Breivik's manifesto.. Not Deleted, Yet..

I imagine there would be a healthy thread going already, if old mate was a Jihadist..

Ohh wait, he is a right wing, nationalist, christian, gun lovin' nutcase, and he doesn't accept evolution.. Would fit right in around here!.. Fail.

/images/misc/forum-image-missing.gif

You can read about his 1500 page manifesto, with links to download it, and a source for the credited youtube hate video as well, over at scienceblogs.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/a_glimpse_into_the_deranged_mi.php

There has been no thread deletion as such, but there could be...

Ohh, I'm not beating up on anybody, just noting the general 'foot in mouth' of the collective right wing.. Reading his manifesto, the things he says are all too familiar. It's stuff you hear every day, and although this is hopefully a one off, it can't be denied that there are a lot of people sympathising.

While some of his concerns about the 'Islamization' of the west are valid, it's pretty interesting his conclusion that they all need to be shot..

Here is the direct link to his manifesto, a 4mg download and an amazing insight into the mind of Breivik. If anybody is wondering why this guy did it, it's all there..

www.liveleak.com/view?i=89a_1311444384

Pitty he had this song on repeat, it's a good song thats now pretty tainted.

I agree Logman. Half the problems we face are because we dehumanise those we disagree or don't want to care about. If this bloke had actually thought through his ideas he would have considered what right he had to impose his will on others, through killing them. Clearly he had no right to do so as no one has the right to end someone else's life except when it is a case of self defense.

Well that pretty much does it for me. If it's on U choob then everything it says must be true.

After all, you don't have to stretch credibility too far to believe that a democratically elected government in a peaceful first world country would stoop to this sort of behaviour as a matter of course.
After all, there would only be a few dozen people 'in the know' so there would be almost no chance of them being found out and then hung drawn and quartered, because Australians are just sooo good at keeping secrets. (not)

(.).)

Thats my point, we all want to ignore Breivik and dismiss him as a lone nutter.. 'Walk away.. Just another Bryant.. move along'..

This is wrong, Breivik planned this, it's political, he is not a 'lone whacko gunman'.. Domestic terrorism should be shown for what it is, angry white males with a political axe to grind, these people are dangerous.. We are rightly worried about the next Osama, we should be equally worried about the next Breivik.. Faaark, half the commentators on this forum fit the mould.. (wtf Cisco, absolute freak)


Waleed Aly from the ABC, points this out better than I can..

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2808618.html

When Jared Lee Loughner walked into a town hall meeting and unceremoniously gunned down a Chief District Court Judge and a Congress Democrat in January this year, the most conspicuously absent word in public response was "terrorism".

Hilary Clinton went close, calling Loughner an "extremist" and drawing a parallel with extremism in the Middle East. But overwhelmingly, Loughner was deemed dismissed as crazy - much like Norway's Anders Behring Breivik who has now admitted to killing 90 people on the weekend.

Already you can see the rhetorical slide. What began as an unambiguous act of terrorism is slowly becoming the work of a "lone gunman". It's not, in the words of a Norwegian police official, "Islamic-terror related", so he must be a "madman". Terrorism is appearing in some reports of this most recent tragedy - certainly more than it did in the Loughner case - but nowhere nearly as frequently as it does when the perpetrators aren't one of "us".

There's a problem here, and it has nothing to do with political correctness. It's not even simply about public language. The problem is that the more we explain away acts of domestic terrorism as isolated cases of madness, the less capable we become of spotting it. Having realised the weekend's attacks in Norway weren't Islamist, we must do better than lazily assuming Breivik is just Norway's answer to Martin Bryant.

Martin Bryant he is not. Bryant is a loner who massacred 35 people apparently as a way of getting attention: to "make everyone remember me". Breivik is a committed political activist. His manifesto (which for the time being is on YouTube), if correctly attributed, makes this abundantly clear. It is deeply implausible that this was anything other than a textbook case of terrorism. It was fear-inducing violence by a non-state actor in the service of a political cause.

Understood this way, we can see that Breivik is far from an isolated case. This is clearest in America, where the phenomenon of "domestic terrorism" has been on the rise for the last three or four years. Here, I'm not talking about "homegrown" Islamist terrorism, which has also increased. I'm talking about people who, crudely speaking, are like Breivik: white, male citizens with some or other political axe to grind in their own nation.

In March this year, police arrested Kevin Harpham, a white supremacist and former soldier, for trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Jr parade in Washington state. He got as far as placing the bomb there. Six months earlier, an environmentalist named James J Lee was killed by police after he burst into the Discovery Channel's headquarters with explosives and a gun demanding it "broadcast to the world [its] commitment to save the planet". In February 2010 Joseph Stack flew a plane into an IRS building, killing himself and an IRS manager. Stack's suicide note raged against a range of things, including the US government's bailout of financial institutions and his ongoing problems with tax payments and debts.

I could go on. And on. These are not odd scattered plots. We're talking about dozens and dozens and dozens of them - most, thankfully, unsuccessful. Today's domestic terrorists are a broad bunch, as the FBI notes: "From hate-filled white supremacists. to highly destructive eco-terrorists. to violence-prone anti-government extremists. to radical separatist groups." And that is to say nothing of anti-abortion violence, which is quite common. These attacks don't get international headlines, or blanket domestic coverage. As a consequence, they don't generate the broad fear that Islamist terrorism does. But when they succeed, and they do, the dead are just as dead.

**cut.. continue reading at link

The difference between terrorism and the "insane acts of a lone gunman" is this;
If just one person runs off the rails and goes around shooting people or blowing them up in order to publicise his particular point of view then he is a lone lunatic gunman.
Terrorism is when a whole lot of lone lunatics take up whatever the cause might be and act in a similar way for the same cause.

I know it doesn't feel any different if you are shot by a terrorist fighting for a cause or a lone gunman trying to establish a cause, but the threat to society is far greater from the terrorist organisation than it is from the lone lunatic gunman.

Once a cause is established and a few followers recruited, their morality is normalised by others of the same group rather than society in general.
If others in the group then claim that their justification comes from their leader, or government or worse still, from god then nothing they do is beyond limits because if it is approved by god then what higher authority is there to disapprove. Whatever disapproval they get from greater society is irrelevant because any who disapprove are lost souls anyway.
There is virtually no defence against such people because there is nothing you can do which will act as a deterent.

I can't imagine Breivik thinks he is acting under the authority of some divine edict and he has admitted that his action was wrong but but in his opinion, unavoidable.
So far he is just a lone nutter gunman.
If it turns out that he has an army of like minded followers willing to do the same things then he and they will be called terrorists.

That is why some lunatics are labelled as terrorists and some are not.

Probably what normalised it in his mind and made his actions acceptable to him is the wide coverage of other terrorist acts given prominent news and tv coverage.
Since that sort of thing appears to be increasingly normal these days then he probably thought he should give it a try.