A lone man killed over a hundred others in a 24-hour period. This is what it means to be human, man. That’s got to be worth something. Anyone too shallow to appreciate the many things to appreciate about such a feat has my sympathy.
Its an impressive feat, but nothing to admire. Meaningless violence gets very few into history.
You’re missing the point. Assuming the attack was an Islamic extremist until other facts emerge is an acceptable thing to do, given that most recent terrorist attacks, especially on this scale, are the product of Islamic extremism.
No, it is NOT “an acceptable thing to do”. That makes it Islamophobic.
Just wanna point out that Islam doesn’t support terrorism. A terrorist is by definiton NOT islamic if he commits terrorist deeds. There’s no official Islamic community that would ever support factions like Al Queda’s actions, ever.
Anyway, it’s not impressive to gun down helpless kids during summer camp with a carbine rifle, shotgun and sidearm. Anyone can do that, even a simpleton could achieve that.
Putting that rifle on the shelf, and NOT killing a bunch of kids stuck on an island is more of an achievement.
Anyone who’d argue against that should either be made redundant of the human race, or be punished for being a deliberate real-life troll.
Just because Islam does not support the use of terrorism doesn’t mean that an attack can’t be Islamic if it’s done in the name of Islam (even if the version of Islam being advanced by the extremist/terrorist is one so distorted that Mohammad would roll over in his grave if he ever heard it), just as, even though Christianity doesn’t support the use of terrorism doesn’t mean that an attack can’t be Christian if it’s done in the name of Christianity.
Read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy:
Person 1: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
Person 2: My uncle is a Scotsman and puts sugar in his porridge.
Person 1: No TRUE Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
I think his point was that if he hates people from other countries, he wouldn’t practice a religion that originated from another country.
Plus you think an insane bastard like this guy would be able to think logically enough to know Muslim =/= middle eastern?
Insane doesn’t mean stupid.
Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me. You should have seen how wisely I proceeded – with what caution – with what foresight, with what dissimulation, I went to work! I was never kinder to the old man than during the whole week before I killed him. --Edgar Allen Poe, The Tell-Tale Heart
Very true. But as pointed out before, he was blatantly anti-muslim, so he did NOT do any terrorism in the name of islam.
An islamic terrorist faction did however claim to be responsible for the bombing in Oslo, which is a pure and simple lie.
If the world thinks every single bombing, accident and otherwise were done by terrorists, we’re going to fear them more. Which is exactly what we do.
As soon as something happens, everyone always jumps to the conclusion that it was islamic terrorists, and everyone becomes hysterical.
We had a bombing in Stockholm, capital city of Sweden. The suicidebomber was a muslim, so naturally everyone thought he was Al Quaida or similar.
Turns out he was simply just bonkers. His bomb detonated prematurely and he most likely was never intending on dying along with it. Luckily no one but the bomber himself died from the explosion. The fact that he was a muslim had nothing to do with why he decided to plant a bomb in a city.
All his friends had noticed that he had become withdrawn and somewhat crazy.
We draw our own conclusions based on the little evidence we have, then we fill in the blanks with paranoia.
That’s why terrorism is such a great weapon against major nations that can’t monitor itself properly.
And people keep forgetting that the Islamic terrorists only represents a fraction of all the terrorists that has and does exist in the world. It’s just that they attacked the US, so obviously they must be the only terrorists in the world.
I mean, who cares about the IRA and Hamas, because they’re not attacking anyone that matters, right?
It wasn’t meaningless. Even if it were, check out Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They only killed like 13 people, and they’re gonna be heard of for centuries.
They get a passing mention on the anniversary of the shooting, nothing more. They’ll be forgotten within 30 years. This guy might get the same for 50. Neither will be remembered by history though, they’ve changed nothing.
Infamy is not something to be proud of, Ramirezoid. That’s what he’s saying.
Its not even that. I recognize that as a fundamental moral difference and am thus not touching it. I’m just saying pointless violence gets very few into history of more than a few decades after the fact. You have to actually either change something with your action for it to be remembered.
fucking shit
what you’re doing is profiling and if you cant see why thats wrong you are an idiot
but if he was a Muslim, he’ll be remembered for more than 500 years ;D
Let me disappoint your attempt at sounding non-mainstream and like a mad genius (which is getting pretty mainstream as of late):
Bombing government buildings may carry a message. Plus building a bomb as big as that is an art.
Shooting unarmed teenagers and children on a tiny island in the head who are feigning death while wearing a police uniform is not a big feat. Every mediocre coward can do that.
And that is basically what he is: a mediocre coward.
I wonder if he achieved what he hoped for. After 9 years of planning he must have had some idea of what he was going for.
You’re trying to assign made-up archetypal qualities to my too-advocative-and-ridiculous-to-be-genuine POV.
Smart.
He was a capitalist, a person who thought Norway was going into communism. The shooting at Utøya was because he thought they were making Marxists there. The bomb was an attack on the government.
So apparently 68 people died, not 94.