Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-24/norway-mourns-92-victims-after-27hell-on-paradise-island27/2807704/?site=southwestvic
Sad news

Clearly an invention of the liberal media. We all know that only Muslims commit acts of terrorism.

If you read or listen to the various reports of the perp and his views, he sounds like the Norwegian version of Timothy McVeigh.

Yeah it's pretty awful. I live about a 30 minute walk away from the where the bomb went off, and definitely felt a tremor when it went off. It's been crazy walking downtown, seeing the army and Kings Guard deployed, broken glass from storefronts surprisingly far away from the blast.

But the real tragedy isn't in the explosion, it only killed 7 people. But the fact that the bomber went up to a youth summer camp and killed 85 kids before he surrendered to the police. This is one case where I feel that the Norwegian penalty system is way too lenient, he's at worst going to go to jail for 21 years.

I was watching this unfold on Al Jazeera, and even after they had released the demographic info of the shooter, AJE had a "security expert" who kept saying it had all the hallmarks of Al Qaeda. Which it blatantly didn't.

believe it or not, and I don't know if this is something to be proud of or not, but I knew as soon as I heard about the island shooting that this was a neo-nazi thing and not islamism.

anyways, the immortal Glenn Greenwald:



Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.

Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:



In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:



What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whose lengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth reading -- put it:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NwOQGHB1I-c/Tiq1G0LGehI/AAAAAAAAAF0/kkagid2yy7E/s320/hussain.png

That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism, until it was revealed that the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it is beyond question that the purpose of their violence is to terrorize civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims who attack purely military targets -- even if the target is an invading army in their own countries -- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, as NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.

One last question: if, as preliminary evidence suggests, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?



UPDATE: The original version of the NYT article was even worse in this regard. As several people noted, here is what the article originally said (papers that carry NYT articles still have the original version):



Thus: if it turns out that the perpetrators weren't Muslim (but rather "someone with more political motivations" -- whatever that means: it presumably rests on the inane notion that Islamic radicals are motivated by religion, not political grievances), then it means that Terrorism, by definition, would be "ruled out" (one might think that the more politically-motivated an act of violence is, the more deserving it is of the Terrorism label, but this just proves that the defining feature of the word Terrorism is Muslim violence). The final version of the NYT article inserted the word "Islamic" before "terrorism" ("even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause", but -- as demonstrated above -- still preserved the necessary inference that only Muslims can be Terrorists. Meanwhile, in the world of reality, of 294 Terrorist attacks attempted or executed on European soil in 2009 as counted by the EU, a grand total of one -- 1 out of 294 -- was perpetrated by "Islamists."



UPDATE II: This article expertly traces and sets forth exactly how the "Muslims-did-it" myth was manufactured and then disseminated yesterday to the worldwide media, which predictably repeated it with little skepticism. What makes the article so valuable is that it names names: it points to the incestuous, self-regarding network of self-proclaimed U.S. Terrorism and foreign policy "experts" -- what the article accurately describes as "almost always white men and very often with military or government backgrounds," in this instance driven by "a case of an elite fanboy wanting to be the first to pass on leaked gadget specs" -- who so often shape these media stories and are uncritically presented as experts, even though they're drowning in bias, nationalism, ignorance, and shallow credentialism.

Originally posted by Morridini
he's at worst going to go to jail for 21 years.

you don't have a dangerous offender status in your criminal system?

There might be some loop-holes so that they can keep him locked up in a mental asylum indefinitely, or so someone mentioned to me earlier. But it's such a rare occurrence that I've never heard of it. Other then that, no we don't have any "dangerous offender status", believe it or not, Norway is usually a pretty peaceful country.

excellent as well, a breakdown of how the media overhyped the Muslim angle and of how idiotic "security experts" are:

http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benjamin-doherty/how-clueless-terrorism-expert-set-media-suspicion-muslims-after-oslo-horror

Originally posted by Morridini
There might be some loop-holes so that they can keep him locked up in a mental asylum indefinitely, or so someone mentioned to me earlier. But it's such a rare occurrence that I've never heard of it. Other then that, no we don't have any "dangerous offender status", believe it or not, Norway is usually a pretty peaceful country.

so is canada...?

that seems like a fairly glaring flaw in your criminal system

Originally posted by Morridini
There might be some loop-holes so that they can keep him locked up in a mental asylum indefinitely, or so someone mentioned to me earlier. But it's such a rare occurrence that I've never heard of it. Other then that, no we don't have any "dangerous offender status", believe it or not, Norway is usually a pretty peaceful country.

Wiki says that according to this page (in Norway letters) a person can sentence can continually be renewed in five year increments.

http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-20050520-028.html

Originally posted by inimalist
excellent as well, a breakdown of how the media overhyped the Muslim angle and of how idiotic "security experts" are:

http://electronicintifada.net/blog/benjamin-doherty/how-clueless-terrorism-expert-set-media-suspicion-muslims-after-oslo-horror

It does hurt me to see this type of discrimination occur

Originally posted by Lestov16
It does hurt me to see this type of discrimination occur Deeply? Or just band-aid levels of hurt?

Aaaaand we have a new spree killing record. It's a little weird how he managed to kill over 80 people in only ~2 hours. The next worst spree killer "only" killed 56 over a course of ~8 hours.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Aaaaand we have a new spree killing record. It's a little weird how he managed to kill over 80 people in only ~2 hours. The next worst spree killer "only" killed 56 over a course of ~8 hours.

He on an island and had commandeered the boat that went there in order to arrive. His targets were about 14. There were few adults, none of them armed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He on an island and had commandeered the boat that went there in order to arrive. His targets were about 14. There were few adults, none of them armed.

The other guy encountered no resistance either. He was an actual police officer, so people exposed themselves to him willingly. At any rate, I was just kinda thinking out loud about that.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The other guy encountered no resistance either. He was an actual police officer, so people exposed themselves to him willingly. At any rate, I was just kinda thinking out loud about that.

I don't know the circumstances but the limiting factor for spree shootings seems like it should be the ability of people to run away and warn others about the shooter along with the response time of authorities (or armed civilians).

Don't they believe that Breivik acted alone and impersonated a cop, to draw a crowd to him?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't they believe that Breivik acted alone and impersonated a cop, to draw a crowd to him?

Yhe police in Oslo said at one point that they weren't ruling out accomplices. He didn't have to draw people to him, the island is only like 300 meters across. There was nowhere for people to go. It's an incomparably horrifying situation to be in.

idk, the library at colombine would have been bad, but this seems like a fairly morbid calculus :/

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't they believe that Breivik acted alone and impersonated a cop, to draw a crowd to him?

Yeah, he was dressed up in a police uniform, and after the initial first shots, he yelled out that he was a cop and was going to protect them, and then he waited until about 30-40 kids had gathered around him for protection (obviously they hadn't see who fired the first shots, and naturally thought it safe to approach a cop), before starting shooting again. This was described somewhere by one of the 30-40 kids who survived.

Tragic.

It's one of those times where you don't want to focus on the fact that the media immediately jumped to assume it was a Muslim because damn near 100 people died (on a per capita basis, that's double the amount of people who lost their lives on 9/11), but at the same time, you feel remiss if you don't because the media immediately jumped to assume it was a Muslim. Evil takes on more forms than brown with a turban.

Originally posted by Harbinger
Tragic.

It's one of those times where you don't want to focus on the fact that the media immediately jumped to assume it was a Muslim because damn near 100 people died (on a per capita basis, that's double the amount of people who lost their lives on 9/11), but at the same time, you feel remiss if you don't because the media immediately jumped to assume it was a Muslim. Evil takes on more forms than brown with a turban.

Well, you really can't blame them. Not only does Norway have a Muslim minority, the white-boy who carried it out emulated the style/M.O. of his declared enemies. People who are saying that "Its wrong to assume he's an Arab" (and there's no shortage of them) are just being PC. Use your noodle; if that guy had left no witnesses and had gotten away scott-free, Interpol would be looking for an Arab.

Japan and South Korea, both of whom are rich and prosperous nations, heavily scrutinize anyone who wants to emmigrate to their countries. If someone isn't to their liking, then they get the boot. They're also not afraid to hurl racist/xenophobic terms outsiders, like gaijin or huin dwaeji. If European countries did the same, they wouldn't have the Muslim problem that they do now. Instead, they open their doors and let all kinds of riff-raff in, and then allow them to do whatever they please with no repercussions, because they're afriad to be called "racist".

actually, the gun assault on the island doesn't really match Muslim MO, and is much more comparable to other right wing and local motivated violence

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
People who are saying that "Its wrong to assume he's an Arab" (and there's no shortage of them) are just being PC.

I've noticed more than more that PC has come to mean "pointing out the truth" to racist idiots. Sad that's somehow a bad thing.

People who are "anti-PC": "Damn, you mean I gotta respect other people humanity and such? And not make mass generalizations about them? Damn, that's just......ridiculous, man! Why can't I be as racist as I want?"

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Well, you really can't blame them. Not only does Norway have a Muslim minority, the white-boy who carried it out emulated the style/M.O. of his declared enemies. People who are saying that "Its wrong to assume he's an Arab" (and there's no shortage of them) are just being PC. Use your noodle; if that guy had left no witnesses and had gotten away scott-free, Interpol would be looking for an Arab.

How did he "emulate their style"? What, are muslims the first people to shoot up a crowd?

When I first saw the headlines, I did suspect that it was a muslim group. But once I found out the truth, I just abandoned the old view, not go on trying to insist I was somehow correct.

Why did you initially suspect that it was a Muslim group?

Bombing outside of a Western democracy's governmental office, and a mass shooting of unarmed people a few miles away... my mind definitely rambled "Muslim" and "fanatics (plural)" when I read those first headlines. Bombings are an obvious one, and ever since Fort Hood, shootings are on the menu.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why did you initially suspect that it was a Muslim group?

Bombing government buildings certainly suggests a Muslim group since a bunch of them have done that.

A mass shooting is the first clue that it's not. There simply haven't been enough mass shootings by Muslim terrorists for me to have them immedeately jump to mind.

The fact that both targets were associated with the same political party is the final nail in the coffin of it being a Muslim group. Those groups seem to hate the West indiscriminately.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why did you initially suspect that it was a Muslim group?
The headlines were basically "terrorist bombing in Norway", with no other context. I knew that a lot of terrorist bombings have been Muslim. And I know that there is some racial friction between the Norwegians and Muslim immigrants there. So it seemed like the most likely guess. Of course, this was just a personal guess. I didn't go around telling people it was a muslim, because I didn't really know.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
...ever since Fort Hood, shootings are on the menu.

My thoughts exactly. When Fort Hood happened, I recall how all the news anchors were hesitant to say his name, and kept downplaying the fact that he was Arab/Muslim. (As if him being a Muslim was somehow a "co-incidence" and not the direct cause of his actions.) With that guy, there were all kinds of redflags, but nobody did or said anything because they were afraid of being labeled a racist, as opposed to simply using common sense and reporting the obvious. As a former US soldier myself, I'm ashamed of his co-workers and fellow officers for neglecting to report his ass.

As for this Norway shooter, if he was a Muslim, we all know that the media would be doing their damndest to avoid mentioning it. They'd just sweep it under the rug as though it were an entirely unrelated trivial fact.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As for this Norway shooter, if he was a Muslim, we all know that the media would be doing their damndest to avoid mentioning it. They'd just sweep it under the rug as though it were an entirely unrelated trivial fact. You've got to be kidding.

So that's why the NY Times, WaPo, and several other media outlets were already entertaining the idea that the shooter was Muslim before the facts came out, right?

If anything, they've backed off now that it's been revealed that the guy was Norwegian because they have no idea how to treat the case now. Hence the backing off of referring to him as a terrorist. Lulz at "They'd be running away from the fact that he was a Muslim, even though they sure as hell didn't have any problems with assuming he was a Muslim in the first place." Brilliant.

Originally posted by Harbinger
they have no idea how to treat the case now.

Easy: he's a right-wing White Nationalist.

And he's willing to kill his own kind just to make a point.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As for this Norway shooter, if he was a Muslim, we all know that the media would be doing their damndest to avoid mentioning it. They'd just sweep it under the rug as though it were an entirely unrelated trivial fact.

Except that they never do that. In fact this who discussion about how you're both incredibly stupid and a racist started because the media was so incredibly eager to report that the shooter was Muslim.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Easy: he's a right-wing White Nationalist.

And he's willing to kill his own kind just to make a point.

His own kind?

All the victims were members of the Labor party, most of them were children.

As in other white people, and fellow Norwegians.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As in other white people, and fellow Norwegians.

I doubt he sees them as fellow Norwegians. They're the enemy, "Marxists", a term which he uses in his manifesto to refer to both the Labor party, Muslims, and immigrants in general.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As for this Norway shooter, if he was a Muslim, we all know that the media would be doing their damndest to avoid mentioning it. They'd just sweep it under the rug as though it were an entirely unrelated trivial fact.
Are you kidding? They mentioned it when it wasn't even true. So how are they sweeping the crimes of muslims under the rug, when they even attribute christian crimes to islam?

I don't know, the media over here rarely hesitates to point out that one or another act of terrorism was done by "Muslim terrorists", "Islamic fanatics", etc.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Are you kidding? They mentioned it when it wasn't even true. So how are they sweeping the crimes of muslims under the rug, when they even attribute christian crimes to islam?

It happened with Fort Hood. He even shouted Allahu Ackbar during the rampage. Despite that they were still hesitant to refer to it as a Muslim attack.

But this time, they jumped the gun (can't say I blame them), but turned out to be incorrect.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It happened with Fort Hood. He even shouted Allahu Ackbar during the rampage. Despite that they were still hesitant to refer to it as a Muslim attack.

But this time, they jumped the gun (can't say I blame them), but turned out to be incorrect.
But you just said, if he was muslim they never would of mentioned it. Well, they thought he was muslim and they sure as hell mentioned it (I would never bring that up if I had no evidence. So that's a major unprofessional media job, right off the bat). So i'd have to say you are definitely looking through a tinted lense on this one.

By the way, the 2008 Mumbai attacks included shooting. That was before the Fort Hood incident.

I think the shooting vs bombing angle is a red herring. That certainly wasn't a big factor in my speculation. Was it big to other people? I know cases of christians bombing, and I know cases of muslims shooting. It doesn't mean a thing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think the shooting vs bombing angle is a red herring. That certainly wasn't a big factor in my speculation. Was it big to other people? I know cases of christians bombing, and I know cases of muslims shooting. It doesn't mean a thing.

My first guess was Gaddafi's revenge. Weird, I know.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
By the way, the 2008 Mumbai attacks included shooting. That was before the Fort Hood incident.

it's who was being shot at though

targeting a camp of a specific political party suggest being upset with specific local policies rather than the more broad scope associated with Islamist militants.

Like i did'nt see this coming

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/07/oslo-r18-and-default-media-finger-pointing/

Originally posted by Kazenji
Like i did'nt see this coming

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/07/oslo-r18-and-default-media-finger-pointing/ Good.

So much bullshit out there that I doubt most people even bother listening to the news any more, they know it's shit, even the news media report about media bias because that's what people are talking about. Not to mention anything they hear or read will just be contradicted or criticised by something online.

I hope this story gets as much coverage as possible, because it's so obvious that "the war on terror" won't do anything about it.

I thought Oklahoma straight away.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Like i did'nt see this coming

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/07/oslo-r18-and-default-media-finger-pointing/

It's so obvious, we just ban all video games and heavy metal music so all these problems go away.

Originally posted by inimalist


indeed, but blowing up a car bomb in front of a building could literally be anyone, muslims included (Norway is an active NATO member)

Of course but for me it's more likely to be home grown in a country like Norway.

Originally posted by Deadline
Of course but for me it's more likely to be home grown in a country like Norway.

sure, but 7/7 was homegrown as well

not to mention, the proximity to newspaper buildings and the oil ministry were both suggestive of some type of jihadi motivation

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, but 7/7 was homegrown as well

not to mention, the proximity to newspaper buildings and the oil ministry were both suggestive of some type of jihadi motivation

Sorry when I mean homegrown I mean neo-nazi, white christian fundiementalist.

Originally posted by Deadline
Sorry when I mean homegrown I mean neo-nazi, white christian fundiementalist.

why wouldn't you consider domestic islamist terrorism home grown?

its motivations share more in common with other domestic terrorism than it does with international jihad (imho, I suppose I'm nowhere close to an expert on this)

Originally posted by inimalist
why wouldn't you consider domestic islamist terrorism home grown?

its motivations share more in common with other domestic terrorism than it does with international jihad (imho, I suppose I'm nowhere close to an expert on this)

Yea thats homegrown as well I just think it would be more likely for white people to do it in Norway.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yea thats homegrown as well I just think it would be more likely for white people to do it in Norway.

by sheer statistical probability, sure

though, an argument could easily be made the other way. it's not like there are no grievances between Norway and either international or domestic Islamist groups, even al zawahari has threatened them, and such attacks aren't unheard of in scandanavia

Originally posted by inimalist
why wouldn't you consider domestic islamist terrorism home grown?

its motivations share more in common with other domestic terrorism than it does with international jihad (imho, I suppose I'm nowhere close to an expert on this)
That was my guess. I never for a moment thought it was Al Qaeda or anything. I assumed it was Norwegian muslims who were responsible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That was my guess. I never for a moment thought it was Al Qaeda or anything. I assumed it was Norwegian muslims who were responsible.

tbh, I thought so too, until info about the island shooting started coming out

I honestly thought the oil ministry was one of the major targets in the bombing, which seems not to be the case

Originally posted by inimalist
by sheer statistical probability, sure

Yea theres that.

Originally posted by inimalist

though, an argument could easily be made the other way. it's not like there are no grievances between Norway and either international or domestic Islamist groups, even al zawahari has threatened them, and such attacks aren't unheard of in scandanavia

Sweden and Denmark aren't like Norway eg Sweden and Denmark have stronger neo-nazi groups, they are also more culturaly diverse. Islamic terrorists are more likely to target US or UK. An Islamic terrorist in Norway would have to be homegrown but I think this is more likely in Sweden or Denmark for reasons given.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That was my guess. I never for a moment thought it was Al Qaeda or anything. I assumed it was Norwegian muslims who were responsible.

I didn't think it was muslims period.

Originally posted by Deadline
Sweden and Denmark aren't like Norway eg Sweden and Denmark have stronger neo-nazi groups, they are also more culturaly diverse. Islamic terrorists are more likely to target US or UK. An Islamic terrorist in Norway would have to be homegrown but I think this is more likely in Sweden or Denmark for reasons given.

sure, Muslim terrorism is more likely in other places, the entirety of my point is that a carbomb in front of government buildings in Norway is consistent with the MO of a large number of "types" of terrorists, one such group being islamists. until details of the shooting started coming out, there was really no way to guess who it was based solely on the bombing, so it is hardly surprising people jumped on the idea of it be islamists (of course, most should have said they didn't know rather than reporting their "gut instinct"

though, of course, this is no excuse for the "experts" who kept saying it was AQ even after the media had released the demographic info about the shooter (though, they should have known after the info about him targeting the labour party specifically).

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, Muslim terrorism is more likely in other places, the entirety of my point is that a carbomb in front of government buildings in Norway is consistent with the MO of a large number of "types" of terrorists, one such group being islamists. until details of the shooting started coming out, there was really no way to guess who it was based solely on the bombing, so it is hardly surprising people jumped on the idea of it be islamists (of course, most should have said they didn't know rather than reporting their "gut instinct"

though, of course, this is no excuse for the "experts" who kept saying it was AQ even after the media had released the demographic info about the shooter (though, they should have known after the info about him targeting the labour party specifically).

Agreed.

actually, just thinking about it now, you'd almost expect some form of law enforcement to be targeted by right wingers, or something related to taxes, than just generic government buildings, but that is probably more to do with an American over European perspective

fascinating read, looking at Breivik from the perspective of the Turner Diaries:

http://amongthetruthers.com/2011/07/on-anders-breivik-and-the-turner-diaries-how-a-2011-norwegian-massacre-echoes-a-1978-american-novel/

for instance, this:

WHAjSRPdNBg

ermm

Do we know why he did this? I still can't comprehend how someone can kill civilians like this... especially children.

As Aveline said: "Some people are just broken."

One of them made a passing comment on his cow-lick. He just went apeshit after that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Do we know why he did this? I still can't comprehend how someone can kill civilians like this... especially children.

As Aveline said: "Some people are just broken."

he, uh, left a 1500 page manifesto detailing why...

broken down, he felt alienated from a Norwegian society that is open, multicultural and democratic, and saw his act as a necessary evil that would alert the public to the errors of such a society.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, just thinking about it now, you'd almost expect some form of law enforcement to be targeted by right wingers, or something related to taxes, than just generic government buildings, but that is probably more to do with an American over European perspective

I've noticed that historically, people choose their tactics based on politics with anarcho-communists and socialists incurring the least amount of civilian casualties (except in situations involving ground wars like the Russian civil war and WWII). If you see sloppy bombings, suicide or otherwise, think right-wing christians or muslims. If you see precise attacks for maximum casualties or chemical weapons, think white supremacists or Jewish Kahanists. If you see sloppy bombings of financial institutions, those would be radical liberals or communists. A fishy assassination is a government hit job. Socialists and anarcho-communists are known for carrying out a series of surgical assassinations, typically against world leaders, business leaders, and bankers in rapid succession and in such a seemingly random and disorganized manner that governments can't react without overreacting.
Regardless of the methodology or the ideology though, the sad and scary thing is that in almost every case, terrorism works. Surgical assassinations and violent strikes created social safety nets, labor laws, and World War I, Government assassinations of presidents and civil rights leaders gave us a pussified, isolated, and paranoid presidency. Flying two planes into the world trade center caused superficial unity and racism clouding the government accomplishing nearly all of bin laden's goals for him.
If terrorism didn't work, there'd be no terrorists.
It's why I'm glad that for now at least, Norway seems to be doing the opposite of what Breivik and whatever possible terrorist cell he works for want.

Speaking of, I'd be really interested in finding out (other than the Gellar/Gaffney connection) if square goatee boy had any friends who served in the Serbian armed forces.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
One of them made a passing comment on his cow-lick. He just went apeshit after that.

msn-oh Well I guess that's understandable...

Originally posted by inimalist
he, uh, left a 1500 page manifesto detailing why...

broken down, he felt alienated from a Norwegian society that is open, multicultural and democratic, and saw his act as a necessary evil that would alert the public to the errors of such a society.

What a stupid reason to pull a stunt like that. Not that there is any good reason to...

Originally posted by TacDavey
What a stupid reason to pull a stunt like that. Not that there is any good reason to...

Laurence Wright will talk a lot about humiliation being a major factor in influencing this type of act, and through that perspective, you might be able to explain this man's motivations as though he were humiliated to see Muslims taking "Norwegian" jobs, humiliation by the lack of a social will to enforce his ideas of what his country should look like, etc.

I think the theory is much better suited for explaining Islamic terror, and then, only a small fraction of it. I think what might be a better answer is looking at perceptions of belonging in a meaningful way to society and one's own perception of how much control they have over their ability to belong.

So, if you have a low sense of belonging, but, you feel that it is under your control to integrate, there would be less reason to act violently (ie: the reasons you aren't part of society are the choices you have made). However, if you feel like you aren't part of society because of the actions of others, or that you are a victim of social change (ie: I am not part of Norwegian society because it has changed on me), I feel at least, this would motivate violent action.

just some caveats before I rant on this issue:

1) these are matters of individual perception, not of reality. Thus, someone could feel alienated from a society where, in fact, they are part of a majority ethnic, political, religious, etc, group, even though in reality they may, simply by belonging to such groups, be much better integrated into society than are individuals of marginal/minority groups

2) social alienation can occur because society changes on groups of people, and in reality, they can become victims of changing times, the most poignant example being civil rights in the states, where conservative members of society literally had their country change in fundamental ways they were not supportive of. Therefore, the perception that society has rejected you might not be inaccurate, what is more important is how one perceives their ability to do something about it (do they think "I should change" or "I need to change society"?)

3) many people feel both alienated from society and a victim of social norms. In fact, it is probably something everyone feels from time to time. Therefore, there is something else that I don't think anyone who has theorized on terrorism or random violence has been able to pin down. Other theories, like Wright's or those that focus on emasculation, also fail to identify this variable, as there are far more people that feel humiliated by oppressive powers than there are those who are willing to do violence because of that humiliation.

so, what is it then? One of the things that is often overlooked in all this is the role of an accepting social group. I actually tend to believe that the same types of things that motivate people to join gangs and cults also motivates people to adopt personas sort of wrapped in terrible ideas. And this isn't to say that people must belong to a literal group of people, but rather, they adopt a persona defined by a specific group of people or modestly coherent ideology. So like, the columbine killers, they weren't part of a "group" of people, but they did identify with an ideology of this sort of anti-life, depressed hatred, or the Norwegian killer, came to identify with extremist racial and nationalist ideas as a defining point in who he was as a person.

so like, my "algorithm" for how someone gets to this point:

- a feeling of being isolated from or rejected from mainstream society.

- the sense that this isolation is a result of society rejecting you for a particular reason, or that the isolation is not something which you have the ability to control. This creates a sense of victimization in the individual, and a sense of confusion about why the world is as it is.

- the appropriation of an identity that fills 2 roles
1) it gives you a sense of belonging to "something" or at least defines you as an individual. (maybe the best example of this is how being depressed is such a cliche thing in modern culture. This might just reflect the fact that depressed people can cope in some way by defining themselves as depressed, thus giving some conclusive perception of "self"
2) confirms biases you have against mainstream society (if you think your government is too oppressive, aligning with a group that defines itself as an answer to that oppression will give you a greater sense of control). This is one of the major issues, because it is through this mechanism that one would begin to see the society they don't feel part of as literally evil. Rather than simply feeling rejected because you don't mesh with various social norms, you come to see those norms as evil. An overwhelming evil you have no power to stop that is out to destroy people like you. From an individual psychological perspective, this stance actually prevents issues like cognitive dissonance and other unpleasant cognitive states. It is entirely counter-productive to civil society, but to the person, identifying in such a way, and seeing the world in such clear evil vs good terms makes the world a much more understandable place.

- thinking something must be done to reverse this evil. and this is where violence becomes so hard to explain, because it is what motivates some members of the KKK to hold rallies and protest and others, who literally have the same social/political/etc background, to form lynch mobs. Clearly developmental factors will come into play, as various conditions in one's upbringing will play a role in their position toward violence. To me, this doesn't go far enough in explanation, because it would almost predict that there is a formula of development that produces specific behaviours. The best counter example to this type of thinking, aside from basic logic, is the fact that although many serial killers were abused as children, astoundingly few children who were beaten become serial killers, and in fact, many go on to reject that form of behaviour in their adult lives. Personally, I think the mediating factor (not in parental abuse, but in why some people become violent) is the idea of "tolerance of ambiguity". This is something that is thought to be at least partly genetic, and essentially is how willing you are to allow things to be ambiguous. So, even if you think that Mexican illegal immigration is an evil that is bound to sink America, or even worse, if you believe the conspiratorial ideas about Aztlan or whatever, with a high tolerance for ambiguity, you are unlikely to become violent about it, because you can accept a little bit of evil. You might still vote or rally against it, but you don't see it as so inherently terrible that you have to kill it. On the flip side, if you are a militant in Egypt, and you see Western influence as corrupting Muslim society, and you have a very low tolerance for ambiguity, you will start to see even the people who are not fighting with you as being the same evil that you wish to destroy.

I also accept that there is a bit of a contradiction between having an external locus of control (I am a victim of society) and being motivated to change it (I can change society). These two concepts probably balance in some way, likely mediated by tolerance for ambiguity. If you feel that you are the victim of society's evil, but also that the evil society represents must be destroyed, there is actually no real contradiction, except at a semantic level. And often the specific grievances a violent person has can be identified by the victims they choose. On 9-11, AQ attacked symbols of Western economic and military power, the Norwegian attacker targeted youth of a political organization that supports Norway as an open society, etc. wow, over 8000 characters... I should wrap it up here...

actually, just one thing because I'm pedantic. When I talk about what motivates people to join cults and gangs, I am certainly not saying it is all the same, or that these groups themselves have the same motivations to commit violence or anything like that. Just that these types of groups prey on people who are at these points in their life, where they are questioning their own identity, or lack the sense of belonging to a coherent social group, etc. gangs, cults, terrorist/extremist groups give that type of identity the person is seeking

lol, i know, tldr

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I've noticed that historically, people choose their tactics based on politics with anarcho-communists and socialists incurring the least amount of civilian casualties (except in situations involving ground wars like the Russian civil war and WWII).

yes and no. I suppose my first point would be that anarchist terrorism of this sort is long over. It had its heyday in the late 19th early 20th century, and true, was mostly targeted at political leaders, however, the initial concept of targeting civilians because they support the enemy does come from Anarchist literature, the French anarchists iirc.

I know I've posted this lecture before, but it is a favorite of mine:

vVGsoiE3zQQ

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If you see sloppy bombings, suicide or otherwise, think right-wing christians or muslims.

actually, the heaviest use of suicide bombings has been by the Marxist Tamil Tigers. A suicide attack in a NATO nation, sure, in the Arab peninsula, of course, but in places like India, I doubt it. Further, Buddhists have used suicide as a form of protest for at least decades (non-violent suicide, but I would argue still comparable)

additionally, all terrorist types have sloppy bombings. To claim this is a Muslim/christian/etc phenomenon is to not follow the issue outside of newspaper headlines

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If you see precise attacks for maximum casualties or chemical weapons, think white supremacists or Jewish Kahanists.

white supremacists almost never attack just random civilians for maximum casualties. Those types tend to be just the criminally insane, who shoot up malls and schools. They do go for casualties, but their targets are explicitly chosen for being symbols of what they see as social evil.

what chemical attacks are you thinking of? I can only think of Aum Shinrikyo or the Anthrax attacks, and neither have either Jewish or supremacist connections...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If you see sloppy bombings of financial institutions, those would be radical liberals or communists.

most liberal terrorism these days is eco-terrorism, where universities and scientific institutions/corporations have been targeted.

historically, sure, anarchists and communists have attacked wall street and such, but symbols of economic power are actually targets for almost all types of terrorist organizations. It represents a fundamental part of the society they are rebelling against. Similarly, government buildings are the same way. This is why there was no way to determine the demographic identity of the Norway killer until after information about the island shooting had been released.

Specific financial institutions, sure. Like, the IRS is most likely to be attacked by right wing extremists, whereas infrastructure involving oil is most likely Muslim.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
A fishy assassination is a government hit job.

or anyone else, including random violence

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Socialists and anarcho-communists are known for carrying out a series of surgical assassinations, typically against world leaders, business leaders, and bankers in rapid succession and in such a seemingly random and disorganized manner that governments can't react without overreacting.

in Europe a century ago, sure.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Regardless of the methodology or the ideology though, the sad and scary thing is that in almost every case, terrorism works. Surgical assassinations and violent strikes created social safety nets, labor laws, and World War I, Government assassinations of presidents and civil rights leaders gave us a pussified, isolated, and paranoid presidency. Flying two planes into the world trade center caused superficial unity and racism clouding the government accomplishing nearly all of bin laden's goals for him.

terrorism works if the only motivation is to increase violence. 9/11 wasn't a success, as OBL thought America would crumble like the Soviets in Afghanistan. Much anarchist and leftist terrorism hasn't worked, as no anarchist revolutions formed in their wake, and animal rights were won by rational political discussion.

I would disagree categorically if you are claiming terrorism "works". If you are saying terrorism gets a reaction from those it targets, often a violent one, well then sure, but in many cases, that violence and the results of that violence are not what the actors had planned at all.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If terrorism didn't work, there'd be no terrorists.

I don't believe this. Terrorism, as I tried to point out in my last post, has almost nothing to do with being a tactic chosen because of its effectiveness (and lets not confuse asymmetric military tactics with terrorism), but rather reflects the inner turmoil of people who feel that society is evil.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's why I'm glad that for now at least, Norway seems to be doing the opposite of what Breivik and whatever possible terrorist cell he works for want.

Breivik is almost certainly not part of a cell. Or rather, the plan seems to play out much more like other independent attackers. The internet probably allowed him to reach other like minded individuals who may have had some role in the planning, but his claim that he is from an interconnected group of right wing extremists reeks of bravado in my mind. It would be like how Tim McVeigh probably had some type of support from Christian Militias, but those militias were probably not an active terrorist cell.

It will be interesting to see though. My thoughts are that Europe is about to get the largest case of internet censorship/monitoring in Western history, and there will certainly be flagrant abuses of innocent people through it.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Speaking of, I'd be really interested in finding out (other than the Gellar/Gaffney connection) if square goatee boy had any friends who served in the Serbian armed forces.

square goatee boy?

EDIT: oops, I thought Breivik was clean shaven. Ya, I wouldn't be surprised at that connection at all. Aren't guns highly restricted in Norway?

I love the attempt to use World War I as an example of terrorism 'working'. If there was any ethnic group that very quickly ended up thinking "Oh SHIT we should not have done that!" it is the Serbians, who got categorically annihilated by the Austrians in one of the first 'modern day' examples of ethnic cleansing. It's a straight out example of terrorism causing the absolute opposite effect to what was desired.

You'd do better to check your facts, DJ- what you say is very often riddled with huge inaccuracies and lazy connections.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I love the attempt to use World War I as an example of terrorism 'working'. If there was any ethnic group that very quickly ended up thinking "Oh SHIT we should not have done that!" it is the Serbians, who got categorically annihilated by the Austrians in one of the first 'modern day' examples of ethnic cleansing. It's a straight out example of terrorism causing the absolute opposite effect to what was desired.

You'd do better to check your facts, DJ- what you say is very often riddled with huge inaccuracies and lazy connections.

But it all worked out in the end, right?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I love the attempt to use World War I as an example of terrorism 'working'. If there was any ethnic group that very quickly ended up thinking "Oh SHIT we should not have done that!" it is the Serbians, who got categorically annihilated by the Austrians in one of the first 'modern day' examples of ethnic cleansing. It's a straight out example of terrorism causing the absolute opposite effect to what was desired.

You'd do better to check your facts, DJ- what you say is very often riddled with huge inaccuracies and lazy connections.

Tito had far more success during WW2 in fact

I picked up a book called "violent politics" a couple of years ago, fantastic read! Looks more at people that are defined as "revolutionaries", but that is a subtle distinction at best, totally recommend it. I had never heard of Tito or the Vietnamese resistance to the French prior to America's invasion (Vietnam is insane, what is with America and picking wars in the stupidest places to wage war?)

Ok, I'm pretty embarrassed about forgetting about the Tamil Tigers, the pioneers of the suicide bomb.

Osama Bin Laden's goals were to increase the price of oil, get the US military out of Saudi Arabia, and to destroy Israel with a secondary goal of weakening and destabilizing the US. It's ten years later and 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

Wasn't part of the reasoning for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to provoke a war so Serbia could reclaim Bosnia-Herzegovina and prevent Austria from organizing a pan-slavic kingdom to challenge the recently emboldened Serbs? Mission accomplished though I shouldn't have lumped them with anarchists since they were radical nationalists. I always jumble them up with the haymarket rioters for some reason.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Osama Bin Laden's goals were to increase the price of oil, get the US military out of Saudi Arabia, and to destroy Israel with a secondary goal of weakening and destabilizing the US. It's ten years later and 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

OBL has actually been pretty much all over the board with his desires about 9-11. depending on which quotes you go by, he was either expecting America to be passive (like in their response to the embassy bombings) or to engage in wars that would crush them like the soviet union, which OBL totally believed his arab mujaheddin accomplished (independant of all the other problems the USSR had).

depending on how you want to read his theories, OBL was either the greatest criminal mastermind this side of lex luthor, or he was crazy and totally had no grasp of geo-politics.

however, in all of this, his main prediction was that, if America got involved in a war in afghanistan, it would crush them as it did the soviets, which has not played out. OBL wanted to drag them into a war, but, believing his own hype (following the soviet afghan campaign, the mythology around OBL was that he forced the soviet union to collapse ), he though he could beat America in Afghanistan. This was proven to be false, as America all but destroyed AQ in the first weeks of the Afghan campaign, and only failed to destroy them entirely because they tried to get the "northern alliance" to do the fighting for them.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Wasn't part of the reasoning for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to provoke a war so Serbia could reclaim Bosnia-Herzegovina and prevent Austria from organizing a pan-slavic kingdom to challenge the recently emboldened Serbs? Mission accomplished though I shouldn't have lumped them with anarchists since they were radical nationalists. I always jumble them up with the haymarket rioters for some reason.

possibly, but having the serbs be ethnically cleansed and waiting for Tito to provide the military coordination against the Nazis that would give the serbs their own home was not part of that plan.

I think the distinction here would be whether the immediate plans of the actors came to pass as a result of their actions, or as a result of greater historical trends. For instance, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand provided a pretext for war that most European nations (especially their populace) wanted. However, to claim that it had any relation to the independence military movement that formed during WW2 under Tito, that would eventually produce a Yugoslavia independent in many ways even from the soviet union, seems like a stretch. I tend to agree with Ush here, maybe the Serbs wanted more violence, but they had no understanding of what that violence would bring.

I'll admit my lack of knowledge about the Serbia issue though. I really am only familiar with Tito, though from what I have read, I haven't seen anything that shows the Black Hand got what they wanted out of it...

I could totally be wrong though

EDIT: my ww1 knowledge comes almost exclusively from this book: http://www.amazon.com/World-War-One-Short-History/dp/0465013686 which I recommend, but might not give a full account. (in fact, the author admits it isn't nearly a full account)

http://tribune.com.pk/story/231697/reenactment-norway-shooter-showed-no-remorse-at-massacre-site/