Oslo update: It was a right-wing, blond, white guy

Well then. That was the exact opposite of what I assumed.

National police chief Sveinung Sponheim told public broadcaster NRK that the gunman’s Internet postings “suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen.”

I can’t possibly imagine that his anti-Muslim views would have motivated this kind of a thing. Unless his plan was to somehow blame it on Muslim terrorists and incite further violence against ’em, but… if so, boy did he mess that up.

Just goes to show, terrorists aren’t just brown people.


21 responses to “Oslo update: It was a right-wing, blond, white guy

  1. Nope, just another fundamentalist Christian jihadist practicing that special brand of love and tolerance so many of them are known for.

  2. @Mrs. Bitch LOL, truth. I’ll bet, though, both he and Muslims would get peeved at having it called jihad.

  3. If it’s just some lone nut without an organized agenda, then it’s not terrorism. Once he gets locked up, you don’t worry about all his buddies cutting off people’s heads.

    Just goes to show, not all nuts are terrorists.

  4. @Zach Okay now you’re just making crap up to avoid having to call a white guy a terrorist. You know damn well if it had been a Muslim you’d be in here talking about how he’s a terrorist, even if he had no actual Al Qaeda ties.

    Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation to serve political aims. That’s all. Period.

  5. @Hanlon @Zach Look on the bright side, Zach, maybe he’s gay!

  6. @Zach

    I can’t believe you can be this damned stupid. I mean, come on! See Hanlon’s definition of terrorism and rethink what you posted, Zach.

  7. No, I think the IRA were terrorists. White guys can certainly be terrorists.

    Terrorists strike the general public to cow them into political change. Like the IRA blew up children and nannies. Like Al Qaeda hit the World Trade Center. Terrorists rely on making you afraid to get into an airplane, or into a tall building. Terrorists make citizens afraid to go about their lives.

    This guy struck a government building and a political retreat. Revenge, not terror. Nobody’s sitting in Norway today wondering if it’ll be safe to go to work tomorrow.

    Do you see the difference, or are you really that dense? Words have meaning. No terror = no terrorism.

  8. Good idea, Keth. See Hanlon’s definition of terrorism, and then compare it to what this guy did in Norway. It’s not terrorism.

  9. @Zach

    Okay, you know what? Like He** it’s not terrorism! And you’re being just a f*cking moron to think it’s not.

    Again, since you obviously can’t read: Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation to serve political aims.

    This person used TERROR – by killing CHILDREN and BOMBING buildings to make a political statement. You canNOT tell me there won’t be people afraid to do things after this?! Are you freakin’ mental?

    Even if it’s revenge, it is also TERROR. And you’re a damn moron if you think otherwise.

  10. It isn’t about whether what he did was scary. It doesn’t even matter if what he did was political in nature. It’s about whether the public is now afraid of more attacks. From the one, lone, guy who did it, and who is now in jail. I’m pretty sure they’re not.

    You have to ask whether you would now be afraid to walk around Norway because you might get shot, or caught in a bomb blast. I can honestly say that I would not. Would you? Because terrorism is when an attack like this makes you afraid to go somewhere.

  11. @Zach That’s pretty subjective, isn’t it? If ten houses get broken into on your block, even if they catch the burglar your sense of security in your area is still broken and you’ll be jumping at every noise you hear at night. That doesn’t make burglary “terrorism”. Once again you’re affixing artificial definitions to the term to justify your own refusal to acknowledge it as such.

    The only reason anyone wouldn’t be afraid is because this is a white guy as opposed to a brown one, so the xenophobia isn’t kicking in. Since it’s just a white guy, and as a white guy we know lots of white guys, we can convince ourselves he’s an aberration rather than another crazy jihadi. You and I know damn well if this was Mummad Abbar and they found him with a picture of Bin Laden in his wallet, even if he had zero connection to Al Qaeda, you’d be calling him a terrorist.

  12. @Zach And by that reasoning, Zach, 9/11 wasn’t terrorism, because I sure as hell wasn’t scared to go on any planes after it, or go to the US. In fact I continued to fly to the US for years after and never once worried.

    Again, you’re missing the point and I don’t know if you’re being this stupid on purpose or what.

    I dare you – dare you – to ask people in Norway if they thought it was Terrorism and most likely your answers will be varied; to some it would be, some it would not. But the moment someone DOES see it, feel it, as terrorism, it is.

    And Hanlon’s right; if it had been one of those “Mooslims” you can be certain that it would be called Terrorism, but because he’s white and Christian, it’s not?

    By that reasoning Oklahoma City wasn’t terrorism either. But you ask anyone involved with it and they would beat you to a bloody pulp for suggesting otherwise. What this guy did was NO DIFFERENT than Tim McVeigh.

  13. I think we already covered that bullshit when I agreed the IRA were terrorists. Come back when you have a theory that reconciles with that.

  14. @Zach

    You’re missing the point; again.

    It doesn’t matter what YOU think – look at how the world reacted to the story. The first thought: OMG IT WAS THE MUSLIMS! Only… now the shocker is it wasn’t, but a home grown guy. And so in that case it’s not terrorism?

    What if it HAD been Al Qaeda or some other sect of extremists? Would it be terrorism then?

  15. @Keth As a matter of fact, I’m not sure OKC was terrorism. The timing suggests a revenge attack on the government for the Waco Branch-Davidian seige IIRC. A strike against government, not against ordinary Americans. Like Oslo, I never worried the building I worked in was a target after OKC.

    Of course, you libs identify too closely with the state to ever make those sorts of distinctions, but a lot of us regular folk can see the difference.

    On 9/11, however, plenty of civilians in the skyscraper I worked in were afraid of an attack. And plenty of people who’ve flown since then have been afraid.

    Reasonable people can take comfort knowing that statistically you’re still pretty safe from terrorism even if you are a target, but it’s whether people think they’re the target that makes it terrorism.

    When I’m in a country where some group is waging war with the government I’m not terrified. But when they’re just killing random citizens, people are frightened.

    If I go to Norway tomorrow, I’m not comforted by knowing that statistically the terrorists won’t get me — I’d be comforted, knowing I’m safe, because the one nut who did it was locked up.

    Try telling youurself you have no Al Qaeda enemies when you climb on an airliner, if that makes you feel safer. But I’ll bet you’ll find more comfort in knowing that the odds are in your favor than in pretending nobody wants you dead.

  16. Look, when someone blows up civilians, that’s terrorism. When they blow up government or political parties, that’s revolution.

    Different concept. Different objectives. Revolutionaries are only trying to scare the ruling class. Terrorism is trying to scare voters.

    When you have whitey blowing up K-Marts, that’ll be terrorism. And when you have Muslims blowing up a federal courthouse, it’s not. Terrorists must be smarter than you, b/c they dont’ attack government targets — they attack unarmed civilians. They understand what you do not.

    Of course, the ruling class wants everyone to think that an attack on them is an attack on all of us. You libs are hardwired to buy into that shit. If they blow up the Capitol you’ll be crying. Not me — I’ll be like that old lady in Mars Attacks! We’ll have a party at my house that night.

  17. @Zach

    Well at least I know what your issue is. You have no reading skills or skills of comprehension.

    For the THIRD time, I’m not a Liberal. What part of that do you not understand?

    Second point – OKC is defined by the US government as domestic terrorism and it happened in a government building that had CIVILLIAN people in it as well, including the daycare, unless you’re going to imply that the kids worked for the government too. Whether YOU define it as such or not doesn’t matter. Again, if that’s the case then by YOUR reasoning, 9/11 wasn’t terrorism. It was a revenge thing, a strike against your government and that there were ordinary citizens involved means nothing. It was still a statement to YOUR government about it’s policies.

    Third point – and another repetition of myself – I’m not afraid. I wasn’t afraid to go to the US after 9/11 and I wouldn’t be afraid to go to Norway tomorrow if I had to. Ironically, like you, if Ottawa and Parliament were to go kaboom tomorrow I wouldn’t be freaking out like Chicken Little but most likely thinking of my family and protecting it. So you can take your “you libs” crap and shove it, not everyone, even Libs, would act like that. And I’ve heard of a few Conservatives who would freak out like Chicken Little,

    Oh and hey, wasn’t it the Conservative Government of the day who said “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists”? An attack on the Government, which is what 9/11 was, was an attack on everyone?

  18. For the second time, what ideological/philosophical differences distinguishes you from a US liberal?

    And I don’t care how the government defined OKC. I already pointed out that the ruling class wants you thinking an attack on them is an attack on you. It’s not.

    Terrorism is an act designed to make voters think, “Wow, that could happen to me.” If attacks on government do that to you, then you need to get a life.

  19. @Zach

    I refused to answer the first time because talking to you was pointless; it still is. But how about YOU tell me what a Liberal is in the US to you. Because I’ve found that when the subject of liberal conservative is down there, the answer varies from person to person based on their own personal views.

    Of course you don’t care how OKC was defined, it’s your way, your POV, or nothing. Again, that would make 9/11 a non-terrorist act by your way of thinking.

    The fact you don’t seem to understand the concept of Terrorism means you’re the one that needs to get a life.

  20. Look, just because you can read does not mean you understand.

    Terrorism is about generating terror among voters to create political pressure in favor of the terrorist. Terrorists want a frightened public pressuring the government to yield to the terrorists’ demands.

    The public doesn’t really give a shit once it’s clear that the state is the target. That’s not terrorism. Fear comes from the public believing they are the target.

    I suggest you consider this guy in Norway, in the light of just what you think he wants the public to now be pressuring the government about, before you ignorantly call it terrorism.

    Was Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers a terrorist after all?

  21. And with that comment, I’m done talking to you, again, Zach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s