Tragedy in Norway

[Todd]

When I first heard about this, I thought "Oh, Islamists."

Why, are you a religious bigot and/or racist? 

When I first heard about it, I thought it was some Norwegian right wing group.  Turns out it was a lone nut with some right wing delusions married to a strong dose of bat shit craziness, at least based on information currently available.  Maybe more people will be implicated.

[eyeresist]

Oh, think nothing of it. We are always prepared to take the blame for the rest of the world's fuck ups. We understand that most of the world doesn't have the imagination needed to wipe its arse properly, so we have developed a method for everything. It would be nice if, on occasion, people would actually take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking around for a scapegoat.

I assume from the smiley that your response to my slightly fatuous post was also slightly fatuous? Breivik does seem to owe a heavy debt to certain American nutjobs, but no, it's not as if the CIA brainwashed him into doing it.

[Gurn Blanston]

I assume from the smiley that your response to my slightly fatuous post was also slightly fatuous? Breivik does seem to owe a heavy debt to certain American nutjobs, but no, it's not as if the CIA brainwashed him into doing it.

Yes, it was semi-sarcastic, but not particularly aimed at you as much as at the millions who actually believe shit like that. Well, it is a debt to them only if you peruse recent memory. If you went back a bit further (and you can bet that they have!) you will find numerous examples of ultra-conservative political groups who were more than happy to kill off masses of their own people to make a political point. Just sayin'...

When I first heard about it, I thought it was some Norwegian right wing group.  Turns out it was a lone nut with some right wing delusions married to a strong dose of bat shit craziness, at least based on information currently available...

So did I. I don't know a lot about Norway's particular right-wing crazies, but I know they have them, just like every other country. This guy was on a different plane though! 




----------------
Now playing:
La Stagione Frankfurt \ Schneider Sabine Bauer (Fortepiano) - Abel Op 11 #6 Concerto in C for Fortepiano & Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro maestoso

[eyeresist]

Why, are you a religious bigot and/or racist? 

First off, and this bears continual and loud repeating, ISLAM IS NOT A RACE.

Assuming that Islamists are responsible for a terrorist attack is not a bigoted kneejerk reaction. They have after all been responsible for a large number of attacks, and the number of homegrown Western terrorists is comparatively small. However, as soon as the facts of these attacks came to light, I realised it probably wasn't the Islamists, as the targetting of a government building, and the shooting spree, are both characteristically Western - not to mention the perpetrator surviving the attack. But, statistically, an Islamist attack is more likely, so my inital assumption was not invalid.

BTW, I hope you realise that "Islamist" is a technical term applied to Islamic extremists, and does not mean the same thing as "Muslim".

[Todd]

First off, and this bears continual and loud repeating, ISLAM IS NOT A RACE.

Thanks for the information.  Capital letters make it much clearer.  The reason I asked the question I asked is that it's not uncommon for religious bigots to also be racist.  Defining what an Islamist is also very nice of you.  Good thing you're here to clear up any misconceptions.  Makes it look perfectly reasonable to blame Muslims if you qualify an accusation with the "Islamist" label.

But, statistically, an Islamist attack is more likely, so my inital assumption was not invalid.

Really?  Can you please provide these statistics?  Your claim seems a bit dubious.

[Josquin des Prez]

A lot more what? Reactionary MF's who don't know any way to cope with reality beyond trying to blow it up? I completely agree that countries, even at this too late date, need to find ways to handle this issue, which is probably the greatest challenge they face today. But encouraging our insane people to blow up the city center and slaughter my own citizens is not tops on the list of ways that could be considered "handling it".  I would be encouraged if just one time you would offer some sort of workable positive solution instead of pontificating like a simpleton.

I'm not encouraging anything, i'm just telling it the way it is. This is just the beginning. I even predict this is going to end up in civil war.

[Todd]

I even predict this is going to end up in civil war.

What is "this"?

[eyeresist]

Thanks for the information.  Capital letters make it much clearer.  The reason I asked the question I asked is that it's not uncommon for religious bigots to also be racist.  Defining what an Islamist is also very nice of you.  Good thing you're here to clear up any misconceptions.  Makes it look perfectly reasonable to blame Muslims if you qualify an accusation with the "Islamist" label.


Really?  Can you please provide these statistics?  Your claim seems a bit dubious.

You don't seem to be interested in any sort of thoughtful discussion, as you are too busy proclaiming that any criticism of any Islamic person ever is a crime against humanity. This PC idiocy isn't limited to the trendy left - it's exactly on the level with the Israel lobby's method of calling any critic of Israel an anti-Semite.

The stats are on the internet, and speak for themselves. Here are some highlights:

U.S.
■1993 World Trade Center bombing
■2001 September 11 attack
■2010 Times Square car bomb attempt
Also various shooting incidents, and other foiled attacks.

Europe:
■2004 bombings of commuter trains in Madrid
■2005 7 July London bombings
■2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
Various other foiled or failed plots.

Russia:
■2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis
■2004 Beslan school hostage crisis
Various bombings in Russia and surrounding territories (Astrakhan, Voronezh, Moscow metro, the Moscow-Grozny train).

India:
■1993 Bombay bombings
■2001 attack on the Parliament of India
■2002 Ghatkopar bombing
■2003 Mumbai train bombings
■2005 Delhi bombings
■2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack in Ayodhya
■2006 11 July Mumbai train bombings
■2006 Varanasi bombings
■2008 26 November Mumbai attacks
■2008 Dehli bombings
■2010 Varanasi bombing

Indonesia:
■2000 Jakarta Stock Exchange bombing
■2000 Philippine consulate bombing
■2000 Christmas Eve bombings
■2002 Bali bombings
■2003 Marriott Hotel bombing
■2004 Palopo cafe bombing
■2004 Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta
■2005 Tentena market bombings
■2005 Bali bombings
■2005 Palu bombing
■2009 Jakarta bombings (Marriott and Ritz-Carlton Hotels)
■2011 Cirebon bombing

Philipines:
A long list of attacks, sadly too long to repeat here.

I hope at least some of these incidents ring a bell. These are the reason that people tend to think of Islamist terrorists first, as opposed to, say, the Red Hand or Mossad.

[Todd]

The stats are on the internet, and speak for themselves.

Yes, they do, but you apparently did not read them.  Per the article you linked, 99%+ of terrorist attacks in Europe were perpetrated by non-Muslims over the last three years (presumably at the time of writing).  Even in terms of arrests, Islamists and other Muslims made up a small minority.  Please explain how this would make it reasonable to assume that the attack in Norway was perpetrated by Islamists.  Right wing groups are a bigger concern in Scandinavia, and it seems far more reasonable to suspect them.  In other words, you really don't know much about terrorism and jumped to conclusions based on prejudice.

As to the specific incidents you cite, well, I'm not sure how they bolster your "argument" either.  Some terrorist attacks in Russia are driven at least in part by, and perhaps mostly by, Russian actions in the Caucasus and related separatist sentiments.  Again, the article you linked to states this.  One may well question the motives of the newer groups, though they may be good old jihadists, though the limit of their dreams seems to imply something else.  The situation in India is also about more than just good old jihad.  That seems pretty well known.  As to Indonesia, well, one would suspect that Muslims would be engaging in terrorism in the largest Muslim country.  I'm not sure how this is meaningful in the context of what happened in Norway.

Unlike you, I do not automatically think of Islamists when a terrorist incident occurs.  I take geography into account.  I ask what the Muslim population is, or look it up.  I ponder who else may pursue violent means.  Sometimes it may not be Islamists.  To automatically assume that it is, which you imply you do, is nothing more than good old fashioned prejudice, as I stated before.

Also, I must say that resorting to brandishing "political correctness" is particularly lazy, especially since one thing I have never been accused of is being politically correct.  But then, looks like you prefer straw men.

[Marc]

Yes, a great difference of course, but the expectations of the lunatics as to the political effect of the crime may be similar, so they may have similar motives for the crime, and even arise from the same ultra-nationalistic circles, which we unfortunately have in all Scandinavian countries.

And in other countries, too.
Maybe the same expectations, yes, but mr. Breivik is arrested (the Palme killer wasn't f.i.) and very willing to cooperate and speak. I'm curious: will he be allowed to speak freely in court and explain his reasons in the way he did on the internet? He might gain a lot of sympathy for his ideas .... even though many sympathizers will remain silent or will say that killing social-democrats is not the solution.

I've seen my own country change dramatically during the last decade: not only the hatred against the Islam, but also against the 'left church' is really huge, whilst many of the governments weren't really that 'leftish' at all. Since the nineties, it's mostly neo-liberalism that rules, even in cabinets with social-democratic political parties in it. As Wim Kok, leader of the Dutch Labour party said half-way the nineties: we need to get rid of our ideological wings. It didn't work out though: the Labour party here is almost drowning and mocked succesfully by a certain Geert Wilders, who's gaining of lot of support with his belittling talk about those lefty losers.

No, not really in my country-

I hope you're right. But keep your fingers crossed whilst writing it down.

[eyeresist]

Yes, they do, but you apparently did not read them.  Per the article you linked, 99%+ of terrorist attacks in Europe were perpetrated by non-Muslims over the last three years (presumably at the time of writing).  Even in terms of arrests, Islamists and other Muslims made up a small minority.

I did indeed read them, and noted this statistic. I also read the article refered to, which said most attacks were undertaken by separatist groups in France and Spain, and "resulted only in material damage and were not intended to kill." The most spectacular and deadly attacks were indeed carried out by Islamists.

Please explain how this would make it reasonable to assume that the attack in Norway was perpetrated by Islamists.  Right wing groups are a bigger concern in Scandinavia, and it seems far more reasonable to suspect them.

I am aware of the right wing nuts of Scandinavia. Every country has them. Their acts of spectacular, high body count terrorism have been very few compared with the Islamists. Can you name any off the top of your head, apart from Tim McVeigh?

As to the specific incidents you cite, well, I'm not sure how they bolster your "argument" either.  Some terrorist attacks in Russia are driven at least in part by, and perhaps mostly by, Russian actions in the Caucasus and related separatist sentiments.  Again, the article you linked to states this.  One may well question the motives of the newer groups, though they may be good old jihadists, though the limit of their dreams seems to imply something else.  The situation in India is also about more than just good old jihad.  That seems pretty well known.  As to Indonesia, well, one would suspect that Muslims would be engaging in terrorism in the largest Muslim country.  I'm not sure how this is meaningful in the context of what happened in Norway.

I am of course aware of the nationalist dimension to many of the terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims, and I took care to exclude them from my list. That's why I didn't mention Thailand, for example.
*The situation in Russia is slightly confused due to what seems to be confusion within the ranks of Chechnyan terrorists. One of the two major factions has the stated aim of establishing an emirate, that is, an Islamic monarchy, in a territory expanded beyond Chechnya's borders.
*With India, I excluded the attacks thought to be from separatist motives from my list. Much terrorism in India is sponsored by Pakistan (or at least by factions within the government, army and secret police), but the people who commit the acts do so from religious motives. There is a bit of tit-for-tat between the Hindus and the Muslims, but the Muslims have achieved the higher body count.
*Your comment about Indonesia is a non sequitor. Apart from acts of various separatist groups, and domestic Christian-Muslim feuding, the major attacks are very much Al Qaeda-style attacks against targets symbolic of Westernism.
What does all this have to do with Norway? Well, it shows that Islamists regularly carry out spectacular terrorist attacks in many different parts of the world. Hence it is not unreasonable, barring evidence against, to suppose that a spectacular terrorist attack might have been carried out by an Islamist group. Even in Norway.

Sometimes it may not be Islamists.

Of course! I've never said otherwise.

To automatically assume that it is, which you imply you do, is nothing more than good old fashioned prejudice, as I stated before.

"Prejudice", meaning to pre-judge. To pre-judge is a normal part of thinking. Then one acquires information and adjusts and improves one's judgement.

But this isn't what you meant, of course. You mean that I hate Muslims, think they are bad or worthless people, and want to accuse them of crimes they have not committed. None of these are true. I simply notice that most recent spectacular terrorist attacks have been by Islamists; from this I infer it is reasonable to expect further such attacks. Thus, when one is carried out, I consider the possibility. It's nothing to do with any sort of unfairly discriminatory mindset.

[Josquin des Prez]

What is "this"?

The continued colonization of Europe at the hands of a backward, barbaric people, what else.

[chasmaniac]

Guess I'd be happier if I found me somebody to hate. Trouble is, I don't speak Greek, so I'm a barbarian myself!

We're all The Other.

[The new erato]

The continued colonization of Europe at the hands of a backward, barbaric people, what else.

Muslims are hardly a people.....and I can easily find people on this forum seriously less developed than some muslims I've met. 'nough said.

[Gurn Blanston]

Muslims are hardly a people.....and I can easily find people on this forum seriously less developed than some muslims I've met. 'nough said.

  Yes, it wouldn't be a hard task, would it?

[Todd]

What does all this have to do with Norway? Well, it shows that Islamists regularly carry out spectacular terrorist attacks in many different parts of the world. Hence it is not unreasonable, barring evidence against, to suppose that a spectacular terrorist attack might have been carried out by an Islamist group. Even in Norway.

You mean that I hate Muslims, think they are bad or worthless people, and want to accuse them of crimes they have not committed.

To the first point, it is at least potentially unreasonable to suppose that a terrorist attack in some remote part of the world with a very small Muslim population has been carried out by an Islamic group.  In the case of Norway your prejudicial thinking was clearly wrong.  Prejudicial thinking very easily can be.  Your defense of prejudicial thinking, with its pretension to reasonableness, simply highlights the problem.  It was Muslims before.  It's probably, or could be, or might be Muslims now.  Well, what if it's not?  Automatically assuming it's a specific group is a bit problematic, particularly when local conditions are not taken into account, and especially without knowing any facts.  It does indeed begin to represent an entire group as similar, and in this case violent.  You can try to sugar coat it by saying "Islamist", though that phrase itself is flawed and hides the fact that there are differences in motivation between groups, and the very word itself is a bit prejudicial in the more standard pejorative sense.  If you want to ignore that, go right ahead.

To the second point, I never stated that you hate Muslims.  I did ask whether you were a religious bigot and/or racist.  I suppose you can state that this amounts to the same thing, but it doesn't.  There are other groups and crazies out there who are eager to engage in violence, and some like the Norwegian nut job specifically want to foment more prejudice against Muslims.  Knee jerk responses like yours are part of what people like him want.

[The new erato]

We have had 9 episodes of violence, some involving murder, other bombings of various degrees of success, from right wing extremists in Norway since 1977, and hardly none (make that zero) from Islamists. Still gut reactions leans the Muslim way. Hardly coincidental, and I think it says something about the forces influencing our way of thinking that we need to be acutely aware of.

[The new erato]

One hour before the official start, there are already 150.000 demonstrators gathered in Oslo centre. Other Norwegian cities too are chock full of people demonstrating against the ideology of this loonie. He's loosing big time.

At the official mourning in Oslo cathedral on Sunday, with the collected political leadership of Norway, all the royal family etc present, there was not a single gun or a single metal detector in sight. Call us naive, but he's not going to call the shots.

[knight66]

Contrasts very well with what happens over here in the UK. We can't now even enter the street where the prime minister lives. I work in Whitehall which is the government and civil service area: I have got used to seeing police with guns. Habitually roads are closed off; no reasons given and no point asking the reasons either.

But then; we have a different kind of history from you. We grow our own fifth column and we know a large number of serious plots have been disrupted. The office I work in has been the centre of riots over Student fees and a fair amount of damage was done. I was amazed to read an opinion piece in the Sunday Times this week claiming that the UK is a multicultural, thriving country at peace with itself.......but then, I rarely believe what I read in that publication.

Mike

[Todd]

I have got used to seeing police with guns.

I can't even imagine a cop without a gun . . .