disloyal? The multiculturalist (nation-wrecking) Jews ARE while the conservative Jews ARE NOT. Aprox. 75% of European/US Jews support multiculturalism while aprox. 50% of Israeli Jews does the same. This shows very clearly that we must embrace the remaining loyal Jews as brothers rather than repeating the mistake of the NSDAP........"

    Mister not-a-racist wants to reruit fighters for his racial civil war by advocating something nicer sounding - germanic/Nordic homelands where Europeans can resist Muslim colonization. It is because liberals would scoff at this idea that he says liberals are the real genocidal Nazi for failing to resist white demographic extinction. His solution is pre-emptive civil war against white liberals.

    Got that? The anti-Nazis are the people preaching Nordic enclaves, genocide, and pre-emptive war. The "real Nazis" are the people who are OK with peaceful coexistence. Sounds like Glenn Beck to me!

    It's all so clear to me now. I'm the keeper of the cheese. And you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.

    by bernardpliers on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:46:15 AM PDT

  •  remember what McVeigh did to the militia movement? (5+ / 0-)

    The Militia movement was a growing part of the political landscape just before Mcviegh blew up the federal building in OKC. Immediatly afterwards they faded back into the woodwork not to emerge until the Tea Party picked them up somewhat.

    The same can and should be done to the Muslim hate movement since they are tied in to the Norway murders in much the same way that McVeigh was tied to the militia movement.

    Americans must be informed about the close ties to American Islamophobia and the Norway bomber. They gave him the basis for his manifesto and he based his murderous onslaught on their writings.

    Now is the time for us to push the truth that the racist Islamophobic Movement in America is at least partially to blame for the massacre in Norway. They must be exposed for the danger to democracy and freedom that they pose.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:46:37 AM PDT

  •  this is much more than "anti-muslim" (6+ / 0-)

    Let's keep in mind that this guy was hunting liberals.

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 09:47:30 AM PDT

  •  My theory is ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Red Pen, Salo

    ... he just wanted to impress Malkin and Geller.

  •  Just Once... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mariken

    I would like to get him alone in a small room and bitch slap that smug smile off his face, even if there was no skin left on his face before the smug smile was gone.
    This arrogant bastard joins the ranks of the infamous that are as old as Genghis Khan and as recent as Jim Jones, David Koresh and Timothy McVeigh.

  •  Algebra (0+ / 0-)

    They hate all the things Arabs (& Muslims) have contributed to Western culture.  Especially algebra!!  Goes with the general anti-elitism, anti-intellectual, anti-education attitude of the modern day Know-Nothings.

    The river always wins. (Mark Twain)

    by Land of Enchantment on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:11:45 AM PDT

  •  Joan, don't submit to right-wing memes. (5+ / 0-)

    It was a TERRORIST ATTACK, not just a mass killing.

    Anders Breivik is a TERRORIST, not simply a mass killer, as your words meekly imply.  It really pisses me off that it was considered a terrorist attack by almost everyone, left and right, until it was discovered that the TERRORIST who carried out the bombing and shootings was a white, ultra conservative, right-wing nutcase who was a big fan of American right-wing writers.  Suddenly it was no longer a TERRORIST attack.

    Please excuse my rant, but I really don't like if only Muslims and other non-whites are the only ones called TERRORISTS when they carry out the same types of bombings and killings.

    Let's either call all perpetrators of terror attacks TERRORISTS, or none of them.

    Dave

    p.s., I tipped & rec'd your diary in spite of the "flaw" in perceive your title.

    p.p.s. As I write this comment, Thom Hartmann is discussing the issue of not using the word "terrorist" after discovering that the perp was a white fundamentalist Christian.

    The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them - Albert Einstein

    by DaveVH on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:12:00 AM PDT

  •  Did anyone hear Frances Townsend on CNN (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wiseacre, Joe Bob

    being interviewed by Suzanne Malveaux ?
    The story was "Right wing terror, can it happen here?"

    The first words out of her mouth (Paraphrased) ;
    "Well, you have environmentalists burning down entire subdivisions..."

    First of all, is that true?
    Second, I'm flabbergasted at the gall she has to offer up a partisan equation of violence from the left and the right.

  •  Max sentence only 21 years?!? (0+ / 0-)

    I hope I'm reading this wrong but does anyone know if the max sentence this guy can get is really only 21 years?  I've now read that on multiple news outlets.  I hope it's incorrect.  This is really disturbing if true.

    •  That's the max sentence in Norway (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe they'll reconsider that law now, though any change would be moot for Breivik.

      Which side are you on?

      by wiseacre on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:29:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He can be sentenced to 21 years "detention" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wiseacre, ChadmanFL, LNK

      "Detention" is a special sentence in Norway for particular dangerous criminals. The special thing about it is that the sentence can be prolonged as long as the person is still considered dangerous.

      So, if the criminal system still think this guy is dangerous in 21 years, they can go to court and ask for permission to keep him for 5 more years - and so on.

      The guy himself has said in police interview that he expects to spend the rest of his life in prison.

      But it´s to early too tell whether he´ll ever be free again or not.

      •  I hope he never sees the light of day. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChadmanFL

        And I hope Norway changes the law after this to get rid of that maximum sentence. I understand the logic behind it, but I have a feeling it was written with the intent of letting someone who in a drunken rage kills their cheating spouse out after 21 years, not to let a mass murderer out.

        Or hell, change it to 21 years per count of murder. If it was like that, this guy would be in there for life.

        Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.

        by yg17 on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:49:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ya, seems weird the max is 21 total (0+ / 0-)

          Seems odd the max on the books is 21 years total rather than 21 years each life taken.  But I'll bet the reason for this is that it's unprecedented for something this large in scale to happen in Norway.  I'm sure they'll re-visit that law and adjust accordingly for future incidents like this.

      •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mariken

        That makes me feel better.  At least the legal system does have the power to extend the sentence indefinitely, with little chance he ever gets out.

  •  What have muslims done in Norway? (0+ / 0-)

    I guess I could go to Google or Bing or Yahoo Search or...and find an answer to this, but usually, there is a lot better "take" here on Kos to questions of this sort.

    Was there anything that this idiot Breivik said anywhere about what the muslim population was doing or trying to do in Norway that made him crack?  

    I've read some of the more insane stuff against muslim immigration into America from the radical ultra-right wing fringe...and I know from this diary that this probably played a part in some of this nutcases's beliefs...but, seems that something right there in Norway had to happen or was happening or was being attempted by the muslims that set him "over the edge".  

    Anyone know?

    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 10:57:33 AM PDT

    •  They moved to Norway and act like foreigners (0+ / 0-)

      That's it.

      I think I remember Jews getting filling that slot for quite some time.  In fact, the rise of anti-Islamic hatred has also spurred a rise in good ol' European antisemitism.

      Harboring resentment is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die.

      by The Red Pen on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 04:59:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sincere questions I have (0+ / 0-)

    It's one thing to fall prey to anti-Islamism fantasy, but are there any specific instances of bad experiences that this Norwegian ever had with Muslims? Did Geller?

    I have had four extremely unpleasant experiences of the type that make me think that those particular Muslims I encountered cannot possibly cope with our culture (although one told me he puts up with what he objects to in our culture because he believes he can educate and convert us, and thus save our souls).

    But I have had many, many more totally satisfying experiences with Muslims from a wide variety of backgrounds which (I hope)  'inoculates' me against sweeping generalizations.

    Meanwhile, I doubt that they will find the Norwegian to be legally insane but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he leaned in the psychotic direction.

  •  a copy of my comment at the NYT article (0+ / 0-)

    The responses from Joseph Spencer and Pamela Geller are disappointing, but not surprising. Did they directly cause Breivik to become a terrorist? No. That said, if Spencer or Geller ever find themselves disposed to a few moments of introspection they might ask themselves why Breivik found validation for his thoughts and actions in the words they wrote.

    Also, let’s not pretend this is an isolated incident perpetrated by one disturbed individual. The only reason tragedies of similar scale haven’t happened recently in the US is that the perpetrators didn’t adequately plan their attacks or bring enough ammunition with them.

    For example:

    On July 27, 2008 Jim Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church with a shotgun and killed two and wounded seven other people before he was subdued. Adkisson wrote a manifesto of his own where he expressed a desire to kill Democrats, liberals, blacks and gays. Books by Bernard Goldberg, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity were found in his house.

    On July 18, 2010 Byron Williams donned body armor, armed himself with a handgun, shotgun and a .308 rifle with armor piercing bullets and made his way to the progressive Tides Foundation, where he intended to assassinate its leaders. Fortunately, prior to carrying out his plan he was shot and captured after a shootout with police, during which he shot and injured two officers. Williams cited Glenn Beck as his inspiration, saying that Beck “blew my mind.” Beck discussed Tides Foundation dozens of times on his Fox show and accused them of trying to “seize power and destroy capitalism.”

    Despite any protestations to the contrary by the accused, there is no disputing that there is  a strong undercurrent of inflammatory right-wing political hate speech in the US. That it regularly crosses over into physical violence is not an unforeseen tragedy; it is entirely predictable.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 11:20:13 AM PDT

  •  I add, for wider perspective (0+ / 0-)

    We on the Left have had our own violent extremist off-shoots, including those who declared war against the US government:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    We human beings go wrong in similar ways:
     Robert Jay Lifton, MD.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    I also would like to may a plea for Daily Kos members to find and post any intelligent media coverage as this story unfolds.

    •  There is such a thing... (0+ / 0-)

      There is such a thing as being too even-handed. The last gasps of the Weather Underground were over 30 years ago. Since the militia revival of the ‘90s and concurrent anti-abortion terrorism, targeted political violence in the US has been almost exclusively from the right wing of the ideological spectrum.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Mon Jul 25, 2011 at 01:05:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But in the American psyche.... (0+ / 0-)

        because public opinion in shaped largely by the vast right-wing noise machine there is a blank space in the American psyche where there should be a big DANGER sign......threats to us from the kinds of people and groups tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

        For a hundred years in America already, the left has been the focus of government, corporate, media, and popular suspicion.

        And if not the left, then an unfortunate category of 'loners'.............

        Perceptions are everything because they seem to govern what action is taken....how reality is perceived.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site