Anders Breivik Faces Sentence of 3 Months Per Murder

[GeoffP]

Well then they win.

Or we lose, maybe.

 

[Balerion]

Specificity: Islam is not a poison to society. Islamic supremacism/reactionaries/conservativism/fundamentalism (whichever term) is. Much as you wouldn't want to see Pat Robertson ascend the pole to real political power in the US, you don't want the Ayatollah running domestic affairs. (Which, truth to be said, he kind of does, actually.)

Sorry for the OT but this thread is already teetering on the edge of a flame-out.

Yes, in this particular context I was referring to the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags, seeks to implement Sharia law in Western societies, perpetrates rapes and honor killings, calls for the heads of cartoonists and authors or anyone at all who criticizes Islam, etc..

Loathe as I am to defend a creep on the level of Pat Robertson, you've forced my hand: He is in no way analogous to the Ayatollah. No, I would not want Pat Robertson (or to provide a more cutting example, since it almost happened, Rick Santorum) rising to political power, but that society would be retarded far less by a man like that then it would be by some Mullah, or indeed the Ayatollah. There is simply no comparison.

We need to get over this idea that all fundamentalists are created equal. Islamic fundamentalism is by far the worst of the lot, and no good can come from pretending it isn't.

Perhaps Anders Breivik believed that the solution to preventing the Islamification of Europe is brute force, and certainly his opinion of what "Islamification" means is different than mine, but I'm starting to see some posters beginning their own inquisition into the politics of others, implying that the fears of what (radical/fundamental/conservative, whatever) Islam is doing to Europe--particularly to Sweden--are inherently bigoted. I simply offer that they aren't, that there's a discussion to be had on this matter, and calling everyone who shares this belief a bigot is wrongheaded.

 

[Bells]

First of all, stop with the "Behring" nonsense. It was a simple error. Both Behring and Breivik sound like last names to me.

Seems to be quite a few of those. Look at Arthur as a prime example.

Secondly, did you read any of my earlier posts? Do you understand the concept of ad hominum and guilt by association?

Certainly.

However that does not really go far in explaining your comments about agreeing with him on other things as well, things you seem to be incapable or unwilling to even discuss.

Having said that, how many people do you know who would come out and say 'oh yeah, I think Hitler did a great thing with the autobahn'? Leaving out of course that the autobahn was used solely as a propaganda tool to get him into power...

As I said, I agree 100% with what Mr Breivik said regarding capital punishment

So you think he should be a martyr to the cause? You agree with him on that, do you?

I'm not going to change my opinion simply because he shares it anymore than James will cease being a vegetarian because that opinion is shared with Hitler.

Dietary preferences aside, James hasn't come out and endorsed Hitler's autobahn, knowing said autobahn was used as a propaganda tool to push him into power and allowed him to have the power to murder millions of people.

So try again...

As to what other issues we might agree on, who knows. Perhaps we both enjoy cream with our coffee. Mr Breivik's opinions are irrelevent to me, but since he is a right-wing nutjob, I'm sure there are other areas in which we agree.

So which political ideology do you agree with then?

Seeing that Breivik has stated his main political ideology is to retain the whitness of Norway and Europe, is that what you agree with? Do you agree with him about multi-culturism and Islam and Muslims as well?

That is laughable. You're claiming his left wing views were a charade because.........what? You believe no one of the left could possibly be a mass murdering monster?

You find it amusing that he virtually used his supposed political ideology to lure people to trust him, to enter his church, whereupon he then made them move to Africa, where they were away from help and then murdered them...

Because you think that is normal behaviour for civil rights activists?

Did I ever say otherwise?

You mean like when you praised Hitler's building the autobahn and agreeing with his building it, disregarding his using it solely as a propaganda tool?

Not so much offended as amazed at your lack of understanding.

I can say with certainty that I cannot quite put into words how "amazed" I am at your lack of understanding.

Because I don't know. Don't you get it? My knowledge of his views does not extend beyond what was presented in the article linked to in the OP.

So you are taking a guess?

Or are you just uncomfortable that your bravado and your 'see, even he says he should be killed (ie martyed)' and then adding for extra measure that you would probably agree with the authoritarian killer on other things as well turned out badly for you because some dared ask you about that comment?

Careful when you backtrack there Madant, wouldn't want you to fall on your backside by accident...

The point is that it is a logical fallacy to use some area of agreement your opponent has with a notorious villain to imply that your opponent somehow shares in that villainy.

You mean like when you praised Hitler, Jim Jones and Breivik and stated you agreed with at least one because you are also a right wing?

How about your answer the question, instead of trying to avoid it like the plague.

So because one crazy asshole--who in a different circumstance might have turned his ire toward Jews, or intellectuals, or people who wear purple--used the Islamification of Europe as justification for the murder of 77 innocent people, we're all bigots for recognizing that Islam is poison to society? Worse, we're all guilty by association?

Talk about reactionary.

You do realise that he went on to murder dozens of children and set a bomb off because he felt that Islam was a poison to his society, yes? And you seem to recognise that with him.

But hey, demonise the victims in this crime... You're as bad as Derbyshire.

 

[Bells]

Yes, in this particular context I was referring to the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags, seeks to implement Sharia law in Western societies, perpetrates rapes and honor killings, calls for the heads of cartoonists and authors or anyone at all who criticizes Islam, etc..

Loathe as I am to defend a creep on the level of Pat Robertson, you've forced my hand: He is in no way analogous to the Ayatollah. No, I would not want Pat Robertson (or to provide a more cutting example, since it almost happened, Rick Santorum) rising to political power, but that society would be retarded far less by a man like that then it would be by some Mullah, or indeed the Ayatollah. There is simply no comparison.

We need to get over this idea that all fundamentalists are created equal. Islamic fundamentalism is by far the worst of the lot, and no good can come from pretending it isn't.

Perhaps Anders Breivik believed that the solution to preventing the Islamification of Europe is brute force, and certainly his opinion of what "Islamification" means is different than mine, but I'm starting to see some posters beginning their own inquisition into the politics of others, implying that the fears of what (radical/fundamental/conservative, whatever) Islam is doing to Europe--particularly to Sweden--are inherently bigoted. I simply that they aren't, that there's a discussion to be had on this matter, and calling everyone who shares this belief a bigot is wrongheaded.

Certainly..

But when you enter a thread and complain about fundamentalist Islam, in a thread where a fundamentalist right wing racist Christian went on a shooting rampage killing dozens of children because they were Muslim or supported a labor government that also supported immigration..

In short, when you come into a thread and parrot the ideology spouted by Breivik in court and in his manifesto, don't then whine when you are lumped into his pathetic racist corner. You see, Breivik's main complaint is that he could not apparently discuss the matter, just as you are complaining about it here. Only difference between you and his ideology and beliefs about Muslims is that he went ahead and decided to murder as many of them and their children in that youth camp as he could.

A man walking around with a gun and shooting children in the head because they were either Muslim, not white or children who supported a Government that allowed immigration is to me, worse than people protesting over the cartoons, wouldn't you say? That is what your side did. That to me is the worst of the lot. Any individual who sees fit to enter a youth camp and shoot dozens of children dead is the worst of the lot. For you to complain that the people he was trying to eradicate is worse, is you blaming the victims, which frankly, isn't really surprising.

You and your little right wing lackey's in this thread have been noticed. You can try and derail this thread as much as you want about complaints about Islam. Keep in mind that it was one of your own who went ahead and deliberately murdered children by shooting them in the head because of their race and political beliefs.

 

[Balerion]

You do realise that he went on to murder dozens of children and set a bomb off because he felt that Islam was a poison to his society, yes? And you seem to recognise that with him.

But hey, demonise the victims in this crime... You're as bad as Derbyshire.

First of all, I didn't demonize the victims. Did you not read the posts in which I said the man was irredeemable, that he did not even deserve to be given the chance to redeem himself or make reparations? (This was in the context of a rehabilitation vs retribution criminal justice system argument)

My post was a reaction to quad's implication that believing Islam to be a poison to society somehow makes madanthony a party to the crime. I pointed out that Islamic fundamentalism is a problem, particularly in Europe, and that important discussions need to be had on the subject, and quad's implication that holding such a belief makes you a bigot is to slam the door on those discussions.

And now you're doing the same thing, by implying that I am somehow "like" him. I don't know what you mean by "You seem to recognize that with him." Perhaps you're saying I "identify" with him? If so, you're saying that I'm capable of doing what he did, that the inevitable end in this line of reasoning is violence. I understand that you don't know me from Adam, but there was absolutely nothing about my comments that should have elicited such an insult against my character.

I want an apology.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, in this particular context I was referring to the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags, seeks to implement Sharia law in Western societies, perpetrates rapes and honor killings, calls for the heads of cartoonists and authors or anyone at all who criticizes Islam, etc..

Loathe as I am to defend a creep on the level of Pat Robertson, you've forced my hand: He is in no way analogous to the Ayatollah. No, I would not want Pat Robertson (or to provide a more cutting example, since it almost happened, Rick Santorum) rising to political power, but that society would be retarded far less by a man like that then it would be by some Mullah, or indeed the Ayatollah. There is simply no comparison.

Possibly. I'm not sure. What would the likes of Robertson get up to, if given a free hand? I've seen what Christianity can get up to in the absence of social and moral restraint. I do agree that Islamic reactionary politics/etc is the worst as practiced now, of course, which is the essential point. There always seems to be a a push to make such criticism more than it really is; pleading, herrings, distraction, false elaborations, and so on.

We need to get over this idea that all fundamentalists are created equal. Islamic fundamentalism is by far the worst of the lot, and no good can come from pretending it isn't.

Maybe; I don't know. One would have to evaluate it in parallel with all the other -isms of history, and postulate as to the extent of their crimes in the absence of restraint. Possibly, maybe: one would have to balance out all the forms of redress in every system and see where the tally lay. Or did you mean in the present era? I think I might agree with that, although naturally I'm open to other evidence. Capitalism, notably, has much to answer for. Then again, it's not really about tu quoque, is it? You don't give Hitler a pass by pointing out the practical failures of Marxism-Leninism.

Perhaps Anders Breivik believed that the solution to preventing the Islamification of Europe is brute force, and certainly his opinion of what "Islamification" means is different than mine, but I'm starting to see some posters beginning their own inquisition into the politics of others, implying that the fears of what (radical/fundamental/conservative, whatever) Islam is doing to Europe--particularly to Sweden--are inherently bigoted. I simply offer that they aren't, that there's a discussion to be had on this matter, and calling everyone who shares this belief a bigot is wrongheaded.

Such a move it, itself, bigoted and/or racist: it places a particular kind of fascism/racism above criticism, if the fundamental beliefs of the authors of such criticism don't go beyond the limits of the facts. The 'doings' above would have to be clearly identified, as well; and I would again say fundamentalist/reactionary/conservative, although you clarify that position above.

 

[Balerion]

Certainly..

But when you enter a thread and complain about fundamentalist Islam, in a thread where a fundamentalist right wing racist Christian went on a shooting rampage killing dozens of children because they were Muslim or supported a labor government that also supported immigration..

So complaining about fundamentalist Islam makes me a fundamentalist Christian simply because of the venue? In other words, what you're saying is that you're free to throw around horrendous accusations because you're too fucking lazy to read the post? You see certain buzzwords and simply assume. No, that's exactly what I've come to expect.

In short, when you come into a thread and parrot the ideology spouted by Breivik in court and in his manifesto, don't then whine when you are lumped into his pathetic racist corner. You see, Breivik's main complaint is that he could not apparently discuss the matter, just as you are complaining about it here. Only difference between you and his ideology and beliefs about Muslims is that he went ahead and decided to murder as many of them and their children in that youth camp as he could.

No no, you don't get to twist the anti-Islamofacism and anti-Islamic fundamentalist arguments into racist creeds for the sake of your argument. You don't get to retroactively demonize the work of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others simply because Breivik took them as role models. That's not how it works. In truth, Breivik used aspects of our arguments against Islamic fundamentalism and incorporated his own racism and fears of declining Christian influence. And this is all divorced from the fact that Anders Breivik is insane, which is the bit that can't be overlooked when talking about someone who guns down almost 80 people, most of them kids. For all his crazy ideas, the leap from "This is a problem," to "I'm going to kill 80 children while I tape it" is a leap too great for someone of their right mind.

And again, I demand an apology for the implication is that murder is "the only difference" between me and Anders Breivik. The fact that you could say such a thing speaks to your ignorance of just what Anders Breivik believed, as well as a stunning lack of ethics. How could you say such a thing about me? How dare you say such a thing about me?

And you're a moderator?

A man walking around with a gun and shooting children in the head because they were either Muslim, not white or children who supported a Government that allowed immigration is to me, worse than people protesting over the cartoons, wouldn't you say? That is what your side did. That to me is the worst of the lot. Any individual who sees fit to enter a youth camp and shoot dozens of children dead is the worst of the lot. For you to complain that the people he was trying to eradicate is worse, is you blaming the victims, which frankly, isn't really surprising.

My side? Again, what am I supposed to say to that? My first instinct is to curse at you until my tongue falls out, but I know I'm the one who will get banned for taking offense to such a sickening implication.

At any rate, you're off-base. Protesting a cartoonist is not the sum total of what Islamic fundamentalists have done in society. Apparently thousands of years of violent oppression of women, the stoning death of women, the throwing of acid in the face of little girls, the "justified" gang rape of virgins, the countless murders invoked by fatwas, the September 11th attacks, the attempted murder of the Danish cartoonist, none of this stuff even registers with you. For you, because you need to make a point, these things didn't even happen.

I could, if I shared your low character, say that this is your side. Thankfully, I would never presume that you condone these acts, not even when you pretend they didn't happen so that you can make a point.

You and your little right wing lackey's in this thread have been noticed. You can try and derail this thread as much as you want about complaints about Islam. Keep in mind that it was one of your own who went ahead and deliberately murdered children by shooting them in the head because of their race and political beliefs.

Your arrogance and ignorance are noted, as well, and extremely disappointing. I mean, "right wing?" I'm the guy who supports social programs like welfare and social security on moral grounds, who supports gay equality and stands in defense of the sciences against religious bullying, and I'm against the wars. How does recognizing the threat of Islamofacism and the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism make me "right wing"? Do you not think that Islamic fundamentalism is bad for society? Of course you do. So why is it "right wing" when I say it? Because you're in a mood and don't feel like being rational, and don't have to be because you're a moderator?

 

[Balerion]

Possibly. I'm not sure. What would the likes of Robertson get up to, if given a free hand? I've seen what Christianity can get up to in the absence of social and moral restraint. I do agree that Islamic reactionary politics/etc is the worst as practiced now, of course, which is the essential point. There always seems to be a a push to make such criticism more than it really is; pleading, herrings, distraction, false elaborations, and so on.

The doctrines of Islam are the most repugnant of the Abrahamic faith, and as such the literalist or fundamentalist interpretations of them lead to the most harm. I shouldn't have to say this next bit, but considering that a moderator has implied that I am a murdering, right-wing bigot, I feel I should: I'm not saying that this brand of Islam is practiced by a majority of Muslims. Nor am I saying that fundamentalist Christians are benign (though I suppose one would have a hard time bringing the hammer down on, say, the Amish). I am merely saying that fundamentalist Islam is a grotesque practice, and outstrips the other monotheistic faiths in terms of justifying oppression and violence. You simply don't hear of Christian honor killings, to name one aspect of the culture.

Maybe; I don't know. One would have to evaluate it in parallel with all the other -isms of history, and postulate as to the extent of their crimes in the absence of restraint. Possibly, maybe: one would have to balance out all the forms of redress in every system and see where the tally lay. Or did you mean in the present era? I think I might agree with that, although naturally I'm open to other evidence. Capitalism, notably, has much to answer for. Then again, it's not really about tu quoque, is it? You don't give Hitler a pass by pointing out the practical failures of Marxism-Leninism.

Well, that's fair. I didn't mean to paint with such a broad brush. Actually, my first draft was "religious fundamentalist" but I thought I could trim it down without sacrificing clarity.

Such a move it, itself, bigoted and/or racist: it places a particular kind of fascism/racism above criticism, if the fundamental beliefs of the authors of such criticism don't go beyond the limits of the facts. The 'doings' above would have to be clearly identified, as well; and I would again say fundamentalist/reactionary/conservative, although you clarify that position above.

Exactly, and I was trying to nip it in the bud before it got out of hand. But that only lead to an even more egregious and insulting example of it in Bells' posts, which I would report for flaming, but what's the point? She's a moderator, and no doubt is above reproach on this issue.

 

[GeoffP]

The doctrines of Islam are the most repugnant of the Abrahamic faith, and as such the literalist or fundamentalist interpretations of them lead to the most harm. I shouldn't have to say this next bit, but considering that a moderator has implied that I am a murdering, right-wing bigot, I feel I should: I'm not saying that this brand of Islam is practiced by a majority of Muslims. Nor am I saying that fundamentalist Christians are benign (though I suppose one would have a hard time bringing the hammer down on, say, the Amish). I am merely saying that fundamentalist Islam is a grotesque practice, and outstrips the other monotheistic faiths in terms of justifying oppression and violence. You simply don't hear of Christian honor killings, to name one aspect of the culture.

I'd say fair enough within the present time frame anyway.

Exactly, and I was trying to nip it in the bud before it got out of hand. But that only lead to an even more egregious and insulting example of it in Bells' posts, which I would report for flaming, but what's the point? She's a moderator, and no doubt is above reproach on this issue.

The thread is rife with it. There's no point in reporting in this subforum anyway.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — And you can have one

Mod Hat — And you can have one ....

I want an apology.

And you can have one.

As the moderator of this subforum, I am sorry I left this thread open beyond the first day, when it was reasonably observable that the topic post was nothing more than pretentious and culturally-supremacist politics.

Had I suppressed this thread then, when I should have, we could have avoided all the bad feelings that have arisen in the subsequent pages. Quite clearly, allowing free discourse to proceed from deceptive pretenses was an error. Again, I am, indeed, sorry.

In the future, I will be more vigilant and aggressive in suppressing political advocacy poorly disguised as considerations of ethics, morality, or justice.