...continued from here.
Oslo Explosion II
Sat, 2011-07-23 17:26
#1
Oslo Explosion II
Sat, 2011-07-23 17:31
#2
Yesterday's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/norway-bombing/2011/...
"We don’t know if al Qaeda was directly responsible for today’s events, but in all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra. Prominent jihadists have already claimed online that the attack is payback for Norway’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan.
Moreover, there is a specific jihadist connection here: “Just nine days ago, Norwegian authorities filed charges against Mullah Krekar, an infamous al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist who, with help from Osama bin Laden, founded Ansar al Islam – a branch of al Qaeda in northern Iraq – in late 2001.” "
But why stop here?
"Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world."
Sat, 2011-07-23 18:39
#3
According to his recently found manifesto, he's a big fan of Mark Steyn.
http://www.2shared.com/file/M-s-2fBD/2083-AEuropeanDeclarationofInd.html
Sat, 2011-07-23 18:58
#4
Then Mark Steyn must take responsibility for the massacre and apologize for that fact that his writings inspired the killer
Sat, 2011-07-23 19:52
#5
I think that the best way to honor those dead is to learn from it, we should alway keep at least an eye on the extremist group what ever if it political or religious or else and what ever the side they are (left or right).
Here in Canada we got a group who hang out around the park avenue gazette. Those extremist are calling for a somairely hang out all sovreignist.(look quite similar) and to trigger a civil war.
Please i don't want to say: i told you so!
Sat, 2011-07-23 20:02
#6
Its possible to link to a PDF version of that document, but I wont hyperlink to shit even if I had any reason to think it wasnt a fake.
1500 pages of gibberish which mentions Steyn about once every 400 pages.
Sun, 2011-07-24 00:07
#7
Pogo
Here in Canada we got a group who hang out around the park avenue gazette. Those extremist are calling for a somairely hang out all sovreignist.(look quite similar) and to trigger a civil war. Please i don't want to say: i told you so!
I will let others more qualified discuss the merits of this I just want to note that when Americans assume I know someone in Ontario because I am Canadian, I will think of you and ask them if they live near the park avenue gazette
Sun, 2011-07-24 02:16
#8
Just to clear up possible confusion, it was NOT al Qaeda, nor anything to do with Islam or Muslims. It is almost a certainty now that the one guy did both the bombing and the shooting massacre, and he is an "Uber Right Winger" type with mental health issues, "a madman".
It would be much more accurate to say "this was done by a Fundamentalist Christian".
My Norwegian relatives wrote this reply to our email condolences:
Thank you so much for your message - this is really unbelievable for us here in Norway, but we must realize that it has happened. I am in fact glad to hear that it is not foreign forces - but a mad Norwegian that has done it ( it seems …) but that makes us more vulnerable and difficult to discover. The whole tragedy is more related to the school massacres in USA and in Finland.
Sun, 2011-07-24 08:52
#9
But the point has to be restated again and again. He isNOT a "mad man". He committed a mass murder to prove a political point and knew exactly what he was doing. Breivik is no different from any of the 9/11 hijackers.
Sun, 2011-07-24 09:21
#10
Well. As in any major event, people will try to sculpt it into a statement supporting an attack on those they are opposed to, or use it to reinforce already held beliefs. And we, as much as we feel are right about certain things, run a danger of doing exactly that in our cause.
I'd like to think this shows the visciousness of the right wing press, how they created a certain zietgiest where a person such as this felt justified in killing socialists,-- just as I am certain mysogynist columnists inspired Mark Lepine to murder women at Ecole Polytechnique,-- but we must be most skeptical of the things we'd like to believe.
What we need is some fairly direct evidence, some good linkage, and to stick to that and not go clutching at any straws.
Lest we take on the artiface of the enemies we so despise.
Sun, 2011-07-24 10:04
#11
dacckon
"In the document posted online, references were made to targeting "cultural Marxists/ multiculturalist traitors".
His lawyer, Mr Lippestad, said: "He's stated that he went to Utoeya to give the Labour Party a warning that 'doomsday would be imminent' unless the party changed its policies." "
Sun, 2011-07-24 10:25
#12
Northern Shoveler
The planning that he did, at least in Canadian law, would make him legally competent to stand trial and his "mental illness" if he suffers from one would not be relevant. He did not have a break from reality and suddenly kill people because the voice in his head told him too. He was obviously politically motivated however as with many people his politics seems intwined with his religious beliefs.
A sad day for all.
Sun, 2011-07-24 11:19
#13
ikosmos
babblers ought to note at least one odious aspect of the (bourgeois) mass media coverage.
Instead of a political analysis identifying the political background and likely motivations of the murderer(s), we have instead the despicable sight of the killer's own words being re-gurgitated, uncritically, to millions of people.
I mean the following: "it was gruesome but it had to be done" (or words to that effect). I've heard this phrase repeated on CBC radio and television, Russian television, around the world. They all seem to uncritically repeat this.
This is the brodcasting of fascist ideology. All those who would rather indulge in mutual criticism on the left should bear in mind that everyone on the left is a target for such politically motivated crimes.
Sun, 2011-07-24 11:40
#14
laine lowe
lagatta at Bread & Roses found this European site that has profiled the extremist online group Breivik belonged to. Here is an excerpt:
- Nordisk (Nordic) was launched in 2007 and was a rapid hit with nationalists in Sweden. The forum has nearly 22,000 members, one of them the mass killer Anders Breivik. Members span from high-ranking members of the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist party with seats in the Swedish parliament to leading members of the nazi movement and to unhinged psychopaths. What unites the whole lot is a hatred of immigration and immigrants.
- Subjects are generally discussed in a racist manner and have included discussions about the book The Turner Diaries, a novel that has served as a terrorist manual, was labelled the "terrorist bible" by the FBI and served as a direct inspiration for the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 in which 168 people were slaughtered.
Here is some highlights of Breivik's part:
...Breivik's political involvement on the internet as a keyboard warrior has been considerably more radical. In 2009, he registered as a member of Nordisk (Nordic), which has more than 22,000, mainly Scandinavian, members. Discussions on the forum range from White Noise music to political strategies for obliterating democracy.Some of its members openly incite violence. In March 2010, for example, an anonymous user wrote:
"Cars parked next to large buildings with fertilizer + diesel give a nice blast. Skyscrapers go down like the World Trade Centre towers. I haven't said anything about killing. You'll hope the buildings are empty, and if not so, too bad...I don't understand why people don't realise that we have to wage war. The top politicians in government, who live in nice areas a long away from the immigrant threat, have decided that [extremely offensive racist term for immigrants] can come here and live on our soil. In our society. Take advantage of what our forefathers have built up for us. In my world, nothing you do to these monsters is immoral."
http://expo.se/2011/terror-suspect-was-member-of-nazi-web-forum_4193.html
Sun, 2011-07-24 11:51
#15
I'd like to think this shows the visciousness of the right wing press, how they created a certain zietgiest where a person such as this felt justified in killing socialists,-- just as I am certain mysogynist columnists inspired Mark Lepine to murder women at Ecole Polytechnique,-- but we must be most skeptical of the things we'd like to believe.
I have spent a certain amount of my professional life around criminals, whether accused, convicted, or eventually exonerated, and I am increasingly convinced that the root causes of these acts are personal rather than political. Whether or not the Ecole Polytechnique shooter went on about feminism, a person who shoots women in the face at point blank range has a deeply-rooted hatred of women that has a lot more to do with his own personal psychopathology than any politics. And I believe that a guy who shoots children and teenagers by the dozen does it because such violence gets him off in some way. The line "It was gruesome but it needed to be done" points to the power of his personal delusions rather than any politics. I don't know if I'd compare him to the 9/11 hijackers - flying a plane into a building is a much less personal form of murder.
My personal view? There are a certain number of psychopaths among us. Some of them are drawn to political extremism because it legitimizes extreme acts, providing justifications, albeit wonky, for torture and murder. But this guy ultimately shot all these kids because he liked doing it. Politics is merely the candy coating.
Sun, 2011-07-24 12:01
#16
ikosmos
There are some serious studies that point to certain societies - say, for example, the one to the south of us - generating more than their fair share of sociopaths and psychopaths. A google search or two would help here as I recall reading something about this in the last year or so.
Anyway, a depraved society helps to produce such people. So I would be reluctant to jettison social causes for such "individual" psychologies.
Sun, 2011-07-24 12:03
#17
Northern Shoveler
But this guy ultimately shot all these kids because he liked doing it. Politics is merely the candy coating.
I don't share this view. I think his politics and racism is at the central core of this tragedy and to just say it is personal is to miss the threat that these kinds of people are to anyone on the left. It like calling Hitler a madman and discounting his fascist ideology as motivation for his crimes against humanity.
Clifford Olsen fits your description but not McVeigh or other right wing terrorists. There are grey areas of course so Idi AMin for example is hard to put into one catergory or the other.
Sun, 2011-07-24 12:38
#18
babblers ought to note at least one odious aspect of the (bourgeois) mass media coverage.
Instead of a political analysis identifying the political background and likely motivations of the murderer(s), we have instead the despicable sight of the killer's own words being re-gurgitated, uncritically, to millions of people.
I mean the following: "it was gruesome but it had to be done" (or words to that effect). I've heard this phrase repeated on CBC radio and television, Russian television, around the world. They all seem to uncritically repeat this.
This is the brodcasting of fascist ideology. All those who would rather indulge in mutual criticism on the left should bear in mind that everyone on the left is a target for such politically motivated crimes.
There are some serious studies that point to certain societies - say, for example, the one to the south of us - generating more than their fair share of sociopaths and psychopaths. A google search or two would help here as I recall reading something about this in the last year or so.
Anyway, a depraved society helps to produce such people. So I would be reluctant to jettison social causes for such "individual" psychologies.
So the mass media and capitalist society is promoting his cause but they are responsible for it because they created him in the first place? Is it the chicken or the egg?
Ikosmos, there are plenty of ways in which the coverage of this tragedy and the official response has been flawed and biased, but if you honestly see the media reporting his words as advertising I think you are taking things beyond the point of reason.
And I also think it is stretching your analysis to the point of being a caricature of itself.
Sorry, but we don't yet know how sane this man is, nor exactly what went into the plot. And sorry, but I think hearing what he has to say is a bit more important than the slight chance that his words will inspire a new wave of copycats. It is reporting the news, and it's not all a plot.
If they didn't report what he said and only presented some party line analysis there would be accusations of censorship and clamping down on free expression.
(edit)
And besides. There are just as many people here on this site anxious to dissect him, even to the point of linking to his manifesto. Are we all in on the plot to spread "fascist" ideology too?
Sun, 2011-07-24 12:43
#19
Northern Shoveler
I think in fairness Ikosmos was trying to highlight the prominence of the reporting on this man's words and the lack of much other analysis.
If only our MSM was able to deliver the balanced coverage they claim to present. IMO his words should not be unreported but at the same time it should not be the lead or focus of the coverage. Clearly the MSM is regurgitating not reporting and regurgitating selectively at that. But sensationalism seems to sell better than researched and objective journalism so we get what sells. That iMO is a disservice to democracy.
Sun, 2011-07-24 12:55
#20
ikosmos
Repeating the comment of the "alleged" murderer without analysis is advertising his views. Plain and simple. Why is that difficult to understand?
Sun, 2011-07-24 12:56
#21
@ NS
I agree with some of what Ikosmos says about the influence of society and the media. THe fact is though, there is a lot about this situation we do not know yet. And I don't think you have to look too far to see that there has been analysis.
But saying that reporting one sentence is the broadcasting of fascist ideology is way over the top, and as I said, it turns the germ of a good argument into caricature. And I think it is fair of me to say so.
If reporting a statement is an uncritical response, leaping to the conclusion that society is to blame for all this is doubly so.
Sun, 2011-07-24 13:02
#22
That's a fair question Ikosmos, and one that I think could be answered in any first year journalism class.
Think for a moment about all the different vewpoints that are reported verbatim in the media, then tell me again whose ideology they are promoting.
Sun, 2011-07-24 13:05
#23
ikosmos
I hate to say it but I TOLD YOU SO!
Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian "terrorist", belonged to the Patriot Action Network, which has branches around the world, including the U.S.The Tea Party Express is listed as a partner, as well as "Commiebuster".
They also link to Concerned Women for America, the sister group of REAL Women of Canada.
"(CWA) is the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 30-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. There's a cultural battle raging across this country and CWA is on the frontline protecting those values through prayer and action."
Anders Behring Breivik, has made public a manifesto. A game plan for getting rid of Muslims and Marxists.
Sun, 2011-07-24 13:13
#24
"My personal view? There are a certain number of psychopaths among us. Some of them are drawn to political extremism because it legitimizes extreme acts, providing justifications, albeit wonky, for torture and murder. But this guy ultimately shot all these kids because he liked doing it. Politics is merely the candy coating."
I agree, Sineed. And if I can play armchair psychologist, I suppose we could say in these cases that there's a certain transference going on, some deep self loathing or some driving fear that finds a home in hatred of something else.
But I think the question is, are there forces out there, either by design or by incompetence, that are giving these people a framework to hang their fears and hate on?
We see the question being called in the Giffords shooting earlier this year, about how rhetoric was racheted up-- with Gifford's picture being framed with cross hairs-- maybe it is unintentional. And we saw that with the reproductive rights debate, until we saw Christian terrorists shooting doctors.
Sun, 2011-07-24 13:23
#25
Well the Patriotic Action Network has a link - small, and buried - to someone else's coverage of Breivik's actions on their main page, under the heading "Ironic surrealism". Hardly a ringing endorsement.
What does this all mean again?
Sun, 2011-07-24 13:31
#26
Catchfire
I think reducing this crime to the level of the individual is just about the worst mistake you can make in a situation like this. When Kimveer Gill shot up Dawson College in Montreal in 2006, the Toronto Star published a headline the following day declaring "Shooter loved guns, hated people." As if that was that. As if we could relegate school shootings, their pathology and epidemic, to the freak behaviours and desires of a lunatic--of an individual. As if we, as a society, didn't fail this individual catastrophically.
When I see tragic events like this, I see the underside of ideology. Leftists are constantly pointing out the violence of capitalism, imperialism, etc., but any time we see a horrific crime like this one, I see it as the part and parcel of our quotidian experience--a distillations of the blood and horror in which we participate and are complicit every day.
When Oedipus realizes that he was guilty of the crimes sickening his nation, irrespective of intent, he rips out his own eyes and shows them, bleeding, to the people of Thebes. When I read about people like this monster, I think: they're showing us our eyes.
Sun, 2011-07-24 13:55
#27
I think reducing this crime to the level of the individual is just about the worst mistake you can make in a situation like this.
I don't think anyone is doing that. I am just saying that saying that accusing the media and society of being directly complicit is taking it to the opposite and equally false extreme.
I am sure there is no shortage of theories about what this "really means", whether it is our depraved society, or Jesus being Muslim..
Again, until we know if he had accomplices, and whether he was in his right mind. we cannot really say what is going on.
Sun, 2011-07-24 14:00
#28
Catchfire
I think you are caught up in the fetish of "intent"--as if for society and the media to be complicit in this tragedy, they need to be part of some vast conspiracy aiming at enslaving immigrants and empowering white aristocrats. Instead, you should look at the way in which well-meaning people achieve the same means. It is quite obvious what is "going on." Unless you prefer to look at this crime unencumbered by the weight of history.
Sun, 2011-07-24 14:32
#29
@ Catchfire
No.
I am talking about quoting a person as part of a news story being considered fascist propaganda.
I know that society has an influence on people, and I said as much upthread, and elsewhere. I even said that I agree with Ikosmos's analysis in part. Go back and read what I had to say about the GIfford shooting, and the effect that violent rhetoric probably had on the shooter, even though he was clearly disturbed. To what degree that influenced the accused in this case we don't know.
But taking analysis to the extreme of post #12 is ridiculous, and anyone who has any understanding of what it means to report the news should realize that.
(edit)
Just one example:from the straight press:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/world/europe/25oslo.html?_r=1&hp
"The police identified the suspect as Anders Behring Breivik, 32, a right-wing fundamentalist Christian. Acquaintances described him as a gun-loving Norwegian obsessed with what he saw as the threats of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration. "
Doesn't sound too sympathetic, to me, or an endorsement for his ideas. And even though it is a news piece he is described as "obsessed".
Sun, 2011-07-24 14:57
#30
Northern Shoveler
But taking analysis to the extreme of post #12 is ridiculous, and anyone who has any understanding of what it means to report the news should realize that.
Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful commentary in an area you claim to have expertise in. Since you are the expert I am so glad you took the time to teach those of us with less knowledge in the area in such a concise manner.
Sun, 2011-07-24 15:46
#31
But this guy ultimately shot all these kids because he liked doing it. Politics is merely the candy coating.
I don't share this view. I think his politics and racism is at the central core of this tragedy and to just say it is personal is to miss the threat that these kinds of people are to anyone on the left. It like calling Hitler a madman and discounting his fascist ideology as motivation for his crimes against humanity.
Clifford Olsen fits your description but not McVeigh or other right wing terrorists. There are grey areas of course so Idi AMin for example is hard to put into one catergory or the other.
What about animal-rights activists who mail bombs and razor blades to farmers and scientists? Does their terrorism warrant analysis within the context of the overall ideology of animal liberation?
Or are they just misguided nutbars, who no one could have expected to take phrases like "Meat is Murder" seriously?
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Department_(animal_rights)]link[/url]
Sun, 2011-07-24 16:07
#32
But taking analysis to the extreme of post #12 is ridiculous, and anyone who has any understanding of what it means to report the news should realize that.
Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful commentary in an area you claim to have expertise in. Since you are the expert I am so glad you took the time to teach those of us with less knowledge in the area in such a concise manner.
You're welcome. Anytime.
Believe it or not it is actually the job of the media to report what people say and do, even if they don't do it right all the time.
(edit)
And just guessing here, but I suspect if they had not reported his comment some spin doctor would be accusing the media of censorship and supporting his cause because they witheld his awful, cold-hearted words.
Sun, 2011-07-24 16:12
#33
But the point has to be restated again and again. He isNOT a "mad man". He committed a mass murder to prove a political point and knew exactly what he was doing. Breivik is no different from any of the 9/11 hijackers.
This is an important point (your last one here) -- but it is critical that the implications of it are seen clearly--
What it means is that the religion of those involved in the 9-11 attacks is not relevant. The pretext is quite external to the actual process leading to the violence. The pretext is like the shirt they wear on the way to the crime.
I would not be ready to say any of these people are not mad-- or that they are. The issue is what defines mad? Someone who wants violence -- to cause death and to have the power to end other's lives-- regardless of the excuse they name in the process-- is that mad? Or some other form of nastiness that is rational even as it is vile?
The connection between the act and the excuse is one being made by the attacker. To repeat that connection in a way is to give in to the attacker. This is a good reason to perhaps acknowledge the pretext as part of the story as it is news but not the label. Not for any of them. To refuse to go along with the excuse is to take away the pretext leaving the crime exactly as it is. Speaking of these people by the association they claim is to give in to them.
If we did not accept and go along with the pretext would that discourage at least some from attacking-- knowing they would have no excuse to hide behind? No message to send other than their disgusting nature?
Sun, 2011-07-24 18:06
#34
Catchfire
I am talking about quoting a person as part of a news story being considered fascist propaganda.
This is what I mean about your fetishization of intent, and why you are missing a fairly simple point by ikosmos: by quoting fascist propaganda, the newspapers are repeating fascist propaganda. Your subject ("quoting a person as part of a news story") is irrelevant to your predicate ("considered fascist propaganda").
Sun, 2011-07-24 18:58
#35
I am talking about quoting a person as part of a news story being considered fascist propaganda.This is what I mean about your fetishization of intent, and why you are missing a fairly simple point by ikosmos: by quoting fascist propaganda, the newspapers are repeating fascist propaganda. Your subject ("quoting a person as part of a news story") is irrelevant to your predicate ("considered fascist propaganda").
Are you serious?
I can just imagine the outrage from people on this site if the media actually withheld information like that because they thought it might be too dangerous for people to read.
Ikosmos said that the media is reposting this with no analysis, and that is most certainly not true. The lede on the CBC hourly news was a statement about people wondering how Norway could have produced a person who would do such a thing. Even in straight news pieces, in which one does not generaly include analysis, the accused is not presented in a favourable light.
Sorry. There are a lot of things the media are guilty of, but to accuse them of spreading fascist propaganda simply because they report the story is nonsense.
If that is the case, then we are guilty of the very same thing right here.
Sun, 2011-07-24 19:10
#36
Came across this commentary:
http://www.juancole.com/2011/07/when-extremism-learns-to-blow-things-up....
"Worrying about the impact of immigration is not pernicious. Opposing leftist political ideas is everyone’s right in a democracy. Disagreeing over religion is natural.
But when you hear people talking about lumping all these issues together; when you hear them obliterating distinctions and using black-and-white rhetoric; when you hear them talk of existential threats, and above all when you see that they are convinced that small movements that they hate are likely to have an immediate and revolutionary impact, then you should be afraid, be very afraid. That is when extremism learns to hate, and turns to violence."
Sun, 2011-07-24 19:57
#37
ikosmos
6079_Smith_W, you're missing the dynamic here. The media coverage changes over time. Sometimes the increments are quite small. In any case, it's easy enough for you to quote a decontextualized report, one of a sequence I might add, that puts your comment in a more favourable light. But look at the pattern. The media provided a quote from a fascist murderer - totally out of context - and then, MAYBE, over time they start to provide some context. This is great for someone who listens to ALL of the news over a lengthy period of several hours. For the average Joe or Jane, the damage has been done. The single quote, decontextualized and presented without commentary, is what they get for "news".
you're not looking deeply enough.
Sun, 2011-07-24 20:38
#38
Northern Shoveler
Ikosmos said that the media is reposting this with no analysis, and that is most certainly not true. The lede on the CBC hourly news was a statement about people wondering how Norway could have produced a person who would do such a thing. Even in straight news pieces, in which one does not generaly include analysis, the accused is not presented in a favourable light.
Gee maybe because he is daily subjected to MSM Islamophobia. it may not cause it but it certainly reinforces the idea that his racist views are acceptable in western democracies.
Of course he is not presented in a good light but that is irrelevant to the context this is being presented in. I will also note that if he had been an immigrant Moslem Norwegian the CBC would not be raising the issue of how could Norway produce such a person. It is because he is white and nordic that the Islamophobic MSM is using that line.
Sun, 2011-07-24 20:43
#39
My personal view? There are a certain number of psychopaths among us. Some of them are drawn to political extremism because it legitimizes extreme acts, providing justifications, albeit wonky, for torture and murder. But this guy ultimately shot all these kids because he liked doing it. Politics is merely the candy coating.
My view also, as I expressed in the first thread. This does not appear to be a "political" crime, any more than some individual murderer who hears God telling him he must wipe out evil is committing a "religious" crime. As I said in the first thread, the conspiracy theorists seeking (till today) to find some "political" context to the assassinations of JFK or RFK or John Lennon have come up empty. Likewise with school shootings, etc. Many of these may well be the [i]product[/i] of a political climate (like the École Polytechnique), but they rarely reflect the agency of a political organization or trend.
Gee maybe because he is daily subjected to MSM Islamophobia. it may not cause it but it certainly reinforces the idea that his racist views are acceptable in western democracies.
I agree with that also - but I don't follow NS to some of his other conclusions.
Sun, 2011-07-24 21:07
#40
Catchfire
Hmm. So as anti-Muslim, anti-immigration and fascist rhetoric, hate groups, politicians and journalists propagate across Europe, we are to dismiss the actions which so perfectly articulate that terrifying sentiment, which so accurately express the inherent violence and danger to that terrifying language and political movement, as the actions of a disturbed individual, plucked from history and society. He is an aberration. Nothing to see here.
This does not appear to be a "political" crime, any more than some individual murderer who hears God telling him he must wipe out evil is committing a "religious" crime.
A strange comment from an atheist. Politics are real, and religion is politics. The religious zealot who murders abortion doctors is also committing a "political" crime; or at least his crime is part and parcel of his political and historical moment. Isn't this obvious?
As I said in the first thread, the conspiracy theorists seeking (till today) to find some "political" context to the assassinations of JFK or RFK or John Lennon have come up empty.
Again, there is an enormous difference between conspiracy, which fetishizes intent, and political context, in which intent is secondary. Do men "intend" to subjugate women? Do liberal whites "intend" to oppress African Americans? And yet we do, irrespective of "intent." The political context, particularly of Mark David Chapman has been clear since John Lennon's death--indeed, it hardly would have resonated as much as it did without its rich allegorical wardrobe.
Sun, 2011-07-24 21:40
#41
6079_Smith_W, you're missing the dynamic here. The media coverage changes over time. Sometimes the increments are quite small. In any case, it's easy enough for you to quote a decontextualized report, one of a sequence I might add, that puts your comment in a more favourable light. But look at the pattern. The media provided a quote from a fascist murderer - totally out of context - and then, MAYBE, over time they start to provide some context. This is great for someone who listens to ALL of the news over a lengthy period of several hours. For the average Joe or Jane, the damage has been done. The single quote, decontextualized and presented without commentary, is what they get for "news".
you're not looking deeply enough.
It has nothing to do with looking deeply enough. I strongly disagree with you, and furthermore I don't know what sort of context you are expecting in an inverted pyramid news story that wasn't there. Did you expect them to write it up like the article you cited in the last thread?
I also disagree with the notion that it is okay for us to read this fellow's words because we are perceptive enough to understand the right context (as if you and I agree on just what that is) but that the "average joe or jane" aren't well-read enough to handle it.
And as for this so-called fascist propaganda, I didn't find this fellows manifesto, or links to groups of which he was apparently a member, on the CBC, BBC or the New York Times. I found them right here on rabble. And these links weren't accompanied by the appropriate analysis so that I would know how to interpret them either.
But speaking of his manifesto, I wonder what that picture of him in a hazmat suit was supposed to mean.
Sun, 2011-07-24 22:52
#42
Here in Canada we got a group who hang out around the park avenue gazette. Those extremist are calling for a somairely hang out all sovreignist.(look quite similar) and to trigger a civil war. Please i don't want to say: i told you so!I will let others more qualified discuss the merits of this I just want to note that when Americans assume I know someone in Ontario because I am Canadian, I will think of you and ask them if they live near the park avenue gazette
Can you speak your mind clearly?
Mon, 2011-07-25 00:21
#43
Breivik has significant links to the English Defence League, of which he said:
"The tactic of the EDL is to 'entice' an over-reaction from Jihadi youth and extreme Marxists, something they have succeeded in several times already.."
It should also not be forgotten, though apparently has been, that the Jewish Defence League Canada last year entered into a formal alliance with the neo-nazi English Defence League. This Zio-Nazi pact to incite the Canadian population against what they term 'political Islam' also targeted BDS supporters and leftists, like George Galloway, which the JDL spokesman Meir Weinstein declared a supporter of Islamic 'terrorists' and claimed it was his personal intervention that resulted in his being banned.
Finally, let us not forget that there are serious and substantial geopolitical reasons why Islamophobia and fascism are advantageous to the causes of certain international actors and their designs.
Mon, 2011-07-25 00:22
#44
laine lowe
I guess I was one of those people on babble who linked to what appears to be Breivik's manifesto. He is known by people/groups that watch neo-facsist and racist movements in Europe. He is well connected with hate groups. This is not some guy off his meds (or should have been on meds) going off on a killing spree. His actions are very calculated and well organized. His targets were not random. This guy had a business that was so well established that nobody dared question his order for fertilizers used for a bomb. He orchestrated a two-prong assault effectively. This is not a lone wolf who went off the rails. He had a calculated plan which he unfortunately executed well.
I don't get why we should diminish this action as a political crime and an act of terrorism. There are too many people out there who follow the same political belief system and who might be emboldened to do the same. Timothy McVeigh's execution didn't curtail the growth of right wing militias. If anything, groups that follow these trends say that they have mushroomed since 2001. And that kind of hard right growth has been documented in many European countries. If anything, what happened in Norway is a harbinger of what might await us everywhere where it has become acceptable to hate multi-culturalism, immigration and dissent. Anyone seen protecting those eroding priniples is considered a political threat.
ETA: clarification and typo corrections
Mon, 2011-07-25 00:35
#45
I don't get why we should diminish this action as a political crime and an act of terrorism. [...] Timothy McVeigh's execution didn't curtail the growth of right wing militias.
Good example - but you've drawn the wrong conclusion. McVeigh murdered 168 people in 1995. Which right wing militia - or even which individual has committed a similar crime or followed his example in the past 16 years in the U.S.?
What he did was horrible. But to call it a "political crime", just because he said it was, is to ignore history and real political trends. I think, too, it is to give a pass to the really powerful and dangerous forces that threaten freedom, equality, justice, and progress everywhere. Their face is not the face of McVeigh or Breivik. I could be wrong, but I need to hear reasoned argument and see some evidence.
Mon, 2011-07-25 00:43
#46
dp
Mon, 2011-07-25 02:37
#47
Well one bit of evidence is recurring historical patterns. Think"spontaneous" race riots and "know-nothing" counter movements to more progressive populist awakenings, think the Nazi Brownshirts and KKK, think of Sirhan-Sirhan and Oswald and James Earl Rae in the 60s, think of the 70s survivalists, 90s militia movements and present day "Wildrose" and "Tea" parties, or the ongoing cooption of the "Arab spring". Corporatism and open fascism have close links, even if they often (not always) appeal to different demographics, and individual demogogues and "mad men" are often used to justify harsher authoritarian rule if/when existing order is destabilized and major economic interests feel threatened. This won't help the far right in Norway but it's already being downplayed as symptomatic of anything but a small unorganized fringe, and spun into another easy-to-digest morality tale and dramady, with calls for more "security" on supposedly "mainstream" networks.
Mon, 2011-07-25 09:04
#48
An arraignment for Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man accused in the twin bombing and shooting in the Oslo area that killed 93 people, was held behind closed doors on Monday.
A Norwegian police convoy carried Breivik to and from the courthouse where he made a brief appearance. Earlier, Judge Kim Heger made the decision Monday to close the hearing to the public on a request from police.
"Based on information in the case, the court finds that today's detention hearing should be held behind closed doors," the court said in a statement. "It is clear that there is concrete information that a public hearing with the suspect present could quickly lead to an extraordinary and very difficult situation in terms of the investigation and security."
The court acknowledged that there was a need for transparency in the case and that it normally would consider arguments from the press when making decisions to close hearings but said that wasn't possible "for practical reasons."
In an unusual move, the judge granted prosecutors' request that the hearing be closed even before it began. Normally, a judge would make such a decision in open court.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/25/norway-attacker-profile.html
Mon, 2011-07-25 09:29
#49
Much of the real motive in linking everything to Islamists right away can be seen in some of these comments: to frighten us all into support for continued absurd levels of military spending on harware completely unsuitable for fighting the war on terror but very profitable to the providing firms:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/23/277310/wapos-jen-rubin-wsj-...
Mon, 2011-07-25 10:32
#50
The suspect in the worst attack in Norway since World War II has acknowledged carrying out the attacks and claims to have worked with two other cells, a judge said Monday.
He defended the attacks as necessary to combat the "colonization" of Norway by Muslims, Judge Kim Heger said.
The suspect said he worked with two cells to carry out the attacks, Heger said. Other court officials said they could not confirm the existence of the cells and referred questions to the police.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/25/norway.terror.attacks/ind...
Mon, 2011-07-25 10:42
#51
[JDL Canada, EDL and] Anders Breivik's Roots in Right-Wing Populism
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,776413,00.html
"...a strange scene; pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel - but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist...
maintaining informal contacts - to the Tea Party Movement in the US, to the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria, to the right wing football group known as the Casuals, and the stridently anti-Muslim English Defense League...
It is a scene which is considered to be militant and ultra-right wing, but which has in the past cooperated with the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a group which has been branded a terrorist organization in the US. Indeed the JDL has even joined demonstrations held by the English Defense League - a surprising alliance perhaps, but the crossover is clear: Islam is the enemy.
Breivik himself claims to have participated in the creation of a Norweigian chapter of the English Defense League, called the Norweigian Defense League.."
JDL, Canadian Hindu Advocacy, and Christian Heritage Party to Stage Multi-Faith Protest Against Islamization of TDSB School/ Meir Weinstein Explains Rationalization Behind JDL's Support Rally for English Defense League/ JDL Provides Security for Wilders Event: Meir Weinstein is VIP Guest, etc
Peter Kent's Facebook Friend: JDL's Meir Weinstein
http://rabble.ca/comment/1211724
Do you get it yet?