Bomb and shooting in Norway

[Volourn]

People are really defending this piece of crap? REALLY? Wow.

[Nepenthe]

People are really defending this piece of crap? REALLY? Wow.

The way I read it, it started out that way, and in the final page or so I suddenly became either Norwegian or the inhabitant of some other NATO country. Neither of which I am.

[Drowsy Emperor]

1. No one is being defended. Chalk it up to Volourn teenage mind to draw the stupidest arguments from any conversation.

 

2. I was speaking in general terms. You consistently question and mock everything I say even when supported by evidence that you don't care to skim through. Unwilling to actually converse every comment you make boils down to sarcasm. Especially on the topic of the Balkan wars where you might as well be a CNN spokesperson.

 

I couldn't care less whether you or not agree, but your attitude is different from people like Walsingham who engage in conversation instead of bull****ting their way through it.

[Malcador]

People are really defending this piece of crap? REALLY? Wow.

 

Not really, no.

[Drowsy Emperor]

All that being done is equating him to state sponsored terrorism and noting the mass media hypocrisy involved.

 

If state sponsored terrorism is okay then Brevik is okay, and vice-versa.

 

I've been raging against state sponsored terrorism for ages on these boards so its clear where I stand.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Malcador]

http://www.thestar.com/article/1031246--si...dards-on-terror

 

Potentially interesting. Then again, this "editor emeritus" is pretty crap at times and only writes about issues pertaining to Islam it seems to me, heh. Ah the local paper.

[Nepenthe]

My flippant attitude is a result of my unwillingness to believe that any problems of the world will be solved on any internet message board in general, or the obsidian board in particular. My opposition to your viewpoints is due to my opinion that your viewpoint is at least as coloured by nationalist Serb propaganda, as that of the opposing camp would be by "CNN". Hence my earlier referral to what I've said before, the more you look at things FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES, the more muddled they become. There is no universal truth, apart from 42.

[Drowsy Emperor]

http://www.thestar.com/article/1031246--si...dards-on-terror

 

Potentially interesting. Then again, this "editor emeritus" is pretty crap at times and only writes about issues pertaining to Islam it seems to me, heh. Ah the local paper.

 

Its curious how every anti Islamic attitude is automatically dismissed as fear mongering and hate fueling without being addressed at all. You never actually get to hear what these attitudes are in detail, and when you do its some butchered skinhead version a child could sneer at.

 

The supposedly serious (I say supposedly because I haven't read it yet) right wing studies of Islam like Serge Trifkovic's "Sword of the Prophet: Islam; History, Theology, Impact on the World " are never brought up while the most retarded of the right wing camp are routinely given enough media time to make fools of themselves.

[Rosbjerg]

Its curious how every anti Islamic attitude is automatically dismissed as fear mongering and hate fueling without being addressed at all.

 

Is it curious? To some who sympathises perhaps, but to everyone else it's very obvious that anti-Islamic/anti-Christian/anti-Judaic attitudes more often than not stem from ignorance, fearmongering and hate fueling. And is therefore quite understandably dismissed as such.

 

You see, if you stand outside of the whole religion thing - you see how, 'in their heart' all religions are beautiful and inspiring, but so often the loudest and most stupid are allowed air time.. It's the same with all of the desert religions.

 

And I understand why you fear them, I do - because they challenge your feeling of being right.. That just doesn't make it right though. Understand that embracing difference is not the same as being assimilated by it.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Islam in particular has a bad track record with extremism. As Emperor points out it seems odd not to address it. The left seems to have been salivating for this moment as if it somehow 'fixes' the imbalance with extremism without really doing any work.

[Hurlshort]

Rosbjerg said it better than I can. I have a bunch of Muslim co-workers and they haven't tried to destroy my culture or put me to the sword yet.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Rosbjerg said it better than I can. I have a bunch of Muslim co-workers and they haven't tried to destroy my culture or put me to the sword yet.

If you want to ignore the DAILY news about recent killings, beheadings, suicide attacks etc. in the name of Islam go ahead. I also don't recall saying every Muslim was a terrorist so thats a cool story about your coworkers bro.

 

This is why extremism can't be discussed. It automatically turns into ALL Muslims etc. If I had said that Catholic priests have a bad track record with pedophilia nobody probably would have batted an eye. Even if I had said that, I would have not been implying that ALL Catholic priests have this problem or that the religion as a whole should cease to exist.

 

Edited July 28, 2011 by GreasyDogMeat

[Malcador]

Its curious how every anti Islamic attitude is automatically dismissed as fear mongering and hate fueling without being addressed at all. Y

 

Eh, not here at least at least on little stuff like women wanting to play football with their hijabs on, or praying in a school cafeteria. Now try criticizing Israel...

[Gorgon]

Islamic terrorism accounts for around 10% of the total in Europe over the last 10 years. Maybe it's because we don't understand or at all appreciate religios motives that they seem that much more menancing.

[Tale]

This is why extremism can't be discussed. It automatically turns into ALL Muslims etc. If I had said that Catholic priests have a bad track record with pedophilia nobody probably would have batted an eye. Even if I had said that, I would have not been implying that ALL Catholic priests have this problem or that the religion as a whole should cease to exist.

 

Depends on the source. It's always important to be critical of sources. Because while there is a bad track record within the Catholic heirarchy for pedophilia and coverups, a Christian bringing it up is more likely to be stating it objectively, while an atheist may be using it as fuel for ALL RELIGION IS BAD.

 

It's similar to the black man/white man saying the n-word controversy. You talk about track records and not making broad strokes with statements like that, but it seems like the same thing. "Americans/Whites/Christians have an anti-Muslim agenda! I'm not implying that ALL Americans/Whites/Christians have this agenda..."

 

 

Best way to discuss it is to not use the general term at all. If you're just wanting to discuss militant/radical/violent Islamists, why are you using the term Muslim? Why would I say "Christians" when I'm talking about Jerry, the redneck from down the street? Bonus points in that when being more specific, it not only requires you to be more informed as to specifics, it makes it look like you're more informed. I tend to roll my eyes at people who speak about Catholic controversies in the broad, but if you want to talk about "NAME priest was moved from his congregation after allegations of misconduct with a child, to another congregation. Which is a controversy in itself. And the # of incidents reported like that in the past year" it comes across better. Compared to "Catholic priests molest children and the church covers it up!"

[Hurlshort]

Rosbjerg said it better than I can. I have a bunch of Muslim co-workers and they haven't tried to destroy my culture or put me to the sword yet.

If you want to ignore the DAILY news about recent killings, beheadings, suicide attacks etc. in the name of Islam go ahead. I also don't recall saying every Muslim was a terrorist so thats a cool story about your coworkers bro.

 

This is why extremism can't be discussed. It automatically turns into ALL Muslims etc. If I had said that Catholic priests have a bad track record with pedophilia nobody probably would have batted an eye. Even if I had said that, I would have not been implying that ALL Catholic priests have this problem or that the religion as a whole should cease to exist.

 

 

I wasn't even talking to you, I was addressing Boo and commenting on the fact that Rosbjerg gave a great response. You see, I have kids, and so I often start responding to a thread, and then get interrupted, and then I come back and finish it without refreshing to see if anyone else responded. So I guess that is another cool story, bro.

[vault_overseer]

The way I feel about Islam these days is similar to how i feel about Communism in SU, - yes the government shafted many people both abroad and internally, but regular people like my family and every other family i met didn't want to destroy american democracy or really suffered under "terrible dictatorship".

 

Same thing with muslims - regular people just live their lives, and few are portrayed as terrible boogeymen representative of entire religions.

[Gromnir]

Compared to other killers, this guy is interesting since:

 

1) He wasn't suicidal, yet he wanted to get caught (lite martyr-complex?)

2) You have to have a tremendous rage to go on a rampage and kill 80 people, but he still had enough self-control to spare an 11 year old when the kid pleaded for mercy

3) Allegedly socially conservative, but still not against homosexuality and other generally "conservative" issues

4) Finally, his target was strangely refined. It wasn't the muslims in general, or even imams and similar people in power. It was instead the youth section of a party that he blamed for destroying the norwegian culture.

 

 

/me scratches head...

 

That was my point all along.

 

no it wasn't, but am not gonna rehash the obvious that you is intrigued by brev's message.

 

your basic premise is that we should not ignore the message just 'cause the messenger is a pathetic, cowardly, and monstrous killer o' children. you find some value in the message.

 

Gromnir, on the other hand, is quite comfortable dismissing the messenger. there is a very long list o' anti-islamic commentators who gots very impressive resumes... scientists, diplomats, philosophers, doctors, etc. many such commentators has not felt the need to plagiarize, and virtually none worth mentioning has gone on killing sprees. the last thing we is gonna do is give some delinquent with daddy issues an opportunity to set the agenda on multiculturalism in europe. is precisely 'cause he resorted to such a cowardly act that his message is deserving less/no consideration... but you don't get that 'cause you agree with him... and you continue to defend his intellect and courage.

 

we walked out the fed court house a couple a days ago and were accosted by a dirty and bearded fellow who assured us that fbi were involved in human trafficking with mexican drug cartels. he sounded at least as coherent as boo or vol. am guessing he had not bathed in at least a week, though we did not recognize him from the local soup kitchen and homeless shelter where we volunteer. we didn't pay much attention to the fellow. would you? *snort* even so, as far as we know, grimy conspiracy theorist never killed dozens o' kids in an attempt to get us to listen to his message. neither grimy guy nor brev has any academic, professional or personal life experience that we is aware o' to be making their relative messages worthy o' consideration, so as between dirty and bearded and mass-murdering prepster, am gonna actual be more likely to listen to the guy who looks like a walking lice and tick farm. heck, the dirty fellow could turn out to be a former fed himself, which would at least give him some expertise. there is at least a possible (if improbable) reason to consider dirty-guy. brev gots nothing... dead bodies and a plagiarized manifesto.

 

fascination with brev as a kinda unique monster? sure, that is understandable... but to actually consider the merits o' his message when his only notable accomplishment in life is mass murder? at least ted were actual smart. brev is simply the 2011 version with more idiot appeal.

 

given his educational and personal accomplishments, is unlikely that we would take breivik's narcissistic and rambling manifesto serious if we had read it on july 21, 2011. the guy were a nobody and 1,500 pages o' doggerel and stolen material woulda' been evoking maybe a smidgen o' scorn and a dollop o' amusement. read today? why? his message is less relevant today, not more.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[GreasyDogMeat]

I wasn't even talking to you, I was addressing Boo and commenting on the fact that Rosbjerg gave a great response. You see, I have kids, and so I often start responding to a thread, and then get interrupted, and then I come back and finish it without refreshing to see if anyone else responded. So I guess that is another cool story, bro.

Doesn't really matter as I was pretty much agreeing with what Boo said and disagreeing with Rosbjerg. I haven't really got the impression that Boo hates Muslims, just is against multiculturalism... which apparently = racist fascist nazi here.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Multiculturalism isn't a topic that is open for debate in europe. Anyone and everyone from the right who attempts to honestly criticize and suggest change is branded a nazi/skinhead/racist/bigot/islamophobe. The only political "right" is a sort of center option that is more or less the same as its liberal counterpart, and that option doesn't question squat.

 

There is a systematic persecution of conservatives, in the form of media censure and negative stereotypical branding. Academicians and respectable people have been shoved under the rug whenever they dare mention Islam. A few more outspoken people have even been killed.

 

I have myself watched fundamentalist wahhabis mingle among regular believers without a single sign of disapproval on their part. The very same wahabis were later arrested on charges of terrorism.

Therefore I have drawn the logical conclusion that the majority will never accept the basic tenets of european civilization.

 

But ultimately that is a western problem for westerners to solve.

 

What I do care about is the fundamentalists occupying a fifth of the territory of my country - a key territory at that. This is unacceptable. For this quasi state to cave in, US/NATO patronage must be withdrawn. The same applies to Bosnia, whose breakup is desirable for the best of all involved.

Which is why I will support any and all options that will go toward changing public opinion on the issue of multiculturalism.

Any and all options that have a chance of working, of which Breivik is obviously not a part. In fact, to my cause, he's a disaster.

 

But that changes nothing about the obvious and deep flaws of multiculturalist dogma and the repeated self flagellation of enforced political correctness. It is not the basis for a healthy inter civilization relationship.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Gorgon]

What's to discuss honestly. Whether we should meld into one national ideology, or accept that it isn't possible.

[Hurlshort]

The trouble is multiculturalism DOES work. It is difficult, and it can take generations to develop, and it requires tolerance and compromise from all sides. But very simply it is the right thing to do, and is really the only way forward in the evolution of human societies. The idea of building huge walls between nations is archaic.

[Malcador]

Wish we could do it without the enclaves though. As neat as it is to walk into an area with store signs (and street signs - which I find stupid) in Chinese, Korean or Cyrillic. But like hangs with like, I suppose.

[Gromnir]

Multiculturalism isn't a topic that is open for debate in europe.

 

good to know... but if that is true, why do you keep jabbering on 'bout it? nevertheless. we takes you at face value and will agree that multiculturalism is not a topic open to debate. case closed. problem solved. finitus sum.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[GreasyDogMeat]

The trouble is multiculturalism DOES work. It is difficult, and it can take generations to develop, and it requires tolerance and compromise from all sides. But very simply it is the right thing to do, and is really the only way forward in the evolution of human societies. The idea of building huge walls between nations is archaic.

It doesn't ALWAYS work. An excellent article on the negatives of multiculturalism.

 

Unfortunately multiculturalism often supports, within the new culture, many of the very negative cultural characteristics which immigrants are attempting to flee. Immigrants recognize that the country they have deserted is less able to serve them, which is why they are striking out to better themselves, but via multiculturalism, they blindly insist on perpetuating many of the problems that caused them to leave in the first place. The immigrants who bring their failed cultures with them may restructure their new environment to be identical to the one that failed them and from which they are attempting to flee.

 

I don't know if this is what Boo is seeing where he lives, but its certainly a problem in Arizona, hence the recent backlash of laws etc. When immigrants are willing to conform to their new countries laws multiculturalism is great... not so much when you have invaders under the guise of immigrants.