jrrtoken Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexrd Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 I heard they were going to alter the constitution to increase his sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 And we damn well won't change our constitution because of one incident ( as an example' date=' 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.[/quote'] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 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/accused-norway-killer-may-land-luxurious-prison-173329040.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ping Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8660986/Norway-shooting-Glenn-Beck-compares-dead-teenagers-to-Hitler-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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Beck never lets the truth get in the way of some good fear mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Holocron Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 Why he was ever given a national voice is beyond me. Someone has to scare the suckers into buying overpriced gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamqd Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purifier Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted July 30, 2011 Share Posted July 30, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purifier Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Source, please? http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publications/br/BackgroundReport_AQAttacks.pdf 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. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandalorian Knight Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 http://www.start.umd.edu/start/publications/br/BackgroundReport_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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.