View previous topic | View next topic

Norway Tragedy

Page 2 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Sadurian Mike
833943.  Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:27 pm Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
wanton adj.
1. Immoral or unchaste; lewd.

Well I'm certainly not ordering them again!

 
Celebaelin
833948.  Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:35 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
The name won ton means swallowing a cloud, and the wonton floating in this popular soup are thought to resemble clouds.

Please be cirrus - this is not a jokey thread weather you know it or not.

 
sjb
834046.  Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:53 pm Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
Behring Breivik...ish wrote:
He describes himself as a Christian and a conservative on Facebook and says that his interests include body-building, freemasonry, golf, masturbating and strangling animals.

Jaw drop.


About the early assumption that Islamic terrorism played a part, I heard that an Islamic group (Helpers of the Global Jihad, I think was/is the name) quickly posted online that this was just the beginning of retribution against Norway, and Denmark, for those cartoons published in 2005. This struck me as odd though as 6 years is quite a time to wait for retribution to begin.

Oh, and I read now that that particular group quickly retracted this statement and made it clear that they had nothing to do with it. So maybe their slightly loose lips caused the early speculation?

That and there's a lotta Islamophobia out there.

 
Celebaelin
834058.  Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:04 pm Reply with quote

To be scrupulously honest the original read
Quote:
He describes himself as a Christian and a conservative on Facebook and says that his interests include body-building and freemasonry.

and the rest of it comes from the Monty Python 'Summarise Proust Competition' sketch.

 
sjb
834061.  Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:14 pm Reply with quote

My jaw has been suitably retrieved. :)

 
Jenny
834176.  Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:31 am Reply with quote

The Guardian wrote:
The Norwegian paper VG reports that Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto, in which he sets out the ideological background for his actions, was largely copied that of Theodore Kaczynski, the so-called Unabomber.

Only small alterations have been made by Breivik, such as replacing "leftism" with "multiculturalism" and "cultural Marxism".


The rest of the article goes into the diary he kept leading up to the event, which was clearly at least a year in the planning.

(Edited to fix the quote)


Last edited by Jenny on Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
tetsabb
834202.  Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:35 pm Reply with quote

I worried myself yesterday by speculating on what Sarah Palin's reaction to these events might be.
"Well it's their own fault for not having their own guns on that island"
I imagine that there probably are plenty of gun-totin' USA persons thinking that; whether they would be crass enough to say so is another matter.

 
sjb
834247.  Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:10 pm Reply with quote

:o

That thought never occurred to me. They're kids! What the . . . ?

 
plach
834250.  Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:39 pm Reply with quote

I feel so sad for the people of Norway. This tragedy is so senseless and so horrifying. Those poor teenagers on that Island. Those that survived must be traumatized forever. And the loss of so many...and the devastation to their friends and families...it is just terrible.

How can one man hate so much? I know the fact that he calls himself a 'Christian' is ridiculous enough. But to feel justified in carrying out such destruction---because people believe differently. This maniacal ego that made him believe that he was so right in his thinking that he could kill children at camp is painful to try and comprehend.

Yes, I know this isn't new. It's the same mindset that creates terror and horror through the ages--whether perpetrated by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Romans, Germans, Chinese, Russians, Japanese, Americans---and so on.

I guess the only thing we can really control is our reaction to it. And I am impressed that the people of Norway seem to be saying 'we will not let this change us or our policies'.

 
Sadurian Mike
834274.  Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:41 am Reply with quote

plach wrote:
And I am impressed that the people of Norway seem to be saying 'we will not let this change us or our policies'.

Good for them.

The probelm with most knee-jerk policy changes is that they fail to take into account that you cannot legislate for the actions of lone nutters.

By their nature, psycho criminals are unlikely to say, "Well I was going to buy a gun to murder a schoolbus-full of children, but I see that guns are now illegal so I'll not bother."

You can certainly reduce casual gun killings by banning guns, but you can't stop single determined nut-jobs.

 
Moosh
834295.  Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:06 am Reply with quote

Charlie Brooker's column in the Guardian today is entitled The news coverage of the Norway mass-killings was fact-free conjecture and is about the fact that before the facts of this attack were known, it was assumed by the media, and pretty much everyone else, that this was the work of Islamic extremists.

Now, it could be argued that when some atrocity like this occurs, of course the idea that it could be an al-Qaida type attack will come up, because of recent history. But the problem is that on the news the idea that it might not be wasn't even considered.

Last night on twitter, a woman called Sanum Ghafoor started the trend #blamethemuslims as a satirical comment on the tendency of the media to always point the finger in the same direction before the facts are known*, and that this tendency is very damaging.

Someone else, can't remember who, made the comment that since the Norwegian murderer was identified, the use of the words terrorism and terrorist by the media have reduced dramatically. Because it's only terrorism when brown people are doing it.

 
Celebaelin
834311.  Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:35 am Reply with quote

That's not entirely fair though is it?

One person exploding a bomb and going on a killing spree is usually a 'mad bomber' or a 'lone gunman' rather than a 'terrorist'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

The fact that Kaczynski and Breivik were both politically motivated is relevant but the independent (as far as is known at this point) nature of their crimes in some legitimate interpretations removes them from the category of 'terrorist' and shunts them into 'lone sociopath'.

It is the implacable nature of terrorist movements that make them so dangerous - the lone gunman, whilst no less despicable, is not a sustained phenomenon and is more readily identifiable as an aberration due to the lack of group or community backing for their enmity.

Assuming Breivik was acting alone that is...

 
Spike
834320.  Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:22 am Reply with quote

He now claims not to have been acting alone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14280210

We won't know the truth of this one for a while...

 
Moosh
834338.  Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:23 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
That's not entirely fair though is it?

One person exploding a bomb and going on a killing spree is usually a 'mad bomber' or a 'lone gunman' rather than a 'terrorist'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

The fact that Kaczynski and Breivik were both politically motivated is relevant but the independent (as far as is known at this point) nature of their crimes in some legitimate interpretations removes them from the category of 'terrorist' and shunts them into 'lone sociopath'.

It is the implacable nature of terrorist movements that make them so dangerous - the lone gunman, whilst no less despicable, is not a sustained phenomenon and is more readily identifiable as an aberration due to the lack of group or community backing for their enmity.

Assuming Breivik was acting alone that is...

I'm not sure that the definition of terrorism hinges on whether it's carried out by an individual or a group, it's more to do with motive. Obviously we can't know for sure what was going through Breivik's head but since it appears his motive was to make a political point rather than just to kill, I'd say that puts him in the "terrorist" category rather than just the "mass murderer" one.

 
sjb
834340.  Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:35 am Reply with quote

Just out of curiosity, are British media outlets more Islamophobic than American ones? (Seems unlikely, but....) On the day of the bomb and shootings, I watched some tv coverage on CNN and MSNBC and the only allusion made to Islamic involvement was the attention paid to the statement made by Helpers of the Global Jihad. They didn't outright take responsibility but they did make it sound like woo-hoo, score one for us! The reporters I saw talking about it didn't jump to the conclusion that they or some other Islamic organization had done it. I try not to watch much tv news, though, so by the next day's newspapers I think the media had latched onto Breivik and started the look what he said/posted on facebook schtick.

Were the British media, in the immediate aftermath, outright saying "Yup, looks like more Islamic terrorism to us" ? Actually, for all I know they might have been saying such things on Fox news, but I have that channel blocked on my television. Hmm....

 

Page 2 of 9
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group