On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
This is Glenn Beck's exact quote according to my local paper (link here):
There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing
Yes, strictly speaking Huffington Post's headline was not correct. The most generous interpretation of his quote, that it only suggests the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, and doesn't say anything directly about the children.
But if the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, that still does imply the children there were equivalent to members of the HY.
I find it seriously hard to believe you find a slightly misleading headline (something that occurs in papers of all political persuasions) to be as outrageous as a comment that associates the child victims of a mass murderer with the Hitler Youth.
Obviously under the rules of language you can say that Beck was comparing the children to Hitler youth. Kind of like when Obama said that his bowling skills were "special olympics bad" you can easily convey that to mean Obama thinks that challenged people suck at bowling. It's still ridiculous to use that for a political hatchet job.
We also know that he is using the term Hitler Youth as an example of children being indoctrinated and not trying to compare the beliefs with the Hitler Youth to the beliefs of the victims here. The fact that the Hitler Youth were indoctrinated with worse ideas doesn't make them worse people -- they were innocent children whose young and impressionable minds were perverted. So when you see the headline of Beck saying the children are like Hitler Youth you think of "kids that want to murder jews" instead of "innocent kids that are being indoctrinated with filthy ideas." (socialism = filthy to beck) It's obvious that his intention was the latter. It's obvious that the media wants you think that Beck called the victims little nazis.
Unless of course you think that the Hitler Youth were indeed monsters and not innocent children, then it would be an outrage to compare the victims to those little german satans, heh.
Of course the real reason I have been so annoyed by the Beck bashing is because this is my first reaction to the Oslo attack just hours after it started: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/979334/2/Oslo_next_to_suffer_terrorism.html Particularly post #24 of the thread. When someone says "Socialist youth camp" I think of the movie "Jesus camp" which is about young children being indoctrinated. But apparently I am a colossal asshole for not knowing what goes on in a youth political camp in Norway.
On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
This is Glenn Beck's exact quote according to my local paper (link here):
There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing
Yes, strictly speaking Huffington Post's headline was not correct. The most generous interpretation of his quote, that it only suggests the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, and doesn't say anything directly about the children.
But if the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, that still does imply the children there were equivalent to members of the HY.
I find it seriously hard to believe you find a slightly misleading headline (something that occurs in papers of all political persuasions) to be as outrageous as a comment that associates the child victims of a mass murderer with the Hitler Youth.
Obviously under the rules of language you can say that Beck was comparing the children to Hitler youth. Kind of like when Obama said that his bowling skills were "special olympics bad" you can easily convey that to mean Obama thinks that challenged people suck at bowling. It's still ridiculous to use that for a political hatchet job.
We also know that he is using the term Hitler Youth as an example of children being indoctrinated and not trying to compare the beliefs with the Hitler Youth to the beliefs of the victims here. The fact that the Hitler Youth were indoctrinated with worse ideas doesn't make them worse people -- they were innocent children whose young and impressionable minds were perverted. So when you see the headline of Beck saying the children are like Hitler Youth you think of "kids that want to murder jews" instead of "innocent kids that are being indoctrinated with filthy ideas." (socialism = filthy to beck) It's obvious that his intention was the latter. It's obvious that the media wants you think that Beck called the victims little nazis.
Unless of course you think that the Hitler Youth were indeed monsters and not innocent children, then it would be an outrage to compare the victims to those little german satans, heh.
Of course the real reason I have been so annoyed by the Beck bashing is because this is my first reaction to the Oslo attack just hours after it started: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/979334/2/Oslo_next_to_suffer_terrorism.html Particularly post #24 of the thread. When someone says "Socialist youth camp" I think of the movie "Jesus camp" which is about young children being indoctrinated. But apparently I am a colossal asshole for not knowing what goes on in a youth political camp in Norway.
The asshole part comes from not knowing what goes on in youth political parties in Norway, then still just compare them to indoctrination camps. You think that shows any respect to the teens that have just been massacred?
On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
This is Glenn Beck's exact quote according to my local paper (link here):
There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing
Yes, strictly speaking Huffington Post's headline was not correct. The most generous interpretation of his quote, that it only suggests the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, and doesn't say anything directly about the children.
But if the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, that still does imply the children there were equivalent to members of the HY.
I find it seriously hard to believe you find a slightly misleading headline (something that occurs in papers of all political persuasions) to be as outrageous as a comment that associates the child victims of a mass murderer with the Hitler Youth.
Obviously under the rules of language you can say that Beck was comparing the children to Hitler youth. Kind of like when Obama said that his bowling skills were "special olympics bad" you can easily convey that to mean Obama thinks that challenged people suck at bowling. It's still ridiculous to use that for a political hatchet job.
We also know that he is using the term Hitler Youth as an example of children being indoctrinated and not trying to compare the beliefs with the Hitler Youth to the beliefs of the victims here. The fact that the Hitler Youth were indoctrinated with worse ideas doesn't make them worse people -- they were innocent children whose young and impressionable minds were perverted. So when you see the headline of Beck saying the children are like Hitler Youth you think of "kids that want to murder jews" instead of "innocent kids that are being indoctrinated with filthy ideas." (socialism = filthy to beck) It's obvious that his intention was the latter. It's obvious that the media wants you think that Beck called the victims little nazis.
Unless of course you think that the Hitler Youth were indeed monsters and not innocent children, then it would be an outrage to compare the victims to those little german satans, heh.
Of course the real reason I have been so annoyed by the Beck bashing is because this is my first reaction to the Oslo attack just hours after it started: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/979334/2/Oslo_next_to_suffer_terrorism.html Particularly post #24 of the thread. When someone says "Socialist youth camp" I think of the movie "Jesus camp" which is about young children being indoctrinated. But apparently I am a colossal asshole for not knowing what goes on in a youth political camp in Norway.
The asshole part comes from not knowing what goes on in youth political parties in Norway, then still just compare them to indoctrination camps. You think that shows any respect to the teens that have just been massacred?
yeah, just look at the posts that my post is between and you can see that I'm way out of line there. We have a very laid back community at that site, I'm sorry if I didn't realize that a forum based on online gambling is where I should be paying my respects
Any new news on the 45 or 46 that were said to be missing? I haven't been able to find anything on it in skimming the past few pages, and I'd assume most of the news on it is in a language I don't understand
On July 26 2011 11:47 acker wrote: You would, of course, have to also take into account the number of unnecessary deaths 24/7 armed officers would create.
For example, if arming officers 24/7 accidentally caused five deaths/year through mistaken shootings and deaths caused by non 24/7 weapons reached 50 deaths every decade, arming officers would be a bad idea. Yes, the numbers are equal, but it takes money to buy and maintain that many guns, money that could otherwise go into correctional facilities or healthcare or something.
I'm guessing that it's much more complicated than the NYTimes article suggests, and that Norway has run studies on this suggesting that not arming officers around the clock might be better for society as a whole.
Norway will definitely make sure that the CT response will be much faster for the next incident, however. Helicopter failures are not a good thing in any situation.
True, but I'm also guessing that Sweden ran the numbers too, back in 1965 - when crime was even lower. It's all speculation eh? Ah well, perhaps too complicated of a topic for us to take stabs at without any real qualifications or legitimate information. I agree that we can't base too much off speculation, as the other poster mentioned. Maybe not arming police really is the better method (at least in Norway). I'm realizing it's pretty damn complicated, as you say.
This could be seen as a counter argument to your point though. Sweden and Norway had both relatively low criminality in 1965 - since then violence, shootings and heavy crimes have been steadily on the rise in Sweden. I don't know the numbers but I'm quite certain Sweden is a more violent country today than Norway, in terms of shootings, people killed etc. There are many factors in this but arming the police force could very well be one.
It would be impossible for Sweden to go back today to unarm our police force due to the frequency of guns among criminals. I can not tell if the Norwegian police should be armed or not, but sure as hell hope they don't do it as an emotional response to this incident. There's no return if they do.
Especially since an armed police force would have changed nothing in this case. The officer at the camp was there during his vacation functioning as guard. He wasn't there to stop shooters, he was there to keep the teenagers in order.
On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
This is Glenn Beck's exact quote according to my local paper (link here):
There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing
Yes, strictly speaking Huffington Post's headline was not correct. The most generous interpretation of his quote, that it only suggests the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, and doesn't say anything directly about the children.
But if the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, that still does imply the children there were equivalent to members of the HY.
I find it seriously hard to believe you find a slightly misleading headline (something that occurs in papers of all political persuasions) to be as outrageous as a comment that associates the child victims of a mass murderer with the Hitler Youth.
Obviously under the rules of language you can say that Beck was comparing the children to Hitler youth. Kind of like when Obama said that his bowling skills were "special olympics bad" you can easily convey that to mean Obama thinks that challenged people suck at bowling. It's still ridiculous to use that for a political hatchet job.
We also know that he is using the term Hitler Youth as an example of children being indoctrinated and not trying to compare the beliefs with the Hitler Youth to the beliefs of the victims here. The fact that the Hitler Youth were indoctrinated with worse ideas doesn't make them worse people -- they were innocent children whose young and impressionable minds were perverted. So when you see the headline of Beck saying the children are like Hitler Youth you think of "kids that want to murder jews" instead of "innocent kids that are being indoctrinated with filthy ideas." (socialism = filthy to beck) It's obvious that his intention was the latter. It's obvious that the media wants you think that Beck called the victims little nazis.
Unless of course you think that the Hitler Youth were indeed monsters and not innocent children, then it would be an outrage to compare the victims to those little german satans, heh.
Of course the real reason I have been so annoyed by the Beck bashing is because this is my first reaction to the Oslo attack just hours after it started: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/979334/2/Oslo_next_to_suffer_terrorism.html Particularly post #24 of the thread. When someone says "Socialist youth camp" I think of the movie "Jesus camp" which is about young children being indoctrinated. But apparently I am a colossal asshole for not knowing what goes on in a youth political camp in Norway.
Beck does it to himself, purposedly I am sure, he's all about the audience figures and this kind of cheapshots attracts a lot of hate and even that works for him since he knows it'll only make his followers defend him with more passion (and ultimately some will assimilate his coockoo theories, which is the scary part).
On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown.
I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is:
1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission
Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman.
That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts).
edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister).
Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case.
And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun.
There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job.
As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist.
As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations?
I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive.
I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons.
I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors.
Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers).
Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no.
I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else.
I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent.
How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection?
I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it.
I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over.
How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this?
I trust a minority governed by rules to have weapons rather than everyone having weapons. Rules can be abused or broken, but the likelihood is a lot more likely if everyone has a weapon.
And I know I'd be damn much more afraid of my drunk, violent neighbour if he, with his temperament and random drunken sprees, also had access to weapons.
I hav eanother question regarding weapons. Do I get it right that he could legally buy two assault riffles and a special form of ammunition that is more lethal? If he needs his gun for sport (shooting), like he said, he would not have needed serial fire mode and surely could have used normal ammounition.
On July 26 2011 10:05 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to previous discussion concerning whether or not Norway's police are aptly equipped in the event of what we saw unfold recently, here is a very relevant piece: New York Times: After Killings, Unease in Norway, Police & Guns...
OSLO — When a man dressed in a police uniform began slaughtering young people at a Norwegian summer camp last week, one of the first to be killed was a real police officer named Trond Berntsen, who for years had worked in security at the camp.
Whether Officer Berntsen tried to stop the gunman is still being debated. But facing a man carrying multiple guns and ample ammunition, there was little he could do. Like most other police officers here, he had no weapon.
“Criminals are now carrying weapons, so some people now think that police officers should have weapons as well,” said Gry Jorunn Holmen, a spokeswoman for the Norwegian police union. Though she said it was too early to make any assessments, Ms. Holmen said the union had formed a commission to explore the issue. For the police, she said, “it’s getting tougher.”
It took police SWAT units more than an hour to reach the camp, on Utoya island, after reports of the shooting came in. Officers had to drive to the shore across from the site of the shooting attack, and use boats to get to the island. A police helicopter was unable to get off the ground; news crews that reached the island by air could only watch as the gunman continued the massacre.
Anne Holt, Norway’s former justice minister, told the BBC: “That makes him a person that killed one person every minute. If the police had actually been there just a half an hour earlier, then 30 young lives would have been saved.”
Now, I was berated and seethed at several pages back for broaching this topic. However, now that a respectable publication has brought it to light, I feel that it is acceptable to raise the issue under a new, more focused light. I'm not posting this to share my own opinion, but rather, to provide legitimate insight from an underrepresented perspective.
The article rightly mentions that the crime rate suggests having better-prepared police isn't necessary in general [in Norway and similar countries]. So, with that said... Would it be worth it to set aside some spending to ensure a better outcome in the future in all nations with similarly under-prepared response units? Would the fact that many lives could be saved justify the increase in spending - even if the event is a rare event?
One person a minute is based on the overall time frame and people killed, which has nothing to do with reality. The point though, that more people could have been saved if the police had apprehended the terrorist faster, is of course correct, but evaluating how they spent their time without having a good insight in their methods and comparative data with other strike teams in similarly problematic situations, it's rather pointless. Thus the article's implied point in that a more well-funded police force would have prevented loss of life in this situation is too generalising. Throwing money at a problem isn't neccessarily solving it, as american school funding has shown.
I agree that in some cases it's hard to objectively solve a problem. In fact, it's hard to diagnose a problem in many cases. You school analogy does not work because with schools there is no obvious concrete parallel. In this case, as the article points out, there is:
1) Unarmed officers on scene - helpless -> Implies that if armed they could have confronted the killer 2) Dysfunctional police helicopter (primary reason for delayed response) -> Implies that more helicopters on hand or better-maintained helicopters could have expedited the mission
Both of those problems highlighted CAN be solved with extra funding or a policy shift, as expressed by the police spokeswoman.
That's what I'm curious about. The article raises a strong point here - one that can't be countered with an analogy to American school funding and under-performance (that issue is not based upon 2 or 3 simple/objective facts).
edit: And yeah of course the one person/minute point is... well... obviously not perfectly factual, but it's a rough average. The killings, according to interviewees, occurred sporadically throughout the ordeal. Picking at their frequency is not worth much value in my opinion. It's easier to simplify it to 1 kill/minute. In this case I fully agree with the logic (presented by Norway's former justice minister).
Yes, the school parallel is not directly related, of course. It was meant as a general comparison of where spending =! result. The comparison works in the general line of thought that higher security spending would equal better security, as this wouldn't neccessarily be the case.
And about the officer - he was the first one to meet the terrorist on the island (together with the camp arrangement caretaker, I think), and according to witness descriptions, these two were the first ones shot. The officer having a weapon wouldn't have helped, as one can assume that the terrorist had his weapon much more at the ready than the officer, who would have had no reason to distrust the "SWAT officer" before he got within shooting range of said's gun.
There's of course also the point that the officer on the island was there during his vacation, as an off-duty guardsman to make people feel safe rather than perform his job as a police officer. He would probably not be carrying a weapon during his vacation even if he had a weapon in his day job.
As for the two points of the article - yes, I agree with the second one, as if the police actually had a proper helicopter that couldn't operate as intended due to lack of maintenance due to funding, then yes, more funding would help that. From what I've read and heard though, the helicopter the police had available was a one (or two)-man recon helicopter, not an assault team deployment thing. Even if they had a helicopter, I find it very unlikely that PST would send one guy alone onto the island without backup to face the terrorist.
As for the first point, this is a part of the escalation mechanics I was describing earlier. If the officer had a weapon, then the terrorist would know the officer had a weapon and would take the proper precautions through escalation of force. How can you then expect what he would do in that case? And how would the police react - up their security level again, through more weapons, more personell? And have the terrorists react again, by further escalations?
I feel the article's points are very much based on knowledge that could in no way have been asserted beforehand, and even if these points were ensured, other things could have been equally detrimental to the police efforts. While I agree that they should go over any procedures, as they undoubtably are continuously, and were before this, one simply cannot predict everything. Pointing at something in hindsight, I feel, is arrogant, and not very constructive.
I agree with that general line of thinking, but I think you're still too quick to discredit the article (perhaps because it points to slight disagreement with your line of thinking). You can't really say that there would be an "arms race" of sorts between potential shooters and policemen. Knowing police have guns, you ask, what would shooters do in response? Well... Nothing more than what this man already did, to be blunt. He made use of incredibly powerful explosives. Check. He made use of an incredibly powerful rifle. Check. I suppose knowing police are armed he could have brought 2 incredibly powerful rifles? But that wouldn't actually increase his firepower, so never mind that idea. The arms race idea does not apply to criminals that are already utilizing the top of the food chain in weapons.
I'm still not convinced that Norway, along with the other 2 countries in the world that uphold it, should refrain from arming police officers due to national pride concerning a peaceful reputation &c. In 1965 Sweden - another similar nation - re-armed police officers. I'm having trouble being logically persuaded against that type of move. I'm still going to have to agree with the opinion of Norway's police spokeswoman here, and disagree with that of one of Norway's professors.
Thanks for your input though - I do feel that it's an issue that should be handled cautiously, nonetheless, even if the longterm inevitability seems...well...unavoidable (better prepared police officers).
Heh, amusing mental image of a guy wielding two assault rifles. I don't think that'd help him too much, no.
I agree that it's difficult to imagine how the terrorist in this event could escalate his force considering how much force he already brought to the table. I can imagine though that if he knew the policeman there was armed, he would have made a plan for dealing with that. If that'd cause more damage or not is (even more) pure speculation (than the rest of this). What would happen though, would be regular criminals being forced to escalate their usage of power, as the policemen they'd now meet daily would be armed. The reaction of increased force from the police to combat the terrorist threat would affect the criminal milieu, causing the escalation there instead of directly to the terrorist (in this case). Still though, the escalation would happen, at the disadvantage of everyone else.
I disagree that increased usage of weaponary for the police is the answer to things like this, and I firmly believe it would create a much more dangerous society than it would prevent.
How about a society where you don't have to depend on the police for protection?
I hate to burst peoples bubble but you can't trust the police anymore. I'd rather see a society where I can carry my handgun with me anywhere and not be harassed about it.
I'm sorry but the era of having unarmed police is over.
How many more camp massacres do we need before people start understanding this?
I trust a minority governed by rules to have weapons rather than everyone having weapons. Rules can be abused or broken, but the likelihood is a lot more likely if everyone has a weapon.
And I know I'd be damn much more afraid of my drunk, violent neighbour if he, with his temperament and random drunken sprees, also had access to weapons.
I hav eanother question regarding weapons. Do I get it right that he could legally buy two assault riffles and a special form of ammunition that is more lethal? If he needs his gun for sport (shooting), like he said, he would not have needed serial fire mode and surely could have used normal ammounition.
He modified the assault rifles so they would be fully automatic instead of semi automatic.
The ammunition is pretty much required for hunting because there's a smaller chance of just wounding the animal which will cause a slower death for it.
On July 26 2011 03:34 Ksi wrote: Man it's pretty disturbing (though I guess not surprising) to see even in this thread the number of people that are so politically blinded that sympathize with this guy's views. They won't openly praise him, but you see their short terse comments dispersed throughout the thread.
This x1000, all across the internet I see posts from passive aggressive racists backhandedly praising this man, as though his ideology contains within a defensible posture. Bullshit, if you support anything about this man or what he has to say, well, I hope for your sake you say huddled in your basement, ordering "V for Vendetta" masks, posting borderline genocidal beliefs on forums, and overall simply being a sad excuse for a human being.
Just because one man kills 70 people doesn't mean that everything he stands for is wrong. It would be equally stupid to dismiss his opinions as it would be to praise them, based solely on what he did.
Except in this case I'm not dismissing his opinions based on his actions, I'm dismissing them based on basic values of human equality, compassion, and downright common moral sense. His entire manifesto reeks of outdated Hegelian notions of historic cultural value, as though a defense of storied European bloodlines acts as an excuse to commit heinous murder. He uses freemason terminology and a distorted sense of racial demographics to justify blatant racism and a dislike of heterogeneity. Like I said, anyone who agrees with even a shred of what this man believes is a worthless excuse for a morally upstanding human being.
Very well said. Hope more people start to think like you. Thanks for posting.
On July 26 2011 05:04 TokO wrote: Just want to clarify, most youth politicians I know are intelligent people who are actively contributing to democracy in Norway. I'm actually insulted that Glenn Beck would even make that ignorant statement given the situation. People are there voluntarily because they agree with their respective party, and most of all, they want to make Norway a better country. They all are an inspiring group of people for the democratic world.
I'm equally insulted that one off-the-cuff comment during a 3 hour radio show generates the headline "Glenn Beck On Norway Killings: Children Like 'Hitler Youth" (Huffingtonpost headline). Using this tragedy to score a cheap political win with a sensationalist and misleading headline for an off-the-cuff comment taken out of context is equally outrageous, imo. I'm no fan of Beck, but it's clear to me that he's not the only one out of line here.
This is Glenn Beck's exact quote according to my local paper (link here):
There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing
Yes, strictly speaking Huffington Post's headline was not correct. The most generous interpretation of his quote, that it only suggests the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, and doesn't say anything directly about the children.
But if the camp was similar to that run by the Hitler Youth, that still does imply the children there were equivalent to members of the HY.
I find it seriously hard to believe you find a slightly misleading headline (something that occurs in papers of all political persuasions) to be as outrageous as a comment that associates the child victims of a mass murderer with the Hitler Youth.
Obviously under the rules of language you can say that Beck was comparing the children to Hitler youth. Kind of like when Obama said that his bowling skills were "special olympics bad" you can easily convey that to mean Obama thinks that challenged people suck at bowling. It's still ridiculous to use that for a political hatchet job.
We also know that he is using the term Hitler Youth as an example of children being indoctrinated and not trying to compare the beliefs with the Hitler Youth to the beliefs of the victims here. The fact that the Hitler Youth were indoctrinated with worse ideas doesn't make them worse people -- they were innocent children whose young and impressionable minds were perverted. So when you see the headline of Beck saying the children are like Hitler Youth you think of "kids that want to murder jews" instead of "innocent kids that are being indoctrinated with filthy ideas." (socialism = filthy to beck) It's obvious that his intention was the latter. It's obvious that the media wants you think that Beck called the victims little nazis.
Unless of course you think that the Hitler Youth were indeed monsters and not innocent children, then it would be an outrage to compare the victims to those little german satans, heh.
Of course the real reason I have been so annoyed by the Beck bashing is because this is my first reaction to the Oslo attack just hours after it started: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/979334/2/Oslo_next_to_suffer_terrorism.html Particularly post #24 of the thread. When someone says "Socialist youth camp" I think of the movie "Jesus camp" which is about young children being indoctrinated. But apparently I am a colossal asshole for not knowing what goes on in a youth political camp in Norway.
What? It's not at all obvious "Beck is saying the victims were little Nazis" is the message the media "wants me to think" - maybe stop reading terribad newsites? My local newspaper also covered the story, and the impression I got was completely different. The issue isn't that Beck is calling the children "evil Nazis" it's that in his example he's implying they are the equivalent of the HITLER YOUTH. Do you think that's inoffensive? Seriously? Given the circumstances... it's inappropriate and EXTREMELY distasteful, particularly for a European country. THAT'S why it's outrageous.
Here's a tip: If the newspapers of other countries with no American political leaning report on his comments, you better believe they're pretty outrageous.
The whole reason I made the original post you quoted is because I couldn't understand how you thought a shitty sensationalist news website having a shitty sensationalist news headline was more outrageous than that.
BTW: First you say Beck thinks socialism is a filthy idea and has no problem associating it with Nazism.
Then you say that's not casting any judgement on I don't know, say, the children who voluntarily went to a "socialist" youth camp? Okay.
When someone says "Socialist youth camp" I think of the movie "Jesus camp" which is about young children being indoctrinated. But apparently I am a colossal asshole for not knowing what goes on in a youth political camp in Norway.
?? Interpreting (mistranslated) information while the event is going on is completely different from coming after the event, when most of the facts are known, and forming an informed opinion then. Which is what Beck had the luxury of doing.
Except in this case I'm not dismissing his opinions based on his actions, I'm dismissing them based on basic values of human equality, compassion, and downright common moral sense. His entire manifesto reeks of outdated Hegelian notions of historic cultural value, as though a defense of storied European bloodlines acts as an excuse to commit heinous murder. He uses freemason terminology and a distorted sense of racial demographics to justify blatant racism and a dislike of heterogeneity. Like I said, anyone who agrees with even a shred of what this man believes is a worthless excuse for a morally upstanding human being.
Except in this case I'm not dismissing his opinions based on his actions, I'm dismissing them based on basic values of human equality, compassion, and downright common moral sense. His entire manifesto reeks of outdated Hegelian notions of historic cultural value, as though a defense of storied European bloodlines acts as an excuse to commit heinous murder. He uses freemason terminology and a distorted sense of racial demographics to justify blatant racism and a dislike of heterogeneity. Like I said, anyone who agrees with even a shred of what this man believes is a worthless excuse for a morally upstanding human being.
It is well known that different cultures that live which eachother in close proximity increases the chance for conflict. There is no hate or racism involved in being critical about multi-cultural society. The Norway killer really did a good job in tilting this discussion in favor of the left.
On July 26 2011 14:10 terpentin wrote: do you guys think some nutcase will get inspired by the manifest? i dont think the unabomber inspired anybody for instance
Depends on whether Brevik was telling the truth about this supposed "Knights Templar Europe" thing.
I'm thinking it's just this guy's creepy delusions of grandeur and wanting to build a mythology for himself as the leader of a revolutionary movement.
Except in this case I'm not dismissing his opinions based on his actions, I'm dismissing them based on basic values of human equality, compassion, and downright common moral sense. His entire manifesto reeks of outdated Hegelian notions of historic cultural value, as though a defense of storied European bloodlines acts as an excuse to commit heinous murder. He uses freemason terminology and a distorted sense of racial demographics to justify blatant racism and a dislike of heterogeneity. Like I said, anyone who agrees with even a shred of what this man believes is a worthless excuse for a morally upstanding human being.
It is well known that different cultures that live which eachother in close proximity increases the chance for conflict. There is no hate or racism involved in being critical about multi-cultural society. The Norway killer really did a good job in tilting this discussion in favor of the left.
lol? Well known? Man your talking out your butt and have no idea whats comming out. I also like the sentence that starts with 'The Norway killer really did a good job..."
EPT
