Is Anders Breivik winning?

Laminations

twinQuins wrote: »

there are certainly people saying we need to examine immigration policies because if we don't this is what's going to happen.

Example please.

And if you manage to provide an example dies this justify an attack on all right wing thought?

Alopex

JustinDee wrote: »

In your post with "pro-multicultural PC brigade".

I said it will benefit those people. Thats not pigeon holing. It would be pigeon holing if I was calling anyone who is even slightly pro-immigration the "pro-multicultural PC brigade"

[Without looking up on the web, what do you know about immigration in the country and in particular, the city, in question?

I'll tell you when you answer the actual question I asked

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The Fox news link I posted.

The Sun editorial.

Sorry I missed those links. Could you quote the parts that say 'if we don't talk about immigration, this will happen again'.

And then could you tell me the difference between that and you saying 'if we don't talk about right wing views, this will happen again'

Both comments seem to be attempting to capitalise on the murder of 76 people.

JustinDee

Alopex wrote: »

I said it will benefit those people. Thats not pigeon holing. It would be pigeon holing if I was calling anyone who is even slightly pro-immigration the "pro-multicultural PC brigade"

It is pigeon holing. A generalisation that anyone apparently "pro-multiculture" is being PC.

Alopex wrote: »

I'll tell you when you answer the actual question I asked

His view on immigration is warped if his defence of his actions is anything to go by.
Myself, I don't irrationally fear anyone just for being a different colour, from a different culture or of a different religious background. Thats not being "PC". Its just common decency really.

BlaasForRafa

twinQuins wrote: »

No one is agreeing with his attack, sure but they are saying "well hold on, this guy was on to something"; there are certainly people saying we need to examine immigration policies because if we don't this is what's going to happen.
Wouldn't it be fairer to say they're the ones capitalising on the massacre?

Debate on immigration, islam etc shouldn't be shut down because of the massacre either though.

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The Fox news link I posted.

The Sun editorial.

How about somebody credible?

Laminations

JustinDee wrote: »

His view on immigration is warped if his defence of his actions is anything to go by.
Myself, I don't irrationally fear anyone just for being a different colour, from a different culture or of a different religious background. Thats not being "PC". Its just common decency really.

His views are definitely warped. Fears are borne out of ignorance and lack of interaction. Greater education and interaction would help. I like your last line but disagree that you don't irrationally fear out of common decency, you don't do it out of experience. I'd still say you'd run a mile if harmless squidface aliens came to visit. Wouldn't that be a fear of their colour, culture, the fact that they are 'different' from you. Experience or education shows that these surface differences are nothing to fear and that people are people.

Alopex

JustinDee wrote: »

It is pigeon holing. A generalisation that anyone apparently "pro-multiculture" is being PC.

A generalisation i did not make. See my explanation above. I meant it will benefit those who are pro-multicultue and PC. Not that they're the PC brigade because of being pro-multiculture.

His view on immigration is warped if his defence of his actions is anything to go by.
Myself, I don't irrationally fear anyone just for being a different colour, from a different culture or of a different religious background. Thats not being "PC". Its just common decency really.

My point is someone's actions to not make their take on something else wrong by default.

You attacked me with this line

The already predicted line from the "but"-Brigade. "He's a bad man but ...". You're against labelling of sympathisers to a hardline point but are happy to pigeon-hole everyone else in a similar vein.

because I said

I really hate that if anyone says he made some good points in his manifesto they are accused of condoning the attacks.

I don't care if he is "winning" I care about the truth. What he did was categorically wrong, disgusting and ironically will benefit the pro-multicultural PC brigade, but I agree with a lot of the points he made.

The part about the pc brigade was actually a minor side comment.

Laminations

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Debate on immigration, islam etc shouldn't be shut down because of the massacre either though.

Yeah I'd put it this way. Debate on immigration shouldn't happen because of this and it shouldn't not happen because of this. Sides that are trying to encourage/discourage debate on the back of this should be equally ashamed

opinion guy

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

How about somebody credible?

WOAH there horsey.

Unfortunately both Fox news and the Sun are enjoyed by millions.
You may not call them credible, neither do I, but millions do.

Writing them off as not credible doesn't really cut it, especially in the context of this discussion, given that right wing anti-immigrantionists tend not to be avid Guardian readers.

Laminations

Alopex wrote: »

My point is someone's actions to not make their take on something else wrong by default.

I'd disagree. His take was most definitely wrong, regardless of his actions

EDIT: also see Self Perception Theory by Bem. attitudes can be derived by observing behaviour, therefore I'd conclude his attitudes, beliefs etc stunk

Laminations

opinion guy wrote: »

WOAH there horsey.

Unfortunately both Fox news and the Sun are enjoyed by millions.
You may not call them credible, neither do I, but millions do.

Writing them off as not credible doesn't really cut it, especially in the context of this discussion, given that right wing anti-immigrantionists tend not to be avid Guardian readers.

Imguessing this was Tongue in cheek (at least that's why I thanked it) as certain posters are quick to dismiss any Murdoch-owned source.

opinion guy

Laminations wrote: »

Imguessing this was Tongue in cheek (at least that's why I thanked it) as certain posters are quick to dismiss any Murdoch-owned source.

Oh right. It was smiley face impaired :P

steve9859

The fact is that two days after the shootings, the BBC gave a lengthy forum to the EDL on newsnight. Their spokesman did condemn the killings, but agreed with much of the sentiment. He was very eloquent, and I think won the battle of words with Paxman who was trying to beat him up.

The EDL has a forum now that they did not have before. So yes, Beivik did achieve one of his aims. And it has traction amongst many - where I am from in the North of England many of the issues are openly agreed with in places like the working mens clubs where my grandad and uncle drink. Worryingly they find some of the EDL policy credible.

But this is all a good thing. Unless groups like the EDL can be discredited in public and open debate, they will continue to strengthen

BlaasForRafa

steve9859 wrote: »

The fact is that two days after the shootings, the BBC gave a lengthy forum to the EDL on newsnight. Their spokesman did condemn the killings, but agreed with much of the sentiment. He was very eloquent, and I think won the battle of words with Paxman who was trying to beat him up.

The EDL has a forum now that they did not have before. So yes, Beivik did achieve one of his aims. And it has traction amongst many - where I am from in the North of England many of the issues are openly agreed with in places like the working mens clubs where my grandad and uncle drink. Worryingly they find some of the EDL policy credible.

But this is all a good thing. Unless groups like the EDL can be discredited in public and open debate, they will continue to strengthen

I saw that EDL guy on Newsnight the other night and he was certainly not smarmy and self-serving in the same way as Nick Griffin. I don't know a whole about his organisation but if they don't incite hatred and don't advocate violence then surely they have a right to have a voice, even if it is unpalatable.

they shouldn't be given a right to a platform because of the massacre though, they should have the right to speak because it is a basic human right. To drag out that hoary old quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

OhNoYouDidn't

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

How about somebody credible?

Laminations has built a strawman that is impossible to overcome. Unless I poll every right wing person in the world, we cannot say what they would think.

Two of the best known right wing organs around, Fox News and the Sun have taken perverse lines on this massacre. Its fair to extrapolate from that that there is a panic and refusal amongst a lot of anti immigrants to face the facts here. One of them took them at face value and turned their rhethoric into terrorism.

That happens. It happens to most political movements. But the rest will at least react to the situation and have an internal debate about how do deal with headbangers in their number. But not the anti immigrant right or christian right it would appear. THAT is the point here.

opinion guy

Need I mention Glenn Beck ?

RandomName2

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm afraid its not that simple. Like it or not, the anti immigration and anti muslim's amongst us do have to reconcile the fact that this was done by a terrorist fellow traveller in your name. I have no doubt you condemn him totally and with meaning, but there is a hate filled element to the political beliefs you have who will take it further than you. Deal with that and don't start claiming its 'logic twisting'.

Its a common thread on the right - they refuse to take ANY responsibility for the extremists amongst them. From the laughable attempts to label Hitler a commie to kids dying of starvation in their free market, the negatives are never accepted and discussed rationally. Commies deal with Russia. Greens condemn people who attack animal testing labs. The right haven't that political maturity to see the link between their rhetoric and the events in Norway.

That's not the point though!

Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore vegetarians should look at their values VERY carefully!


Breivik could have been a Communist, flat-earther, bible thumper (well he seems to be that) but him murdering a whole load of people is divorced to a large extent from his political philosophy. Ultimately you may say that his political/ social outlook inspired him to kill, sure. But ultimately when you say that his political outlook is made automatically evil by association with his actions, then it is merely ad-hominem. Attack his beliefs based on the content of his beliefs!!!

OhNoYouDidn't

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's not the point though!

Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore vegetarians should look at their values VERY carefully!

Hitler was not a vegetarian. But I don't think anyone is saying his diet was a factor in his political activity.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Breivik could have been a Communist, flat-earther, bible thumper (well he seems to be that) but him murdering a whole load of people is divorced to a large extent from his political philosophy. Ultimately you may say that his political/ social outlook inspired him to kill, sure. But ultimately when you say that his political outlook is made automatically evil by association with his actions, then it is merely ad-hominem. Attack his beliefs based on the content of his beliefs!!!

That is not what I am saying. Personally I am a left leaning Republican ecologist. Each of those three 'isims' have seen violent action by extremists in the name of the ideology. I have to reconcile my beliefs with their actions and think about whether their behaviour means I want to continue with my beliefs. The Christian right won't even accept that he was one of them ffs.

His political outlook killed 76 people. Is it that unreasonable to ask those who share his outlook to pause and reflect?

steve9859

If anyone wants a look into the mind of a far right extremist, the English Times has a couple of pages and interview with Paul Ray, the supposed founder of the EDL known in his blog as Richard the Lionhearted, and possible inspiration to Brevik.. He honestly believes that the threat of Muslim invasion is real and we are in a war. But he is 'not a racist'!

Also claims that God changed his life and spoke to him

BlaasForRafa

steve9859 wrote: »

Also claims that God changed his life and spoke to him

Much like Mohammed (peace be upon him) then

RandomName2

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Hitler was not a vegetarian. But I don't think anyone is saying his diet was a factor in his political activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

That is not what I am saying. Personally I am a left leaning Republican ecologist. Each of those three 'isims' have seen violent action by extremists in the name of the ideology. I have to reconcile my beliefs with their actions and think about whether their behaviour means I want to continue with my beliefs. The Christian right won't even accept that he was one of them ffs.

His political outlook killed 76 people. Is it that unreasonable to ask those who share his outlook to pause and reflect?

You're saying that people who are right wing should pause and reflect due to his actions: because he claims to be right-wing. Do you think it behooved people who were left-wing to pause and reflect when Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK due to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald professed to possess left wing views (notwithstanding that he didn't get much time to give a rationale as to why he killed the president)?

Well actually, the answer to both is yes, but it isn't all that big a deal. People in general should exercise gnosi sauton, and if the shock of terrorism does that, then good. It is no excuse for them to feel associated guilt, however. People who are Christian shouldn't feel ashamed of their religion because of Breivik's actions, in the same way I am sure you would not chastise a moderate individual who was muslim because of 9/11.

RandomName2

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You are deliberatly missing the point here.

All Left wing movements get hijacked and corrupted. All Left wing movements then have an internal debate about it and make a stand against the loons. Except all Communist/Socialist movements.

My bold - RandomName2

But not the right. They create the culture that encourages extremism and then step back and go 'nothing to do with us'. See the Guardian link. Fox news guys saying he wasn't a Christian because Christians don't kill. Despite the fact he was a baptised Protestant who stated he was doing it on behalf of Christianity.

Search for the 'Hitler was left wing' threads on here for a closer to home example.

There IS a reponsibility on the people who shared Breivak's beliefs to reassess where they are going like every other political movement who faces this corruption.

Oh man, only saw this now.

Oh man.

There are more grounds to argue Breivik is left wing than right wing ffs. Sure he creates a 400 page document which espouses Conservatism (ostensibly at least). Then what does he do? Becomes an anarchist; attacking the government, democracy in general, youth political groups; and saying that other Western governments should be attacked in such a manner. In fact, in said document he even postulates making a temporary alliance with Al Qaeda in order to obtain weaponry to take on Western governance; a policy he sees as 'mutually beneficial'.

Get off the 'right is wrong' bandwagon - it's not conducive to clear sighted thinking.

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

There are more grounds to argue Breivik is left wing than right wing ffs.

Your statement here is nothing short of absurd. The attacker was very clearly a conservative, who wanted to attack Liberals, whom he saw as traitors, to turn around and claim he was left wing is pretty horrible, considering who he targetted imho.

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

Your statement here is nothing short of absurd. The attacker was very clearly a conservative, who wanted to attack Liberals, whom he saw as traitors, to turn around and claim he was left wing is pretty horrible, considering who he targetted imho.

Left wing as in radical. An attack against the government is anything but conservative. Note that he was attacking the very form of government in Norway.

You can blow up the Vatican and say that Jesus told you to do it in a dream; but it would be pretty hard to argue that you were being Catholic.

Alopex

RandomName2 wrote: »

Left wing as in radical. An attack against the government is anything but conservative. Note that he was attacking the very form of government in Norway.

You can blow up the Vatican and say that Jesus told you to do it in a dream; but it would be pretty hard to argue that you were being Catholic.

Ok the terms "right wing" and "left wing" have officially lost all meaning

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Your statement here is nothing short of absurd. The attacker was very clearly a conservative, who wanted to attack Liberals, whom he saw as traitors, to turn around and claim he was left wing is pretty horrible, considering who he targetted imho.

For once I agree with Wes. Better mark todays date on the calendar.

wes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Left wing as in radical. An attack against the government is anything but conservative. Note that he was attacking the very form of government in Norway.

Sorry, but again what your saying is absurd, and in the context of the discussion it is especially nasty thing to say imho.

Also, radical means the following:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical

radical

–adjective
1.
of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2.
thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3.
favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
4.
forming a basis or foundation.
5.
existing inherently in a thing or person: radical defects of character.
6.
Mathematics .
a.
pertaining to or forming a root.
b.
denoting or pertaining to the radical sign.
c.
irrational ( def. 5b ) .
7.
Grammar . of or pertaining to a root.
8.
Botany . of or arising from the root or the base of the stem.
COLLAPSE
–noun
9.
a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
10.
a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.
11.
Mathematics .
a.
a quantity expressed as a root of another quantity.
b.
the set of elements of a ring, some power of which is contained in a given ideal.
c.
radical sign.

Nothing in there about a radical being left wing, and I find that fact that we now have people claiming that the attacker wasn't even Right wing pretty much proves a lot of what was said by myself and other posters earlier. A radical can be from anywhere on the political spectrum.

jmayo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The Fox news link I posted.

The Sun editorial.

Fine upstanding murdoch news wh*res. :rolleyes:

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's not the point though!

Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore vegetarians should look at their values VERY carefully!

Ehhh hitler was not a vegetarian and that is an old myth.
He liked sausages, game pies, and sometimes got an injection of some bulls testicles serum concoction.
Oh and he drank wine and beer occassionally.

The gas thing is people require a higher standard of proof that he wasn't a vegetarian, than they can provide that he was.

steve9859 wrote: »

If anyone wants a look into the mind of a far right extremist, the English Times has a couple of pages and interview with Paul Ray, the supposed founder of the EDL known in his blog as Richard the Lionhearted, and possible inspiration to Brevik.

Some one should tell that dude that Richard the Lionheart (Riachrd I or Coeur de Lion), the great English patriot supposedly hated the place, spend very little time their even during his reign, only spoke French and was supposedly bisexual.

Or I suppose he just likes him since he wasn't nice to saracens (actually slaughtered prisoners) and led a crusade in the Holy Land.

RandomName2 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism

Oh God.
It is bad when you rely on wikipedia as your reference. :rolleyes:

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're saying that people who are right wing should pause and reflect due to his actions: because he claims to be right-wing. Do you think it behooved people who were left-wing to pause and reflect when Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK due to the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald professed to possess left wing views (notwithstanding that he didn't get much time to give a rationale as to why he killed the president)?

Ehh do you still think it was Oswald who killed JFK ?

RandomName2

wes wrote: »

Sorry, but again what your saying is absurd, and in the context of the discussion it is especially nasty thing to say imho.

Also, radical means the following:

Nothing in there about a radical being left wing, and I find that fact that we now have people claiming that the attacker wasn't even Right wing pretty much proves a lot of what was said by myself and other posters earlier. A radical can be from anywhere on the political spectrum.

What?

Left wing typically means that the person is against the government; that they want change, etc. The term can include liberalism. It generally is associated with the working class, artisans, commoners, peasantry, etc. However, liberalism is a more modern -ism and typically constitutes a solidly middle-class, modern, well educated base. Liberals want change insofar that it is seen to benefit the majority. Socialists are more hard left and communists more so still; they believe in leveling the polis so that there is as little division between individuals as possible (they are in fact opposed to individualism). As such leveling is instinctively resisted by the majority of people, a strong non-democratic government is seen as a means-to-an end by communists. Anarchists are also left wing; they believe in change through the destruction of the government in an end in-of itself. Whilst Communists may seek to overthrow the government in order to install a Communist government in its stead, they fundamentally believe in the fixity of governmental authority. Left wing can also refer to a belief that the government should have the authority to interfere in the activities pursued by individuals due to the belief that the government will have a better understanding what is right for individuals than individuals themselves.

A conservative or right wing person believes in maintaining the status quo; in particular the position of the Church as moral arbiters and of social order through the class system. Right wing can also refer to being laissez faire and being hands-off in terms of the development of society. Right wing typically does not attempt to create equality;and particularly not an equality which is founded in the actions of the government. Law and order is also quintessential to right wing thinking. Occasionally nationalism can be said to be right wing (although there would be not much basis for doing so). From this viewpoint actions which are seen to defend the national interest can be said to be 'right wing'.

Do I think that Breivik's actions should be called left wing? No.
Do I think that Breivik's actions should be called right wing? No.
Do I think that Breivik's actions should be given a convenient label which provides a knee-jerk explanation of dubious merit? No. Sorry if that's especially nasty.

RandomName2

jmayo wrote: »

Oh God.
It is bad when you rely on wikipedia as your reference. :rolleyes:



Ehh do you still think it was Oswald who killed JFK ?

The point was not whether he was vegetarian or not. *Facepalm*

Okay, Hitler owned Blondie so everyone who owns a dog is evil. Better?

And no conspiracy theories, thank you.

jmayo

RandomName2 wrote: »

The point was not whether he was vegetarian or not. *Facepalm*

Okay, Hitler owned Blondie so everyone who owns a dog is evil. Better?

Now man up and admit that you were wrong and stop trying to wriggle out of it

Otherwise I will report you to the Vegatarians

And stop draggin dog owners into this.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And no conspiracy theories, thank you.

It is not a conspiracy theory, now where is that wiki page again ?

SeanW

Boulevardier wrote: »

In other words, the anti- muslim/immigration/multiculturalism brigade are doing exactly what he wants, and are deliberately benefitting from the killings of those young people.

Most of those skeptical of multi-culturalism that I have seen, such as secular commentators on YouTube, Pat Condell, MartinJWillett etc, have all felt it necessary to issue video statements condemning the atrocity, shouldn't have been necessary but they are subject to guilt by association by the PC left multicultural brigade.

If anyone is "benefitting (sic) from the killings" it is the PC Multicultural left, as they now have a big stick to beat skeptics of multiculturalism with, as this thread proves. So many of you who have posted here are hypocrites, doing precisely what you accuse the "far right" of doing.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Like it or not, the anti immigration and anti muslim's amongst us do have to reconcile the fact that this was done by a terrorist fellow traveller in your name.
Greens condemn people who attack animal testing labs. The right haven't that political maturity to see the link between their rhetoric and the events in Norway.

Very well. Here's my stance on this Brevhik man. I condemn him and his atrocities, completely, utterly and without any reservation. He is my enemy, every much an enemy of freedom and human rights as any jihadist. Anyone who murders civilians for political ends is my enemy. No exceptions, no excuses.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Its that people should realise and accept that some of their political opinions are shared by the most extremist loon balls. That should tell them something and give them pause for thought...

The Trenchcoat Mafia (Dylan and Klebold, the two behind the Columbine High School massacre, posted in their AOL diaries that they thought child beauty pageants were sick and suggested pedophilia, and that the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey were twisted people.

Does that mean that people who have a dim view of beauty contests for toddlers should accept some guilt for the Columbine massacre and accept that they have cause for reflection?

jmayo wrote: »

I think in this case the guys that influenced brevhik in his views should be clamped down on.
They may not have pulled the trigger, but they sure as hell helped get him in the mood.

He put himself in the mood, because fundamentally he has proven himself to be a person who has the complete lack of morals, concisene and humanity necessary to kill a lot of innocent people. I really don't see how Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rupert Murdoch, Pat Condell or anyone else can be blamed for THAT.

Furthermore, if this guy was any more of a nutcase, he might have taken his advice from an Ouija board, or tossed a coin saying "heads I go on a shooting spree, tails I catch up on the soaps" ... would you try to ban Ouija boards, or blame the coin for showing heads?

Edit: Somewhat off top section removed so there's no excuse for dodging the issues!

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Most of (............) with Breivik's actions.

So now its "PC multicultural brigade" and lets talk about the muslims. I'm sort of suprised it took 5 pages to get here......

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

So now its "PC multicultural brigade" and lets talk about the muslims. I'm sort of suprised it took 5 pages to get here......

Nice to see how well you dealt with the questions I raised ... :rolleyes:

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Nice to see how well you dealt with the questions I raised ... :rolleyes:

The questions you asked in what looks very like an attempt to derail the thread? Thanks, I think I did a fine job meself.

If you want to start a brand shiny new thread on the specific points you raised and want answers to, seperate from the issue under discussion here, please do so, and I'll be happy to respond.

SeanW

About 2/3s of my post was directly on-topic, responding to allegations against the so-called "anti- muslim/immigration/multiculturalism brigade."

I condemned Mr. Brevik and responded to specific accusations, such as, deliberately benefiting from the attacks, failing to condemn the attacker, needing to accept some connection/responsibility for the loons influenced etc.

Now, do actually want to address that, or do you just want to continue dodging?

karma_

RandomName2 wrote: »

There are more grounds to argue Breivik is left wing than right wing ffs.

There comes a time ladies and gentlemen, that whilst browsing the internet you will come to a point where you have seen everything. I believe we have just seen it.

RandomName2

karma_ wrote: »

There comes a time ladies and gentlemen, that whilst browsing the internet you will come to a point where you have seen everything. I believe we have just seen it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do humbly apologise. Breivik's position on the political spectrum is clear, mainstream and immutable. Indeed, Mr. Breivik can be classed positively as the defining man of right-wing thinking (extremist or no) in the twenty-first century.

In fact, today I read nowhere that Breivik is anti-tax, pro-monarchy, pro-strong government and believes in hands-off fiscal policies; including deregulation of borrowing. He might be a member of Fianna Fail too. Obviously the terrorist atrocity was designed to increase the profile of the Progress Party. Mea culpa. Again, I humbly apologise.

In other news: with Osama Bin Laden dead how will the neo-Communists survive?

opinion guy

Not to belittle the discussion but this springs to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

karma_

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, I do humbly apologise. Breivik's position on the political spectrum is clear, mainstream and immutable.

Had you stopped there, you could have garnered a modicum of respect back, but you had to push the boat out with a poor attempt at satire.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, I do humbly apologise. Breivik's position on the political spectrum is clear, mainstream and immutable. Indeed, Mr. Breivik can be classed positively as the defining man of right-wing thinking (extremist or no) in the twenty-first century.

In fact, today I read nowhere that Breivik is anti-tax, pro-monarchy, pro-strong government and believes in hands-off fiscal policies; including deregulation of borrowing. He might be a member of Fianna Fail too. Obviously the terrorist atrocity was designed to increase the profile of the Progress Party. Mea culpa. Again, I humbly apologise.

In other news: with Osama Bin Laden dead how will the neo-Communists survive?

He is 'of the right'. Way over on the right. An extremist, a nut whatever but he is certainly "right wing" in so much as any label can be accurate.

Also you're really off the wall about left wing = anti-government. Theres no reason there can't be a left wing government oppossed by right wing forces. Were your logic to hold true, Franco would have been a lefty, as would Pinochet.

RandomName2

karma_ wrote: »

Had you stopped there, you could have garnered a modicum of respect back, but you had to push the boat out with a poor attempt at satire.

Unless you mean that the first sentence would have garnered respect due to its ironic tone. Otherwise it most certainly would not as his position on the spectrum is not clear, he most definitely is not moderate, nor is his position immutable! :pac:

The only way in which people are able to class him as right-wing is because a) he's anti-muslim b) he calls himself a christian (...Templar)... and c) he is nationalistic.

We all knew that one day, just due to statistical probability, we were going to see a terrorist attack orchestrated by Christian Europeans against muslims.

However, we are yet to see it. For one reason or another, and despite (or perhaps because of) his rhetoric, Breivik chose to target Norwegian liberals who were, presumably, Christian (or for the pedants; at least we can assume that the vast majority were Christian).

KeithAFC

Isn't he one of those Knights Templars that have started up around Europe?

karma_

RandomName2 wrote: »

Unless you mean that the first sentence would have garnered respect due to its ironic tone. Otherwise it most certainly would not as his position on the spectrum is not clear, he most definitely is not moderate, nor is his position immutable! :pac:

The only way in which people are able to class him as right-wing is because a) he's anti-muslim b) he calls himself a christian (...Templar)... and c) he is nationalistic.

We all knew that one day, just due to statistical probability, we were going to see a terrorist attack orchestrated by Christian Europeans against muslims.

However, we are yet to see it. For one reason or another, and despite (or perhaps because of) his rhetoric, Breivik chose to target Norwegian liberals who were, presumably, Christian (or for the pedants; at least we can assume that the vast majority were Christian).

You know what, I'll give you a partial there as I really should have edited out mainstream, the rest of that particular sentence however, is completely accurate and sensible.

RandomName2

karma_ wrote: »

You know what, I'll give you a partial there as I really should have edited out mainstream, the rest of that particular sentence however, is completely accurate and sensible.

Well I'm assuming from your sardonic tone that you are saying
'Yes; Brevick is quintessentially right wing'

Elaborate.

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

Unless you mean that the first sentence would have garnered respect due to its ironic tone. Otherwise it most certainly would not as his position on the spectrum is not clear, he most definitely is not moderate, nor is his position immutable! :pac:

The only way in which people are able to class him as right-wing is because a) he's anti-muslim b) he calls himself a christian (...Templar)... and c) he is nationalistic.

....and his conservative views on sex, society and women.

karma_

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well I'm assuming from your sardonic tine that you are saying
'Yes; Brevick is quintessentially right wing'

Elaborate.

Sir, I'm saying that Brevick is an extreme right-wing fanatic.

oscarBravo

Alopex wrote: »

I'll tell you when you answer the actual question I asked

Were you planning to answer my question any time soon?

KeithAFC

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wait, what? You don't agree with the freedom to practice the religion of your choice?

This is the thing. There is people out there (in large numbers it seems) who see Islam and what comes with it as oppressive and doesn't bring liberty. I hear a French and Italian politicians have said his ideas were good or on the right path. Obviously they disagreed with what he did in terms of killing people. But there is obviously people who see it that way. Perhaps we don't but there is a movement growing at the minute which does seem to be anti Islam in Europe.

Should we just ignore them and sweep them under the carpet or what because it seems to me this event hasn't changed the mind of these people on the political views they have at all.