Rumraket wrote:

They're saying in the news that his rage was a response to Islam - ie, Islam is to blame still. How the fuck can they spin this tragedy like that?!?1?1?!?

This is a remarkably incoherent statement. I don't know where in the world you live or what exactly they said in the broadcast you watched, but from what you wrote it doesn't logically follow that islam is to blame for the tragedy, nor that it was an intended product of "spin".

It could very well be a statement of fact, and seems to be supported by what Globe reports: He was a neo-nazi gunman lunatic with a deep hatred of islam and muslims. You'll have to explain to me how this statement of fact becomes a blame of guilt by implication. People naturally want to know what could motivate a man to go so completely mad.

He didn't attack Islam and Muslims: he attacked the leftist political youth. He may well have despised Islam but that is largely beside the point. If he'd have attacked the liberals in the states he'd probably have been on side with the Islamists politically speaking given Islam's general conservative leanings. Blaming Islam for lunic(terror)ism is such a habit it's like a default mindset. Nutters come from all spheres sure as eggs is eggs - this guy is a real nightmare though I can't envisage a sufficient punishment for his crimes.

Fucking maniac

Juliuseizure wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

They're saying in the news that his rage was a response to Islam - ie, Islam is to blame still. How the fuck can they spin this tragedy like that?!?1?1?!?

This is a remarkably incoherent statement. I don't know where in the world you live or what exactly they said in the broadcast you watched, but from what you wrote it doesn't logically follow that islam is to blame for the tragedy, nor that it was an intended product of "spin".

It could very well be a statement of fact, and seems to be supported by what Globe reports: He was a neo-nazi gunman lunatic with a deep hatred of islam and muslims. You'll have to explain to me how this statement of fact becomes a blame of guilt by implication. People naturally want to know what could motivate a man to go so completely mad.

He didn't attack Islam and Muslims: he attacked the leftist political youth. He may well have despised Islam but that is largely beside the point. If he'd have attacked the liberals in the states he'd probably have been on side with the Islamists politically speaking given Islam's general conservative leanings. Blaming Islam for lunic(terror)ism is such a habit it's like a default mindset. Nutters come from all spheres sure as eggs is eggs - this guy is a real nightmare though I can't envisage a sufficient punishment for his crimes.

So by implication, if the news had stated he was angry at liberals, they'd be spinning it in a way to blame liberals? You're still not making sense.

Rumraket wrote:

Juliuseizure wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
This is a remarkably incoherent statement. I don't know where in the world you live or what exactly they said in the broadcast you watched, but from what you wrote it doesn't logically follow that islam is to blame for the tragedy, nor that it was an intended product of "spin".

It could very well be a statement of fact, and seems to be supported by what Globe reports: He was a neo-nazi gunman lunatic with a deep hatred of islam and muslims. You'll have to explain to me how this statement of fact becomes a blame of guilt by implication. People naturally want to know what could motivate a man to go so completely mad.

He didn't attack Islam and Muslims: he attacked the leftist political youth. He may well have despised Islam but that is largely beside the point. If he'd have attacked the liberals in the states he'd probably have been on side with the Islamists politically speaking given Islam's general conservative leanings. Blaming Islam for lunic(terror)ism is such a habit it's like a default mindset. Nutters come from all spheres sure as eggs is eggs - this guy is a real nightmare though I can't envisage a sufficient punishment for his crimes.

So by implication, if the news had stated he was angry at liberals, they'd be spinning it in a way to blame liberals? You're still not making sense.

If he didn't attack liberals, saying he was angry at liberals is as relevant as saying he enjoyed marmalade on his toast. Given the propensity for atrocities to be attributed to Islam this is a particularly sensitive topic and the media should be extra-wary of using the Islam justification. Do you understand what I'm saying? He didn't bomb a mosque.

According to all the new reports I'm reading this morning no motive has been established for the killings. Which British newpapers are saying it's revenge for Islam?

Animavore wrote:According to all the new reports I'm reading this morning no motive has been established for the killings. Which British newpapers are saying it's revenge for Islam?

I just heard it on the radio they said he hated Islam like that was the important motive.

Juliuseizure wrote:

Animavore wrote:According to all the new reports I'm reading this morning no motive has been established for the killings. Which British newpapers are saying it's revenge for Islam?

I just heard it on the radio they said he hated Islam like that was the important motive.

Well it's possible that he blames the pinko left for immigration laws that allow Muslims into the country but as I said, no motive has been established accoring to everything I'm reading from the American press to the Irish press.

It seems so absurd to talk of a motive - as if there could be any justification for this atrocious insanity.

Well people don't generally do things for no reason at all. Motives only have to be justified in the head of the person who acts on them.

I agree, there is no motive that can justify killing over 80 people. My thoughts are with all the people of Norway.

I'm a little rattled about that number though, what kind of gun can shoot that many people?

He had multiple guns.

Oh OK. I'm actually lost for words about this.

BrandySpears wrote:Suspect:
Anders Behring Breivik

That's Freemason regalia he's wearing in that photo.

The BBC news profile also says he had an interest in it.

How did they take him alive

Agrippina wrote:I agree, there is no motive that can justify killing over 80 people. My thoughts are with all the people of Norway.

I'm a little rattled about that number though, what kind of gun can shoot that many people?

Any gun with enough bullets, an island to herd his targets on and a trained shooter.

Agrippina wrote:I agree, there is no motive that can justify killing over 80 people. My thoughts are with all the people of Norway.

I'm a little rattled about that number though, what kind of gun can shoot that many people?

Reports say he has an 'automatic' weapon, rifle or submachine gun I suppose, a shotgun and a pistol. It does also look from the size of the island that it would have been difficult to escape. Although dressed as a policeman, I would have thought him being so heavily armed and alone would have raised some suspicion even with the bomb blast as a background.
Then again that someone could have been planning to do such a thing seems unimaginable.

So he defiantly believed in a god of some sort then. Cut's off avenues for the right to claim he is an atheist.

What an unspeakable cunt.

Rumraket wrote:

Agrippina wrote:I agree, there is no motive that can justify killing over 80 people. My thoughts are with all the people of Norway.

I'm a little rattled about that number though, what kind of gun can shoot that many people?

Any gun with enough bullets, an island to herd his targets on and a trained stone cold shooter.

FIFY

Juliuseizure wrote:If he didn't attack liberals, saying he was angry at liberals is as relevant as saying he enjoyed marmalade on his toast. Given the propensity for atrocities to be attributed to Islam this is a particularly sensitive topic and the media should be extra-wary of using the Islam justification. Do you understand what I'm saying? He didn't bomb a mosque.

Alright, I get what you are saying. If it was stated that he only despised muslims then that is certainly a mistake. It seems from what can be gathered at this moment, his motivations were to go after what he saw as "enablers" of some supposed "islamification" of Norway and the west in general.

Speculative, but it's possible at least some of the casualties from the island were drownings. Some of these kids probably weren't too good swimmers, and even if they were, the weather this summer hasn't been all that, so the waters were rather cold.

There are some unconfirmed eye witness accounts now that say that there were two or more gunmen on the island; at least, some have said they saw a shooter who didn't wear a police uniform (as the suspect in custody did). Again, this is just 'rumors' as of now.

Many people were actually rescued off the island by civilian locals in boats, while the shooting was ongoing, as I understand it.

I am actually proud at how people are coping with all this here. Even the people who were right in the middle of it are relating calm, lucid accounts. Shock I guess, but still.