at least 80 killed in Norway shooting; bombing

[hankmoody]

^^ Like clockwork

.. His comment was deleted? I mean it had no merit but still...
From Zerohedge:



Perhaps it is time for the Telegraph to issue a retraction to its kneejerk publication in which it automatically cast blame on Islamists and other "eastern" terrorists-by-default. Because according to just released info, they could not have been more wrong, and it is the reaction to precisely this type of prejudice that will never facilitate bridging frayed relations between disparate cultures. Anyway, so much for prejudiced speculation and/or lies about some Islamist organization taking the blame for the events in Norway today. Here is the truth:" VG has received confirmation from several independent sources that it was Anders Behring Breivik, who was arrested by armed police after the mass killings of Utøya Friday.  VG was also present when the emergency squad took action against the flat 32-year-old susceptible west of Oslo. Several foreign media have also named Breivik as the perpetrator." More on his motives: "A childhood friend of Breivik says to VG Nett that he should have been right-wing in the late 20's, and posted a series of controversial opinions on Facebook." And the kicker, for all the bigots out there: he was an ultra nationalist who hated Islam. Today's tragic events were merely the outburst of deranged and very much troubled Loughner, McVey-like psychophath. And nothing more.

A picture of the accused:



And more:

In online debates he makes his mark as a well-read, and one with strong opinions about Norwegian politics. He promotes a very conservative opinions, which he also called nationalist. He expresses himself strongly opposed to multiculturalism - that cultural differences can live together in a community.

He has had many posts on the site Document.no, an Islam-critical site that publishes news and commentary.

In one of the posts he states that politics today no longer revolves around socialism against capitalism, but that the fight is between nationalism and internationalism. He expressed clear support for the nationalist mindset.

He also commented on the Swedish news articles, where he makes it clear that he believes the media have failed by not being "NOK" Islam-critical.

There is more in the full article here but the gist is clear: this is a case where blaming Islamist or Jihadist jingoism is about as far from the truth as possible.edit: More: http://www.washingtonsblo...tack-in-oslo-norway.htmlhttp://www.washingtonsblo...gian-terror-attacks.htmlhttp://www.washingtonsblo...rist-was-anti-islam.html(WB is one of the best blogs out there, FYI)

 

[big j 33]

Just an awful tragedy.

 

[anathema]

A kid's camp?

 I read the article and maybe I missed it, but any mention of the weapon he used or how long the spree lasted?  It's crazy that one man managed to kill 80 people before police intervention 

 RIP to all.

 

[mitchellicious]

How on earth do you even wake up in the morning and think "I'm gonna go blow up and shoot some people today"?

SMDH.

 

[pip777]

 

[heavenlee777]

That's so messed up.
What the hell is wrong with people in the world

 

[alrjordan]

Unbelievable. It is disturbing what the ill will of one man is able to accomplish. I am somewhat astonished at what this guy was able to do before he was stopped/killed. I'm wondering if it is because he was organized and well planned, or just poor response for whatever reason on the authorities part. This is just terrible. I could never imagine things getting to that point. But that is the difference in people like that. I really don't want to start reading much about this because I need to sleep and don't want this on my mind, but hopefully in the some more facts will be out and I can get a better idea of exactly what happened, how, and most importantly WHY?

My thoughts and prayers are with all of those who desperately need them in a time like this. Trust that this is not something I will be able to get my mind off easily. Rest in peace.

 

[noskey]

Gunfire on island lasted for two hours

 

[oneforall]

The pictures from the island were too disturbing to watch. Dead bodies everywhere.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Again, not a "joke" just a jab at idiots who assumed this guy was Muslim (check other thread where the guy got sonned including by myself)

I'm an Arab Muslim, you mad ?
My fault for overestimating NT'ers intelligence. 

Do you think that maybe the fact that Muslim groups claimed responsibility would lead people to believe that Muslims had something to do with it?

 

[uptownsdotnetstacky]

2 pages tho

 

[yupitsme]

truly sad...rip

 

[Gill Baka Esq. LLC.]

Originally Posted by Big J 33

Just an awful tragedy.

 

[callhimar]

[h1]The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism" (Salon)[/h1]




(updated below)

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits.  The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates.  The morning statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group. 

But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch.  Despite that,The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals (h/t sysprog):

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out Islamic terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations,it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

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 ingovernment buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivatedshooting 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:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.


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: 

How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a liberal newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?


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) tono, 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:



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):

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday's assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking al-Qaida's signature brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from al-Qaida," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.


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 NYTarticle 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." 

• More: Glenn Greenwald

 

[mastamind033]

A terrible tragedy, R.I.P. to the lives lost and my prayers towards their family and friends.

 

[tkthafm]

One hell of an article up there.

"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."

 

[dakid23]

Damn 80

 

[mytoasterspeak]

One day people will understand the destructiveness of organized religion, especially what it has evolved into. People are quick to blame Arabs and Muslims for terrorism. "Christians" and white folks been terrorists for centuries. That's why I educate myself and lean towards the direction of spirituality in my relationship with god and Jesus, not religion.

 

[pookieman]

Originally Posted by mYToAsterspeak

One day people will understand the destructiveness of organized religion, especially what it has evolved into. People are quick to blame Arabs and Muslims for terrorism. "Christians" and white folks been terrorists for centuries. That's why I educate myself and lean towards the direction of spirituality in my relationship with god and Jesus, not religion.

Minus the relationship with a god/jesus.....I co-sign this.

Religion will be the end of mankind

 

[yungchris504]

Well here is your muslim who was behind it

 

[mo matik]

RIP to the victims.

http://translate.google.c...nders-behring-breivik%2F
^Complete list of all his comments left at Document.no and other forums.

And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called "moderate Muslims".
There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they're still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?

He wasn't insane- he justified his hate with reason and logic.  He SUCCESSFULLY rationalized his hate with the garbage published on these sites.  Robert Spencer and Pamela Gellar claim to be scholars and experts on the subject, when all they do is make up stuff to make money.  It's been shown by good journalists over and over.

He regularly commented (as is evident in the link) on both "jihad watch" and "atlas shrugs", both websites dedicated to anti-Islamic thought.  Look at the comments! Lengthy and many times sourced.  He had a good understanding of history as well.

The people that are fighting this fight are ideologues.  Two sides of the same coin- just too stupid to realize it.

Islam (ism) has historically led to 300 million deaths
Communism has historically led to 100 million deaths
Nazism has historically led to 6-20 million deaths
ALL hate ideologies should be treated equally.

How many thousands of new Europeans must die, how many one hundred thousand European women should be raped, millions robbed and tractor discarded before you understand that multiculturalism + Islam does not work?

 

[ekon one]

Man shut up with all that "here's your Muslim" crap. 
Anyone with half a brain and a knowledge of the current global climate would reasonably think it was Islamic terrorism. The Muslim Immigration issue is the hottest topic right now in Europe hands down. More and more anti-Muslim legislation is being passed in European countries, coupled with the fact that a large amount of Muslim immigrants are unwilling to assimilate in their new countries. (this article was just released today http://www.worldbulletin....ber&ArticleID=76536)

85% of Europe's population growth in 2005 was from Muslim Immigrants, and the Muslim population is projected to double by 2020.

The state of affairs with Europe/ Muslim relations has gotten bad really quick. These pics are from the Men and Women in the European countries who live and work with their other non-Muslim countrymen, not Muslims from the Middle East. Can you imagine this %#! even HAPPENING in the US?? Something big relating to Islamic terrorism is bound to happen in Europe in the near future.

and the absolute saddest one... 

 

[tkthafm]

^cool pics but he wasn't Muslim.

 

[scotty pimpin]

^ Literally has nothing to do with what happened smh.

 

[patrick bateman]

Just when Norway was ready to recognize a state of Palestine at the UN. Perfect timing for this. 

Norway is the most anti-Semitic country in the West

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Israel
- President of the State of Israel, Shimon Peres

tkthafm wrote:

---

^cool pics but he wasn't Muslim.