So what you are saying is that Norwegians, on account of being more liberal and thus (???) might start blaming themselves for what one hatemonger did to Norwegians?
I am missing something here. Why in the name of Og would they do that? Why would Non-Breivik Norwegians blame themselves for what Breivik did? And why exactly are Norwegians more inclined to such stupid thing, it’s not like Breivik was working on their behalf?
Your question is astounding.
Res ipsa loquitur: anyone who guns down children in cold blood is a psychopath.
Yes.
Yes, you are missing something, namely that people are often completely irrational,
even significant percentages of entire national populations.
You yourself suggested there that would have been a danger if the murderer
had been a Muslim, remember?
There is, of course, no good reason for Norwegian self-hatred over this crime,
or any other modern event that I am aware of. My point is speculative, as yours
was and I would be glad to be mistaken about Norwegian capacity for self-hatred.
Similarly, wouldn’t you be glad to be mistaken about Norwegian capacity for hatred
of Muslims? I certainly hope you would.
It’s just, you know, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Interesting questions. Let me see if I can parse out my thinking for you. Take someone who takes a sniper rifle and from afar shoots someone pumping gas. Ten minutes later he shoots someone else down the road. A cop sees him and arrests him. I’d say he is not a terrorist, because the fear—terror of what he might do next was never in the air. The DC Sniper, on the other hand, was at large for quite some time. People didn’t know who might be next and when, so terror was certainly instilled in the populace.
There was a sniper in a tower in New Rochelle, New York a few decades ago. One day this guy just went to the top of it and started killing people randomly. I forget if he was captured or killed, but his actions ended that day. So, I’d say he was not a terrorist. Just an angry nut. I will say that I think that Breivik comes closer as that he does have a political motivation, but because he was never “at large” people weren’t forced to live with “terror”.
The Fort Hood Shooter is a terrorist for the same reason the the 911 hijackers are terrorists. They both committed murders in the name of Islamic extremism. Both Nadal and each of the hijackers committed one “act”, but each act was part of a larger plan. He, like the hijackers, killed in the name of Islam, complete with the cry of Allah Akbar. IF there were no previous acts of terror by Islamic extremists, then Nadal’s actions would have not been terrorism, but just a crazy nut who went on a murdering spree.
As far as calling Breivik a terrorist by linking his act of murder to that of MacVeigh seems, I must say, ridiculous. Even if MacVeigh’s act was terrorism (which I don’t think it was), you can’t simply look at two completely unrelated violent acts and say they are linked. You might as well link all murderous acts.
And if it’s a Quaker suicide bomber at a bowling alley, we’d probably agree that he wasn’t a terrorist, just a nut angry at something. The reason suicide bombers qualify as terrorists are that there actions are tightly linked to other suicide bombers and flyers of planes into buildings, etc.
I never heard of Michael Stone, but it appears that he was going after the IRA, fighting terror with terror. And according to Wikipedia, he killed people on more than one occasion. He seems like he’s a terrorist to me, but like I said, I don’t know much about him.
Read it. And if others act in concert, then I’d say they’re terrorists. And as I’ve said repeatedly, even if it is just the one guy, his actions can be terrorism. take the Beltway Sniper. He had an accomplice, but even if he had acted alone he’d be a terrorist. Why, because, he was killing people randomly and remained at large for some time.
Killing people + a political manifesto = a killer with political motivations. Nothing more. Now if he did not get caught, and another killing happened 3 days later, and he remained at large, then he’s be a terrorist. So, he may have set off intent on becoming a terrorist, but getting caught got in the way of that.
I don’t understand why that it’s so important to some that this guy be considered a terrorist. We can all agree, I think, that he is a loathsome piece of shit. An animal no better than than the 911 hijackers. Why isn’t that enough? ::shrug::
This was a right wing attack like Tim McVeigh. It was a right wing military operation . It had nothing to do with Muslims.
According to a program I saw last night,he bought 6 tons of fertilizer to make bombs. He used 2 tons and they found 2 more. So where is the rest? He claimed, in court, there are 2 more groups he was dealing with who intend to blow something up too.
Are you perhaps using the wrong term? Psychopath, sure, but the idea that he has no conscience suggests you meant sociopathy, not psychopathy. There’s no evidence that I am aware of for the former.
Good. Then why did you get your panties in such a twist over the normal and rational response of feeling thankful that at least the circumstances of this tragic event are not such as to encourage hatred of Muslims, on the part of Norwegians or anybody else?
If it’s not despicably trivial to be worried that hatred (including self-hatred) of Norwegians might increase because this killer is Norwegian (far-fetched as that notion seems), then it’s not despicably trivial to be thankful that hatred of Muslims won’t increase because this killer is not Muslim.
The only explanation I can come up with for the ferociously disproportionate difference in your reactions to these two parallel responses is that hatred of Norwegians seems to you like a bad thing, while hatred of Muslims doesn’t. :dubious:
As is being discussed in this thread, there’s no good evidence that there’s any functional difference between the term sociopath and the term psychopath.
It’s always tempting to try to find some measure of comfort in making the assumption, but the fact is that not all people who commit heinous crimes such as this are psychopaths.
I share Mighty Girl’s feelings: Amid all the horror and grief, I too am thankful that the terrorist was ethnically Norwegian. Both racism and islamophobia are real problems in Norway, and I’m pretty sure these would have worsened if the terrorist hadn’t been so obviously home grown. There were some reports of harassment and violence against muslims early after the attacks (in Norwegian: http://m.nrk.no/m/artikkel.jsp?art_id=17723535 – the Google translate version is really weird, but it says that a teen aged boy has been beaten up, two girls wearing hijab were harassed, lots of anti-muslim comments on the web related to the attacks, even after the first reports stated that an ethnic Norwegian had been arrested.)
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
You know as well as MightyGirl and I do that if, say, an Uighur terrorist had slaughtered scores of Norwegians, many people (in Norway and elsewhere) would consider that a reason to hate and despise Uighurs in general.
[/QUOTE]
You think too well of us. If the terrorist hadn’t been lily white, there would be an increase of hatred and fear against everone who looked as if their ancestors didn’t row longships on the North Sea a thousand years ago.
Regarding potential Norwegian self-hatred: It’s nice of you to be worried about our feelings, colonial, but I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to avoid this “neurotic and groundless self-hatred”. There is one group that may face increased risk of harassment, though: Those who share Breivik’s opinions on “mulitculturalism”, since that appears to be his main motivation. (Sample: http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adressa.no%2Fkultur%2Farticle1667691.ece ). Personally, I strongly disagree with these people, but I hope we can manage to keep a civil debate. And frankly, I think islamophobia will remain a far bigger problem than islamophobe-phobia for the forseeable future.
(For the record, there are real problems related to lack of integration between recent immigrants and us natives, from storms-in-a-glass-of-water (“Should we allow police to wear hijab if they want?”) to more serious ones. Just waiting and hoping for assimilation to run its course is probably not the best way to face these issues. But screaming for all scary foreigners to get out of our nice corner of the world also seems, um, counterproductive. And immoral. But I guess that would be better discussed in another forum.)
Hmm, cool thread. Thanks for the correction. Either way, I agree with you: we can’t assume a mass murderer has a pathology. (Heck, if we can, we might conclude it would be unjust to punish him.)
Are they? Presumably that extends to anyone who explodes bombs in residential areas of cities? After all, in both cases you expect civilians (including children) to be killed.
So if you follow this thought through all the aircrew in RAF Bomber Command and the 20th USAAF were also psychopaths. A conclusion I strongly reject. RAF and USAAF bomber crews were ordinary young men called up to serve. It happened they ended up in a branch of the forces where the high command determined that the best strategy was to destroy enemy cities, with the inevitable consequence that civilians would die. You can argue both the morality and the effectiveness of the strategy - personally I think a strong argument can be made to justify it - but the actions tell you nothing about the mental state of the individual bomb aimer on a Lancaster or B29.
Just to say - “He gunned down children” - he’s a psychopath is much, much too simplistic. He might be, but his actions do not necessarily, of themselves, prove it. People can and will do dreadful things when they conclude it is for the higher good without there being a diagnosable psychiatric disorder.
Just saying “He’s mad” is too easy. It tells you nothing about his motivations or how to prevent further attacks - it also lets him off the hook for his truly evil deeds. Also, if you decide ipso facto that he is a psychopath you have to conclude every other terrorist bomber and gunman - Palestinian, Chechen, or Irish; Red Army Faction or Right Wing Militia - is also a psychopath. Another conclusion I reject.
I am not going to get involved in a sideline debate over psychological terminology,
and will not reply again on the subject.
The terms “sociopath” and “psychopath” are apparently not rigorously defined;
wiki treats them as synonyms:
Here is a Scientific American article discussing the term “psychopath”:
Although the article begins:
(from link):
I nevertheless think Breivik is an inexact but reasonably good fit for traits
associated with the term, and I do not plan on issuing any retractions:
(from link):
There is a distinction between lure and ambush and what you describe above,
and there is also difference with targeting children specifically. To be equivalent
the RAF/USAAF would have had to declare a safe zone for German children, and
then bombed it.
See my post #214.
Horseshit.
“Mad” is an informal term which may include people who are rational,
in control of their actions, and know what they are doing.
The behavioral sciences have been studying people like this since day one.
They have been 100% completely useless in preventative diagnosis. Breivik
is not going to provide them with any breakthrough material regardless of
what label we slap on him.
Anyone who singles out children to be killed is a madman and is a psychopath,
including members of all the groups you list.
Previously addressed.
Ditto.
My ferocity is in direct proportion to the degraded nature of your replies to this thread.
It looks like you are falling into a pattern dressing the same fat ass of an argument
in different colored panties.
I am getting tired of replying to cellulite, and may not bother with your next stroll
down the runway for people with intellectually Xtra large asses.
My question is, of all the posters in this thread you are the only one who reacted with “cunt! slut!” (which already says a lot about you) to a post that a) nobody else misinterpreted or took umbrage at, and b) seems to be shared by at least one actual Norwegian in this same thread. Is it perhaps that the problem is you?
colonial: There is no point in us discussion further whether all terrorists are psychopaths - we jast aren’t going to agree - but to pick up one specific point where you’ve misunderstood me. I said:
and you responded with regard to the “prevent further attacks”:
The point I was making was that putting a label “psychopath” on them makes Breivik and his like the concern of behavioural scientists and you are right - they have been useless in preventive diagnosis. Recognising that terrorists - even terrorists that target children - are essentially rational puts the onus on police and intelligence agencies to learn lessons and prevent further attacks.
Well, psychopath or sociopath or both or neither or whatever, Breivik’s lawyers are going for an insanity defense. (Of course. What else they got?!)
Once a word is used no one else needs to repeat it.
I did not misinterpret anything.
If one person covers the subject well enough then there is no need for others to pile on.
I did not notice any Norwegian say he was happy the criminal was an ethnic native.