|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
+ Show Spoiler +On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread ( my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same. It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy. For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims. From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally. Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror. He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid. The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response. All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world. --- To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote: "He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour. Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder. As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries. Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home. So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right? --- I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else.
Magnificent post - was kinda wondering what i could do from Kristiansand (4-5hr drive from oslo), but seeing so many people donating blood and such is such a good sight. I work in a mall in Kristiansand, and my store and a store right across from us, set up a TV, streaming the news from a cellphone, to get some news to the public too. People were gathering around the TV, i dont even remember i had any sale the last 2 hrs of the day because ppl were too occupied with the drama that happened...
|
Did he build the bomb @ the building or "Transported" it there can't seem to find any info about that
And boy i was shocked when he was "white" Saw lots of pictures at the island of dead people was not pleasant ruined my day.
R.I.P to the fallen
|
|
|
I really dont want to start a debate on private firearms ownership and stuff I just have to say I agree with Magic-Phil.
All I want to say is, that my thoughts are with the people of Norway and I hope that the infured people will recover soon.
Some of the pictures and interviews are so disturbing I dont want to think further about the situation.
So again, my prayers are with the people of Norway :|
|
On July 23 2011 20:15 MaGic~PhiL wrote:Concerning the stuff i said about death of children due to lack of water/food compared to this: All I want to say is this: The last three days I saw on almost every newssite a big article about the food crisis in africa. Millions of people in danger and many dying on a daily basis. Now we have ~100 death and while it is somethind different do die in a shooting I just want to say how the media has already fucked us all up to some extent. Just showing how greatly unaccurate our view is. I mean certainly for someone being involved in this shooting (due to having friends, relatives) there its something completely different. But for the average person there should be no reason what so ever to find this more horrible or sad than the other stuff going on 'RIGHT NOW'. + Show Spoiler +I know this is about this particular disaster but I cant step away from mentioning what is truly sick about it and even though that might sound highly insulting in my opinion it is not this massacre itself but the fact the media dictates our views so immensely.
I mean there could be 10.000 death in africa now and the pictures would be as shocking as those we see now but we dont even spend thinking a second about it anymore because of 100 dead in norway. I find this disturbing and we almost never think about this in such a way so I dont think its entirely wrong to pick this up when its appropriate and you have some kind of ''comparisons''
I will now drop this particular thing, though. Just want u to make think about the ''grand picture''..
Once again: Sad sad thing & truly sorry for everyone directly and indirectly involved in this
Firstly, to correct your statistics - the number is estimated at being at least 30,000 children (not counting adults) dying each day due to malnutrition/starvation.
Secondly - the 'all you want to say' stuff is better left unsaid. Please just stop posting right now. If you truly do care about poverty I hope you're volunteering for organisations that are raising awareness about such issues (as I do). From my own personal experience I have found that often it is those who try to grandstand that are the most hypocritical and do the least for charity in their free time despite proclaiming righteousness from the rooftops.
|
On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread ( my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same. It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy. For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims. From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally. Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror. He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid. The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response. All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world. --- To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote: "He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour. Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder. As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries. Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home. So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right? --- I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else.
This should be in spoiler tags in the first post. I want to hug you. I really want to hug anyone at the moment. Oh my god.
|
On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread ( my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same. It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy. For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims. From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally. Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror. He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid. The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response. All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world. --- To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote: "He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour. Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder. As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries. Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home. So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right? --- I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else.
This is why Norway is a great country. If something similar would happen here i hope the media and political leaders act the same way. but i have my doubt with that. Media here like to act like some american news channels. sensationalism, speculations and wrong stuff.
Swiss media was full of populistic, islamophobic news and comments from so called experts. Just now that it is certain that it wasn't a islamic extremist they changed direction and now he is an right wing extremist despite the fact that it is known that he is not (anymore?) involved with them.
It makes me sick
|
On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread ( my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same. It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy. For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims. From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally. Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror. He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid. The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response. All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world. --- To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote: "He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour. Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder. As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries. Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home. So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right? --- I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else.
Post of the thread imo. Excellently stated, I agree 100%.
|
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He was in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian.
EDIT: "He was in the Progress Party?"
|
On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian.
Not liking Muslims and immigration is a moderate viewpoint?...
|
On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian.
Just want to point out that he was in the progress party back in 2006.
|
On July 23 2011 20:49 kjetulf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread ( my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same. It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy. For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims. From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally. Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror. He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid. The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response. All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world. --- To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote: "He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour. Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder. As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries. Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home. So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right? --- I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else. This should be in spoiler tags in the first post. I want to hug you. I really want to hug anyone at the moment. Oh my god.
This. Well written, reflected, and informative. Thank you for summing this up, should even be posted in the OP in my opinion.
|
On July 23 2011 20:54 Wivyx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian. Just want to point out that he was in the progress party back in 2006.
My bad, I'll fix that up.
Going to bed otherwise, hopefully the death toll doesn't double when I wake up. My condolences to all of Norway.
|
On July 23 2011 20:54 BasedSwag wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian. Not liking Muslims and immigration is a moderate viewpoint?...
In Western/Middle Europe yes. It's common to not like them. Not hate in particular, but people here are really xenophobic
|
Regarding the murderer's seemingly normality - New Zealand had a similar case of an intelligent person who was otherwise known as just a 'nice' university lecturer for 30 or so years of his life one day killing his student by stabbing her 200 times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Elliott
The point is that cruelty is not restricted to the realm of the poor/uneducated underclass. Sometimes something can snap inside a person's mind, or build up over a long time, and eventuate in tragedy.
|
On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian.
There are rather political posts on http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/ (Link in OP as well, I think)
Those are NOT moderate.
Apart from being nationalist, not liking immigration and muslims doesn't sound moderate whatsoever already.
|
On July 23 2011 20:48 Mawi wrote:
Did he build the bomb @ the building or "Transported" it there can't seem to find any info about that
And boy i was shocked when he was "white" Saw lots of pictures at the island of dead people was not pleasant ruined my day.
R.I.P to the fallen
Makes me sad that people really think that the only people capable of doing these things must be those damn arabs. To get "shocked" just because the guy is white is just sad on so many levels.
|
On July 23 2011 20:57 DoXa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:54 BasedSwag wrote:On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian. Not liking Muslims and immigration is a moderate viewpoint?... In Western/Middle Europe yes. It's common to not like them. Not hate in particular, but people here are really xenophobic
I'm from the UK and if someone told me they "didn't like Muslims", I'd think they were a right-wing racist idiot.
|
On July 23 2011 20:57 DoXa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:54 BasedSwag wrote:On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian. Not liking Muslims and immigration is a moderate viewpoint?... In Western/Middle Europe yes. It's common to not like them. Not hate in particular, but people here are really xenophobic
Yes, it is increasingly becoming a moderate view in Europe, due to people perceiving Islam as destroying national identity and culture. As BasedSwag wrote, it's not necessarily 'hate', but mainly dislike or perhaps fear.
|
On July 23 2011 20:57 DoXa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:54 BasedSwag wrote:On July 23 2011 20:52 Ciraxis wrote:
Some questions about the motives:
First of all - Anders seems pretty normal? In regards to his political standpoint, what's so different about him? He likes Max Manus? Likes Churchill? He's in the Progress Party? Doesn't like Muslims and immigration? He's a nationalist? What I don't understand is how these seemingly moderate political perspectives eventuated into such a massacre. I am more inclined to believe he was simply a psychopath with too much faith in the radicalism of his political views.
Secondly, the news bulletin here in Australia described him as a "Christian fundamentalist. To what extent is this true? I haven't seen this anywhere, though I heard he called himself a Christian. Not liking Muslims and immigration is a moderate viewpoint?... In Western/Middle Europe yes. It's common to not like them. Not hate in particular, but people here are really xenophobic
To clarify this statement somewhat, there is a general scepticism against immigration to Europe as a whole, be it from Africa (North and South), Asia, and the Middle East. Couple this with people's general view on radical islam, and you get a general feeling of discontent with immigration and muslims amongst a section of the public, although they are still a miniority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
