[OAW]

Norway reels after bomb blast, youth camp attack - World news - Europe - msnbc.com

First of all, my condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives. My sympathies for the Norwegian people especially those who killed or injured.

As for this thread .... for those willing to go out on a limb at this early stage and make a prediction on who will be found to be responsible for these heinous attacks. What say you?

OAW

[Lint Police]

Besson take over your account?

[turtle777]

Now, now, we both know OAW is perfectly able to come up with Besson-grade threads all by himself

-t

[OldManMac]

It's not a random nut job; it's a Christian nut job.

[ebuddy]

Truly a disaster and I hope all the perps are identified and addressed with the harshest penalties available.

The good news is we're not talking about how Norway "created" the terrorists or how Norwegian policy is to blame for the atrocity.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's not a random nut job; it's a Christian nut job.

Nearly half the people of Norway are self-proclaimed Christians. Trust me, It's random.

[Dork.]

Does it really matter?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Does it really matter?

Are you asking; "Does it matter who perpetrated the crime"?

[OAW]

As Norway struggles to come to terms with its greatest loss of life in decades, all eyes are on the man charged in the explosion in central Oslo and the deadly shooting rampage at a youth camp.

While police have not officially named him, Norwegian television and newspaper reports have identified the suspect as 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, of Norwegian origin.

A picture is emerging, gleaned from official sources and social media, of a right-wing Christian fundamentalist who may have had an issue with Norway's multi-cultural society.

Norwegian and international news outlets have run photographs of a blond man with blue-green eyes and chiseled features, dressed in a preppy style.

A victim who was shot during the attack at the youth camp on Utoya island told CNN Saturday that he had seen pictures of Breivik taken from what is believed to be his Facebook page and shown on NRK and TV2. The victim said he recognized the man from the news reports as the gunman.

......

He was a youth and adult member of the populist Fremskrittspartiet (FrP), VG newspaper reports. The party's most prominent manifesto pledge is to minimize immigration.

His membership in the party was confirmed by a senior member of FrP, Jonas Kallmyr, who is quoted by VG as saying that encountering Breivik was "like meeting Hitler before World War II."

Who is the suspect in the Norway attacks? - CNN.com

Norwegian television and newspaper reports have identified the suspect as 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik.

An employee at a Norwegian agricultural cooperative told CNN that the man identified in media reports as the suspect bought six tons of fertilizer from her company in May.

Oddmy Estenstad, of Felleskjopet Agr, said she did not think the order was strange at the time because the suspect has a farm, but after Friday's explosion in Norway's capital, Oslo, she called police because she knew the material can be used to make bombs.

Officials examine political motive for Oslo attacks - CNN.com

It's looking more and more like Norway's version of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

An attack on government facilities and a summer camp .... the former controlled by and the latter organized by Norway's ruling Labour party. 92 people dead. And the primary suspect is a homegrown, right-wing, Christian fundamentalist terrorist.

Figured as much.

OAW

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you asking; "Does it matter who perpetrated the crime"?

I mean, does it really matter who we think may have perpetrated the crime in the absence of any hard information (which was the point of the thread when it was posted)? I've learned my lesson after last time.

[Laminar]

The regular lounge thread is keeping everything a lot more civil. I think I'm going to hang out there instead.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I mean, does it really matter who we think may have perpetrated the crime in the absence of any hard information (which was the point of the thread when it was posted)? I've learned my lesson after last time.

I completely agree with you here as in cases like these there is rarely a way to adequately paint a whole group of people as this troubled although I'm sure this "party" he belonged to will be scrutinized much more closely.

Friggin' psycho was shooting kids in the water trying to swim to safety.

[Doofy]

I'll give you a clue people.
One word. Starts with "Mo", ends with "ad".

Norway are just about to recognise Palestine as a state and go argue for their inclusion into the UN. True story. Utoya Island is owned by Arbeidaranes Ungdomsfylking, the ruling party, who's putting forward these plans.

Utoya Island, Thursday:


I mean really. A Christian fundie who's pro gay? Now there's a unique dude, and if you believe the official story coming out then I have some medicine for sale which can cure you of all your ills. Dr. Doof's Patented Original Formula Cure-All Tonic is available directly from me at only $799 per bottle. Enquire for details.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I completely agree with you here as in cases like these there is rarely a way to adequately paint a whole group of people as this troubled although I'm sure this "party" he belonged to will be scrutinized much more closely.

Friggin' psycho was shooting kids in the water trying to swim to safety.

I agree with you and Dork. too, I learned my lesson from the last thread. I'm only human and stuff. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... well... we can't get fooled again!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nearly half the people of Norway are self-proclaimed Christians. Trust me, It's random.

Would it still count as random nutjob if he were muslim?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll give you a clue people.
One word. Starts with "Mo", ends with "ad".

Norway are just about to recognise Palestine as a state and go argue for their inclusion into the UN. True story. Utoya Island is owned by Arbeidaranes Ungdomsfylking, the ruling party, who's putting forward these plans.

Fnck that's a stupid theory. But it's pretty typical of you to see it this way.

Anyways, Glenn Greenwald's analysis of the kneejerk accusations of Muslim terrorism are spot on as usual.

Basically, any violence actions by Muslims are labelled terrorism, even if they might be completely justifiable. On the other hand, nothing by non-Muslims gets labelled as terrorism, not even a guy who kills 92 people attached to a single party in Norway.

Disgustingly, the New York Times tried to assign some blame Muslim terrorists for the actions of a non-Muslim nutbar...

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.

Because no one ever thought of using terrorism before Muslims. Fnck these "experts" sucking on the gov't teat.

And it appears the killer is a big fan of the racist, rightwing blogs like JihadWatch and AtlasShrugged2000, and might have even had his own work published there.

[Kerrigan]

Oh, boo hoo. Cry me a river--Muslims extremists, who routinely murder civilians, are the suspected cause of a terror attack.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. And the culprit's popped collar definitely confirms the stereotype that such people are d!ckheads.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Disgustingly, the New York Times tried to assign some blame Muslim terrorists for the actions of a non-Muslim nutbar...

Hilarious.

Just imagine Fox had done that. Besson would have already started 10 threads about it, how the right-wing media is sooooooo biased and stoopeed.

Where are the threads condemning a left-leaning outlet like the NY Times ?

-t

[Chongo]

He looks like a Feemason to me. (3rd degree Norwegian rite)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Fnck that's a stupid theory. But it's pretty typical of you to see it this way.

Of course it's typical of me to see it this way. I've got insider information a lot of the time and thus see what's going on under the surface.
I've got no insider information on this particular event but I know how shit works, so call it a hunch.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Would it still count as random nutjob if he were muslim?

This is generally my view of isolated incidents like this, yes. Truth be told, this was terrorism. It seems he was trying to intimidate/influence people through violence against a political agenda.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is generally my view of isolated incidents like this, yes. Truth be told, this was terrorism. It seems he was trying to intimidate/influence people through violence against a political agenda.

The thing is that Christianity was apparently one of his main driving forces, so the fact that he was a Christian is as relevant as when we speak of jihadists committing acts of terror. So no, it's not random here, Breivik being a Christian was not a coincidental fact.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The thing is that Christianity was apparently one of his main driving forces, so the fact that he was a Christian is as relevant as when we speak of jihadists committing acts of terror. So no, it's not random here, Breivik being a Christian was not a coincidental fact.

Again, terrorism is terrorism, I don't know what you want from me. Christianity is still way behind non-Christianity and/or secular-humanism/atheism in terms of historical atrocity. Shall we paint every incident of atheist violence as somehow more pervasive than it is for an online argument?

BTW; how do you know he's a Christian? Because the press says he's a Christian? I read his online rantings and I see little to nothing of Jesus' salvation of mankind or even "God Bless" or "In the name of God" or any of the like, unless you have something to the contrary?

Christianity is more than merely claiming you're Christian and killing people because you don't like your Socialist government's immigration policy.

**Edited to include the only snippet of your pasted article regarding Breivik's "Christianity":

The document and the video repeatedly refer to multiculturalism and Muslim immigration; the author claims to be a follower of the Knights Templar - a medieval Christian organisation involved in the Crusades, and sometimes revered by white supremacists.

Most of the online rantings I read of Breivik invoke Nazi Germany as a bad thing, using them not only in egregious violation of Godwin's Law, but in establishing yet another conflicted psycho who is more motivated by immigration policy than any desire to do the Christian-God's work. Better go rail on your local shriners the next time they're running a circus for charity as they are as relevant to this atrocity as Christianity.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, terrorism is terrorism, I don't know what you want from me.

You claimed him being a Christian was coincidental (`just like 50 % of the population') when in fact it played a significant role if you want to understand why he killed 91 innocent people.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Christianity is still way behind non-Christianity and/or secular-humanism/atheism in terms of historical atrocity. Shall we paint every incident of atheist violence as somehow more pervasive than it is for an online argument?

Why the self-victimization and passive aggressiveness here? Even if what you're saying is true, does it change anything?

I was just stating facts: the attacks were motivated by the perp's world view -- and apparently, his interpretation of Christian faith played a major role in it. I have no idea why you misread that as `Christianity seduces people to commit mass murder' or some such thing. If he'd be a muslim, that's what many people would say. It would be wrong then as it is now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

You claimed him being a Christian was coincidental (`just like 50 % of the population') when in fact it played a significant role if you want to understand why he killed 91 innocent people.

Where are you getting that Christianity played a significant role in what he did? As far as I can tell, he did not invoke his "Christianity" in any of this. You're making the connection because it supports a silly online argument.

Why the self-victimization and passive aggressiveness here? Even if what you're saying is true, does it change anything?

I was just stating facts: the attacks were motivated by the perp's world view -- and apparently, his interpretation of Christian faith played a major role in it.

Again, where are you getting this??? What did he say that would lead you to believe his faith in God had any role, significant or otherwise?

I have no idea why you misread that as `Christianity seduces people to commit mass murder' or some such thing. If he'd be a muslim, that's what many people would say. It would be wrong then as it is now.

You're suggesting his Christianity was a contributing factor to the incident. Either you stand behind this or you don't. If you stand behind it, indicate to me how his Christianity was a factor from anything he's said or otherwise.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're suggesting his Christianity was a contributing factor to the incident. Either you stand behind this or you don't. If you stand behind it, indicate to me how his Christianity was a factor from anything he's said or otherwise.

I said: it was the perp's interpretation of Christianity that according to what is in the press was a significant factor. That's not the same as `Christianity makes good people evil!™' I don't understand why you're equating these two things.

[Chongo]

One cannot be a Freemason and a Christian.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One cannot be a Freemason and a Christian.

That stupid. Like, seriously stupid. Like saying you can't be Christian and a Boy Scout, since Freemasonry is just Boy Scouts for grown men.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Christianity is still way behind non-Christianity and/or secular-humanism/atheism in terms of historical atrocity.

But not quite as stupid as this.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

One cannot be a Freemason and a Christian.

so george washington wasn't a christian ?

[Chongo]

PARTIAL LIST OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS
THAT CONDEMN MASONRY
Methodist Church of England, Wesleyan Methodist Church, Russian Orthodox Church, Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Mennonite Church, Church of Scotland, Grace Brethren, Roman Catholic Church, Christian Reformed Church in America, Synod Anglican Church of England, Free Church of Scotland, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America, The Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Baptist Union of Scotland, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Presbyterian Church in America

TEN REASONS CATHOLICS CANNOT BE MASONS
Freemasonry, contrary to public perception, is a secret society rather than a fraternity. Its principles are fundamentally contrary to the Catholic faith and explicitly deny key tenets of Christianity. Below are ten reasons why Catholics cannot be Masons or participate in their activities.

1). The Holy See on Nov. 26, 1983, at the direction of the Pope, issued a "Declaration on Masonic Associations" restating the Church's position condemning the basic principles of Freemasonry. It also states that Catholics who join Masonic organizations are in a state of grave sin and are automatically denied Holy Communion.

2). God as described in Masonic works is an impersonal "Great Architect of the Universe," not the personal God of the Patriarchs, the One True God of Revelation, the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.

3). Masonic writings specifically deny that God has revealed Himself and His truths to us, or that He ever established a Church.

4). In Masonry Jesus Christ is portrayed as merely a man, a great teacher, on a par with Buddha or Mohammed and His Divinity is denied.

5). The Trinity is denied and compared to the "trinities"of pagan religions. The Holy Spirit is blasphemed by Masonry's denial of the Divine Inspiration of Scripture.

6). Christianity is considered a derivative of ancient pagan religions and like all religions deliberately ladens itself with error. God is portrayed as a deceiver who leads many men away from truth as not all are worthy of it.

7). All truth is relative according to Masonry, thereby rejecting objective, absolute truth and therefore the dogmas of the Catholic faith.

8). Freemasonry is portrayed as the foundation of all religion and it is built on Naturalism, a system of belief that makes human nature and human reason supreme in all things.

9). At the various degrees when an oath is sworn, even the initial ones, it is a blood oath swearing for example, "binding myself by no less penalty than that of having my throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the sands of the sea..." This is a real oath sworn with one's hand on the Bible or Torah, etc.

10). One can easily be deceived by Masonry's rituals and symbols that an objective transformation of man is being carried out. This will lead one away from the workings of God's grace especially manifested in the Sacraments instituted by Christ. Remember, Masonry denies Christís Divinity and therefore His role as our Savior.

[Chongo]

Baptist perspective
Masonic Lodge and Christianity conflict- YouTube

[besson3c]

I bet the terrorist is a Shaker.

[Waragainstsleep]

Why would a Mason swear blood oaths on religious texts they do not recognise?

Logic fail.

[hyteckit]

It's the same argument over and over again.

There are no Christian terrorist.

Proof?

If they commit terrorism, they are not a Christian.

Works every time.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

PARTIAL LIST OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS
THAT CONDEMN MASONRY
Methodist Church of England, Wesleyan Methodist Church, Russian Orthodox Church, blah blah blah ....

And? I said saying Christians couldn't be Boy Scouts was stupid, but stupidity characterizes a lot of Christian doctrines. Birth control comes to mind here.

And most of the claims against Freemasonry are false and paranoid (being a secret society, denying Christian doctrines) and based on myths and tall tales about Freemasons, spread around by conspiracy theorists. The fact is, the Masons don't require any belief in any doctrines, because that simply isn't what the Masons are about.

I'm not a Mason, I don't know any Masons, and I don't care about it. I do care about lies being spread about people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

But not quite as stupid as this.

It doesn't surprise me that the forum troll would deliberately miss the point.

People are too quick to indict enter political/worldview here to bolster their own foolish ideals. I'm encouraged to see several, now more hesitant to make these connections prematurely.

The godless who make these indictments against Christianity are particularly ignorant of history.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I said: it was the perp's interpretation of Christianity that according to what is in the press was a significant factor. That's not the same as `Christianity makes good people evil!™' I don't understand why you're equating these two things.

I'm not equating anything. I'm asking you why it is you insist Christianity was a factor at all, let alone a significant one.

I'll try again. What of his interpretation of Christianity was cited by he or anyone else as even remotely contributory to these actions? So you know he's a self-proclaimed Christian. Okay. We also know he was a Freemason, a Norwegian, a blonde, in his 30's, frequently online, and kind of small. Do all these facets of the man play a role in his act or just the Christianity?

[sek929]

If he were Muslim would you be singing the same tune, eBuddy?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It doesn't surprise me that the forum troll would deliberately miss the point.

People are too quick to indict enter political/worldview here to bolster their own foolish ideals. I'm encouraged to see several, now more hesitant to make these connections prematurely.

The godless who make these indictments against Christianity are particularly ignorant of history.

You did this very thing in your last post:

Christianity is still way behind non-Christianity and/or secular-humanism/atheism in terms of historical atrocity.

You are indicting secular-humanism and atheism as having committed more historical atrocities (a claim that would probably be difficult to substantiate anyway).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Just imagine Fox had done that. Besson would have already started 10 threads about it, how the right-wing media is sooooooo biased and stoopeed.

What is your definition of trolling again?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

If he were Muslim would you be singing the same tune, eBuddy?

You probably could've guessed this "gotcha" question had already been asked. If it means this much to you, you'll find the answer. *Hint: I've said the same thing of other isolated incidents when it involved other religious/philosophical views.

I don't believe this was motivated by his "Christianity" in the least as not only has he said nothing of his religion in connection to his distaste for immigration, but there is little if anything at all in the Christian text he could use to have committed the crime out of adherence.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm not equating anything. I'm asking you why it is you insist Christianity was a factor at all, let alone a significant one.

I'll try again. What of his interpretation of Christianity was cited by he or anyone else as even remotely contributory to these actions? So you know he's a self-proclaimed Christian. Okay. We also know he was a Freemason, a Norwegian, a blonde, in his 30's, frequently online, and kind of small. Do all these facets of the man play a role in his act or just the Christianity?

Christianity is a fantasy and those that believe are more vulnerable to other influences.

Christianity has to be one of the most splintered religions, create your own version, put a cross on the roof and you're good to go.

Believing in extreme, Christianity sets the stage for some "morans" to act out their fantasies.

That said, extreme anything can lead to grief.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The godless who make these indictments against Christianity are particularly ignorant of history.

Gotta love it when believers use the "godless" card.
Morans.

[Waragainstsleep]

Even if we buy the concept that eBuddy's historical atheist atrocities were actually committed in the name of atheism, there is no logical reason to add up their total death tolls. These were individual regimes or dictators acting with their own reasons whatever they were.

Christian atrocities on the other hand can quite sensibly be totalled up since they were all committed in the name of the same god, because of the same book. And I too would bet that total is much higher than the alleged atheist atrocities anyway.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You probably could've guessed this "gotcha" question had already been asked.

Why do you persist in using this meaningless expression?

I don't believe this was motivated by his "Christianity" in the least as not only has he said nothing of his religion in connection to his distaste for immigration, but there is little if anything at all in the Christian text he could use to have committed the crime out of adherence.

By this "standard," the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity.

By the same "standard," Muslim suicide bombers have nothing to do with Islam.

[imitchellg5]

Religion is a human establishment often used for political gain. I say that as a Christian. Sadly, even in 2011, people think that doing a political or emotional act in the name of God makes everything okay.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Gotta love it when believers use the "godless" card.
Morans.

You never fail to satisfy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

By this "standard," the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity.

By this logic, Norway is the Holy Land and Christian leadership called on Breivik to commit the act.

By the same "standard," Muslim suicide bombers have nothing to do with Islam.

Suicide bombers have more to do with regions of abject poverty under oppressive regimes that seek conflicting political environments as an enemy and will bastardize any ideal it can to perpetuate violence; even when using the majority philosophy of its citizenry succeeding in turning out maybe 1% willing to commit. By this standard Breivik may have justified his act, but it is only slightly more sensible coming from you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Religion is a human establishment often used for political gain. I say that as a Christian. Sadly, even in 2011, people think that doing a political or emotional act in the name of God makes everything okay.

To ensure we're talking about the same incident; did Breivik claim this act was in the name of God? Has anyone, Christian or otherwise, stepped up to claim what Breivik did was okay?

I'm with you in distaste of religious leadership using their pulpit to advocate a party or party politician, but I maintain they have a right to speak. While it is 2011, I can't imagine an act like Breivik's garnering the support of religious leadership in 1911 so I'm not sure how this is relevant.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Even if we buy the concept that eBuddy's historical atheist atrocities were actually committed in the name of atheism, there is no logical reason to add up their total death tolls. These were individual regimes or dictators acting with their own reasons whatever they were.

Simply to eliminate whatever it was they felt was getting in the way of their progress.

Christian atrocities on the other hand can quite sensibly be totalled up since they were all committed in the name of the same god, because of the same book. And I too would bet that total is much higher than the alleged atheist atrocities anyway.

No. The atrocities are a distasteful part of human nature when stimulated by a host of unhealthy circumstances. The answer you're looking for is that any ideal, philosophy or worldview can be bastardized to perpetuate it. The fact that the overwhelming majority adhere to a religion peacefully should be evidence enough, but sadly religion is too often viewed as "getting in the way" of progress.