LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Norway terrorist attacks (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=208030)

jrrtoken 07-26-2011 05:58 PM

Norway terrorist attacks
 
Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this yet...


Well, there's not much to say, other than organizations with hardline, anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism views, like the EDL, are pretty much crippled. The same goes for the whole anti-Sharia sensationalism in the U.S.

It'd be interesting to see how the legal system in Norway will respond to Breivik's crimes... specifically the maximum sentence of ~21 years.

Alexrd 07-26-2011 06:06 PM

I heard they were going to alter the constitution to increase his sentence.

Astor 07-26-2011 06:39 PM

The guy was clearly off his rocker, but I can't help thinking that while the attacks were obviously intended to do as much damage as he could, his true intention was to give his 1500 page 'manifesto' a wider audience.

And, btw, the EDL have never been taken seriously as far as I can tell.

Totenkopf 07-27-2011 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX (Post 2786365)
Can't believe we haven't had a thread about this yet...

The same goes for the whole anti-Sharia sensationalism in the U.S.

I suspect you may be a bit premature in that. Would probably only take another terrorist attack to "revive" any setbacks, real or perceived. As to Breivik, clearly off his nut.

mur'phon 07-27-2011 02:50 AM

The legal system will probably respond by sentencing him to 21 years, however, this is only technically the maximum sentence. For people with a high risk of reoffending, they can be, after a long review, sentenced to another five years. This can happen technically indefinitely, however, no one has yet been kept that long. He can also be sentenced to 30 years for crimes against humanity (because he targeted a spesific group) however, that can only give him 30 years, so they'll have to give him 21 if they want the opportunity to prolong his sentence). So when he gets out could be anything from 10 years to never.

And we damn well won't change our constitution because of one incident ( as an example, a facebook page intended to gather support for it ended up with 80% voting against introducing the death penalty). Hopefully, we won't change our society at all, and I'll still ocasionally see the PM riding his bike to work.

Astor: Maybe, but I honestly think it was done more to make him a war hero of a war he believes will come. He also explicitly states (in some of the saner sections) that he believes it could change society more towards his liking (like re-introducing the death penalty). All in all, however, I think he had several (in his mind) good/main reasons for doing what he did, yet the one thing that he seems obsessed with, from begining to end is his own superiority.

mimartin 07-27-2011 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mur'phon (Post 2786438)
And we damn well won't change our constitution because of one incident ( as an example, a facebook page intended to gather support for it ended up with 80% voting against introducing the death penalty). Hopefully, we won't change our society at all, and I'll still ocasionally see the PM riding his bike to work.

This is how I wish every society would work. I’m so tired of American politics only getting anything done based on reactionism. When something like this happens in America one side of the isle wants to ban all guns and the other side wants to arm everyone. Neither side thinks out how their reactionism will affect normal law abiding citizens. They don’t seem to care about some Americans that still make ends meet by hunting for their meat or about the over budget education system having to meet the increase cost of liability coverage brought on by arming the teachers and/or the students. The way they react it only seems their ill-conceived, reactionary laws only punish the average citizens and do little or nothing to prevent this type of tragedy.

Not that laws would prevent something like this tragedy from happening, but politicians can’t seem to admit that fact at least publically. So the rest of us end up sacrificing our personal freedoms in the name of a percieved security increase.

mur'phon 07-27-2011 04:22 PM

To their credit, ours has done just that. Admitedly, it's a special case where it's hard to argue how it's even remotely possible to prevent it from happening. A guy who has no criminal record, bought all his ingredients legaly, and had done nothing really suspicious before. Like one of our bureaucrats said: "If we knew enough to suspect Breivik, immagine what we'd know about all of you". That said, if the perpetrator had been a moslem imigrant I doubt the politicians would be unified in this belief.

Totenkopf 07-27-2011 05:28 PM

Regardless of whether he ends up in the facility mentioned below or not, it sounds like the kind of jail some people might commit crimes just to get into.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...173329040.html

mur'phon 07-27-2011 06:06 PM

While the article uses our second "best" prison, most of them are rather less fancy. That said, our prisons might apear luxurious, however keep in mind that eventually most prisoners will be released. Thus doing as much as possible to prevent reoffending makes sence, even if some feel we don't punish them hard enough. Society can do little for the current victims of crime, the possible future victims on the other hand...

Ping 07-28-2011 02:06 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ler-youth.html

I'm not going to lie, I was ready to destroy something when I saw this article. It's a shame there's always going to be people who mock the dead.

Mandalorian Knight 07-28-2011 02:55 PM

Most of what Glenn Beck says is "ignorant, incorrect, and extremely hurtful"

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/

Why he was ever given a national voice is beyond me.

mimartin 07-28-2011 07:34 PM

Beck never lets the truth get in the way of some good fear mongering.

Q 07-28-2011 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786658)
Most of what Glenn Beck says is "ignorant, incorrect, and extremely hurtful"

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/

Why he was ever given a national voice is beyond me.

Because people are dumb enough to listen to him.

Sith Holocron 07-29-2011 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786658)
Why he was ever given a national voice is beyond me.

Someone has to scare the suckers into buying overpriced gold!

Totenkopf 07-29-2011 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sith Holocron (Post 2786698)
Someone has to scare the suckers into buying overpriced gold!

Well, you're not a sucker till you've bought in at the top (gold hasn't apparently gotten there yet) and overpriced as compared to....? Fiat currencies? Worthless govt bonds? Frankly, only problem I really see with all this gold buying by individuals is if a president pulls an FDR and makes it illegal to own/"hoard" gold b/c the govt decides it needs/wants it instead.

Salzella 07-29-2011 01:40 PM

Worth discussing is the fact that most media, particularly ('natch) the tabloids, in the UK at least, basically said everything but 'a muslim did it' in the early reporting, despite the fact that the chap turned out to follow 'OUR' God. Whoooops.

adamqd 07-29-2011 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salzella (Post 2786739)
Worth discussing is the fact that most media, particularly ('natch) the tabloids, in the UK at least, basically said everything but 'a muslim did it' in the early reporting, despite the fact that the chap turned out to follow 'OUR' God. Whoooops.

My Heart goes out to all the families and Victims of this horrendous attack.

Mandalorian Knight 07-29-2011 04:08 PM

The belief that Muslim extremists have a monopoly on terrorism is not only foolish, it also diverts resources and public awareness from other, legitimate threats to security. Are there Muslim terrorists? Yes. Is every terrorist or killer Muslim? No.

purifier 07-29-2011 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786753)
The belief that Muslim extremists have a monopoly on terrorism is not only foolish, it also diverts resources and public awareness from other, legitimate threats to security. Are there Muslim terrorists? Yes. Is every terrorist or killer Muslim? No.



While not every terrorist is a Muslim extremists, Muslim extremist hold the majority of terroristic acts of killing anyone on this planet who wants peace. They don't get the attention just because they make the most threats, they get it because they carry out most of those terroristic threats; more than anyone else.

Sabretooth 07-30-2011 12:09 AM

Purifier's right. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism more or less encompasses the greater whole of terrorist activity, and considering their reach and choice of targets, speculating a Muslim attack in Norway wouldn't be far-fetched at all. The same cannot be said if the attack had taken place in say, South America or Mongolia.

Salzella 07-30-2011 06:26 AM

The fact that when it emerged that the killer was blond and spoke Norwegian and had targeted a Labour youth camp as well as the Oslo bomb and the majority of the 'experts' in the media were still fixated upon the muslim idea does suggest a rather unhealthy preoccupation with nutters in headscarves.

Islamic terrorists targetting Norway does not make sense anyway, certainly not as much as the actual explanation, which people seemed to take an awful long time to accept. The closest comparision for me would be the Oklahoma bombings.

Mandalorian Knight 07-31-2011 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purifier (Post 2786762)
While not every terrorist is a Muslim extremists, Muslim extremist hold the majority of terroristic acts of killing anyone on this planet who wants peace. They don't get the attention just because they make the most threats, they get it because they carry out most of those terroristic threats; more than anyone else.

Source, please?

I agree that there Muslims extremists perpetrate the bulk of the attacks. However, the way that the media jumped to the conclusion that this particular incident had links to AQ does nothing more than further suspicion of Muslims everywhere and hype AQ into boogeymen.

We live in tumultuous times, where an attack by a terrorist or terrorist group is a very real possibility. However, the perpetrators do not fall neatly under religious labels. Similar minded individuals will group together and choose a banner that makes sense to them. Devoting extra resources to "protect" against one religious group leaves us vulnerable to attacks from other angles.

I suppose my point boils down to this: Muslim terrorists should be feared, but not any more or less than any other terrorist. Whether they're IRA or AQ doesn't matter, they're terrorists. What does matter is what they are presented as. If a non-Muslim perpetrates an attack that gets blamed on a Muslim group, resources and public awareness will turn from other, legitimate threats.

purifier 07-31-2011 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786847)
Source, please?

http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publi..._AQAttacks.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786847)
I agree that there Muslims extremists perpetrate the bulk of the attacks. However, the way that the media jumped to the conclusion that this particular incident had links to AQ does nothing more than further suspicion of Muslims everywhere and hype AQ into boogeymen.

Yes, the media definitely made premature assumptions in this case. I'd even go far as to say they suggested that it was a Muslim terrorist act to the world without getting their facts straight, but then again, that's the media isn't it? Nothing new there, huh? Yet, when it was first reported across the globe, before the actual facts came in, I'll bet you 10 to 1 that the possiblity of a Muslim act of terrorism (even without the media's help in this case) crossed everybody's mind beforehand; no matter what that individual's convections were at that moment. Know why? Answer: Because it's a fact that Muslim extremist kill the most people in terrorist activity worldwide, they commit the most horrendous acts of terrorism on other human beings worldwide. That makes the biggest impact in our minds, the actions of Islamic terrorism speak louder no matter what any media organization may try to tell you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786847)
We live in tumultuous times, where an attack by a terrorist or terrorist group is a very real possibility. However, the perpetrators do not fall neatly under religious labels. Similar minded individuals will group together and choose a banner that makes sense to them. Devoting extra resources to "protect" against one religious group leaves us vulnerable to attacks from other angles.

Well that all sounds good, as far as the ideal of giving equal protection from other terrorist groups, except not in the case of Muslim terrorist, they are a different matter all together. The real facts are, that Muslim terrorists hold the majority of killing the most people in terrorist acts. They are the biggest threat in this world right now and nothing can change that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786847)
I suppose my point boils down to this: Muslim terrorists should be feared, but not any more or less than any other terrorist. Whether they're IRA or AQ doesn't matter, they're terrorists. What does matter is what they are presented as. If a non-Muslim perpetrates an attack that gets blamed on a Muslim group, resources and public awareness will turn from other, legitimate threats.

I wish were that were true, as far as Muslim terrorist being no more feared as any other terrorist organizations ( well really...I wish we didn't have to worry about any of them, to tell you the truth), but that's not how the real world is. Truth be told, Muslim terrorists commit the worst acts in terrorist activity. Trying to give Muslim terrorists some kind of equality with other non-muslim terrorists is not going to deter from the facts, not as it stands today. They've done the worst, and will probably continue to do so, so most of our attention will continue to focus on them.

Salzella 07-31-2011 12:19 PM

That source does not help your case. 20%? The majority of which are in places like Afghanistan where AQ is more able to operate? That renders the presumptions made about the Norway attacks more, not less, ludicrous.

Mandalorian Knight 07-31-2011 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purifier (Post 2786854)
http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publi..._AQAttacks.pdf


Yes, the media definitely made premature assumptions in this case. I'd even go far as to say they suggested that it was a Muslim terrorist act to the world without getting their facts straight, but then again, that's the media isn't it? Nothing new there, huh? Yet, when it was first reported across the globe, before the actual facts came in, I'll bet you 10 to 1 that the possiblity of a Muslim act of terrorism (even without the media's help in this case) crossed everybody's mind beforehand; no matter what that individual's convections were at that moment. Know why? Answer: Because it's a fact that Muslim extremist kill the most people in terrorist activity worldwide, they commit the most horrendous acts of terrorism on other human beings worldwide. That makes the biggest impact in our minds, the actions of Islamic terrorism speak louder no matter what any media organization may try to tell you.



Well that all sounds good, as far as the ideal of giving equal protection from other terrorist groups, except not in the case of Muslim terrorist, they are a different matter all together. The real facts are, that Muslim terrorists hold the majority of killing the most people in terrorist acts. They are the biggest threat in this world right now and nothing can change that fact.



I wish were that were true, as far as Muslim terrorist being no more feared as any other terrorist organizations ( well really...I wish we didn't have to worry about any of them, to tell you the truth), but that's not how the real world is. Truth be told, Muslim terrorists commit the worst acts in terrorist activity. Trying to give Muslim terrorists some kind of equality with other non-muslim terrorists is not going to deter from the facts, not as it stands today. They've done the worst, and will probably continue to do so, so most of our attention will continue to focus on them.

To quote the article: "During this time, al Qa'ida was responsible for less than 1% of all terrorist attacks."
It goes on to indicate that AQ caused more casualties than other group, so I understand your point. Any terror attack is dangerous, some more so than others. However, this source covers exclusively attacks by AQ and it's allies, and doesn't go into detail about non-Muslim attacks.

As far as the attention received by Muslim extremists goes, of course they receive more when the media puts their name out first.

There are many reasons for AQ's relative success in implementing attacks. Religious dogma only brings in recruits, it doesn't make them more or less dangerous than any other terrorist. Training, funding, and zealotry are a dangerous combination. However, Islam does not have a monopoly on any of those.

I am enjoying this debate, the source material was particularly enlightening. I look forward to your rebuttal. :D

jrrtoken 07-31-2011 06:01 PM

Well, if we define the hundreds of government officials and civilians that have been systematically murdered by Mexican drug cartels in the past two years as "drug-related violence", then I guess that does that does narrow the playing field to AQ as prime terrorist #1. :giveup:

purifier 08-01-2011 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salzella (Post 2786866)
That source does not help your case. 20%? The majority of which are in places like Afghanistan where AQ is more able to operate? That renders the presumptions made about the Norway attacks more, not less, ludicrous.

Not sure we're on the same page in arguments here, Salzella. The argument that I'm generally making here, specifically with MK, is that Muslim terrorists are the worse of the worse in terrorism acts of killing people; and that they shouldn't be given less attention then what they deserve. Where as, he believes they are not such a large threat to the world and we shouldn't waste most of our attention and resources on them, because there are just as many non-muslim terrorist threats to "protect" ourselves against. That is the reason why I provided that specific source, they are the biggest threat to the world right now.






Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786870)
To quote the article: "During this time, al Qa'ida was responsible for less than 1% of all terrorist attacks." It goes on to indicate that AQ caused more casualties than other group, so I understand your point. Any terror attack is dangerous, some more so than others.

Right. That's mainly the point I'm making here. In general, as well as AQ, Muslim terrorists have caused more deaths of human life across the globe versus non-Muslim terrorist. Yet, your saying Muslim terrorist are no more dangerous than non-Muslim terrorist. Sorry, but I have to disagree, the number of deaths they caused in such a short period of time prove otherwise.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786870)
However, this source covers exclusively attacks by AQ and it's allies, and doesn't go into detail about non-Muslim attacks.

What specific details are you looking for, about non-Muslim attacks? How many people they've killed? Whether they have connections with Muslim extremists? Please clarify.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786870)
As far as the attention received by Muslim extremists goes, of course they receive more when the media puts their name out first.

Well yes, they do receive the most media attention, but when they're advertising threats and claiming responsbility for terroristic attacks across the globe on the local news media, which they know will reach everybody on national news level worldwide, it doesn't help their case very much does it? They will always be suspect number one, their names will be out there first. Of course that's what the Islamic extremists want, they want there names to be continuously mentioned for all the world to see and hear, so that they can get the most attention. The media just plays along for their own benifit.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786870)
There are many reasons for AQ's relative success in implementing attacks. Religious dogma only brings in recruits, it doesn't make them more or less dangerous than any other terrorist. Training, funding, and zealotry are a dangerous combination.

Religious dogma alone doesn't kill anybody with words, religious extremist can preach death to all until the sun expoldes as long as they are not carrying out those acts of terroristic murder upon thousands.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786870)
However, Islam does not have a monopoly on any of those.

Well I've not seen or heard Muslim terrorists have connections with non-muslim terrorists, like the McVeighs and Breiviks of the world or any others for that matter, if that's what your implying here. At least I never seen any evidence of it.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight (Post 2786870)
I am enjoying this debate, the source material was particularly enlightening. I look forward to your rebuttal. :D

Well I'm glad it enlighten you in some way, we are always learning something new. ;)






Quote:

Originally Posted by PastramiX (Post 2786897)
Well, if we define the hundreds of government officials and civilians that have been systematically murdered by Mexican drug cartels in the past two years as "drug-related violence", then I guess that does that does narrow the playing field to AQ as prime terrorist #1. :giveup:

Well if the drug cartels start elimnating U.S. law officers on mass scale, then any Muslim terrorist group won't be "prime terrorist #1" as far as the U.S. is concerned. Of course Mexican officals don't won't the U.S. to label the Cartel as terrorists organizations and intervene in their drug war, as they call it, so I wonder what kind of problems between the U.S. and Mexico it will cause.

Dagobahn Eagle 08-05-2011 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexrd (Post 2786366)
I heard they were going to alter the constitution to increase his sentence.

Nope. As was said earlier, we're not changing laws to punish one individual, and any law/Constitution change would probably come too late to affect Breivik anyway. Either way, punishment was never what the Norwegian justice system was all about.

What it boils down to is that the 21 year limit for offenses has been in placefor an eternity. It's not like our Constitution and laws were written while the attacks were taking place.

If you want laws changed to punish a terrorist attack more severely, then that's something you have to campaign for and implement before the attack occurs, not in the following days and weeks. A Norwegian saying about about shutting the door to the stable after the horses have ran off comes to mind:raise:.

Q 08-05-2011 09:27 PM

21 years for mass murder is absurd.

Sabretooth 08-06-2011 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle (Post 2787401)
A Norwegian saying about about shutting the door to the stable after the horses have ran off comes to mind:raise:.

There may still be other horses in the stable that would run off, my friend.

mur'phon 08-08-2011 08:09 AM

I have no problem with 21 years, assuming the perpetrator is considered safe to release back into society (which in the case of mass murder is unlikely to happen before he/she reaches pension age). A longer sentence won't really discourage anyone, and if they are safe to release back into society, I have no wish to torment the perpetrator. A longer prison sentence is not even shutting the door after the horses have ran off, it's tormenting the fled horses and making it ilegal to put them to good use after the have been tamed.

Dagobahn Eagle 08-08-2011 09:20 AM

Quote:

There may still be other horses in the stable that would run off, my friend.
Sure, and if you want the laws to be made harsher in anticipation of their deeds, go right ahead. I'm talking about the one of Ut°ya infamy.

Either way, as was just said, the Norwegian justice system aren't about punishment or retaliation, but about rehabilitation and the safe-keeping of dangerous individuals (such as murderers, rapists, and, of course, terrorists) so that their victims don't have to live in fear of running into them on the street. We're not like certain other countries that subject people to long sentences in deplorable conditions or kill them outright to make other people feel good, the victims will have to get their therapy elsewhere.

In the case of Breivik, though, it's far from a given that he'll be let out on the streets in 21 years. He's a very special case to say the least, and it's a bit of a "wait and see" situation right now. Far from unlikely that he'll be in for life, though.

Darth Avlectus 08-09-2011 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 2787427)
There may still be other horses in the stable that would run off, my friend.

Hoarsiez?! WHERE?! I like beating dead horses. And poking the bloated ones.

You know something, when people tell you to XYZ, it's usually so that you don't let yer horse out of the barn! :xp:

mur'phon 11-29-2011 07:38 AM

Breivik has been declared mentally unfit for prison and will most likely end up in forced mental care. While the courts can still sentence him to prison, they rarely do, so. Also there is a chance that quality control group will find fault with the diagnosis, but again, it usually doesn't happen. He can be held there technically indefinitely, or just for some years, depends on his mental state.
For those who think he'll get off easy, consider this, he saw himself as basically a savior of the west, a man who took the necessary hard choices, killing some to save the rest. A martyr, soldier and hero in his head, now declared to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
I can hardly think of a worse punishment.

Q 11-30-2011 10:03 AM

I can. :devsmoke:

Totenkopf 12-01-2011 07:41 PM

I concur. There are always worse punishments than disabusing the delusional of their complexes.

mur'phon 12-02-2011 06:28 AM

Fine then: worst punishment that wouldn't cause undue collateral damage to things we hold dear.

Drunkside 12-08-2011 04:38 AM

I dont think there are any worse in his case. Think of it like this: If he was sentenced to death, he would become a martyr for his case, not to mention that its an easy way out, and if he was sentenced to a life in prison he could just turn that around and make up propaganda about the government treating him unfairly. An insane mind has weird ways of seeing things.

Totenkopf 02-07-2012 01:10 AM

Fruitcake update: Anders wants a medal and his freedom...

http://news.yahoo.com/norway-mass-ki...133012973.html

Sabretooth 02-09-2012 01:05 PM

I say there be a three-way battle royale on a Norwegian island: Varg Vikernes and his Pagans vs. Breivik and his Christian Neo-Knights Templar vs. any Islamic Terrorist cells present in Norway. Referees are Swedish death metallers, Iranian clerics and Israeli foreign ministry officials.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.