I am not sure what you are getting at, and I am losing interest in the discussion.
Police and intelligence are obviously responsible for all aspects of counterterrorism
regardless of the psychological condition of the terrorists themselves.
Or, we don’t have that many people willing to use a clearly misogynistic insult when it wasn’t even relevant. I am thankful for that too.
Here:
Breivik wrote a manifesto that reads like a combination of S.A. posts and the Uaibomber’s. The evil new leftys are destroying the past and allowing the gays and muslims to take over the world.
All right, we’ll give some land to the gays and the Muslims. But we don’t want the Irish!
There is plenty of open land in Canada.
But that would seem to suggest that the role of intention doesn’t play a part in the definition, just results. Which I understand - in order to be a terrorist, there must be terror caused - but I think intention to cause terror is an important point. If nothing else, by that particular definition, most armed forces would count as terrorist groups, given that they cause prolonged terror (even among civilians, in certain situations) after such threats and actions.
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”.
“In terms of a larger plan” would seem to indicate to me accordance, agreement. That they were playing the roles assigned by an overarching group; which, as I understand, would well describe the hijackers but not the Fort Hood Shooter. I don’t think killing for the same cause gives us the ability to claim they were acting from the same, larger plan.
I still don’t see why a larger plan is necessary, in all honesty. What’s the difference between one man with a plan of his own and one man following a plan that makes one terrorism and another not?
How connected must two violent acts be? Apparently McVeigh and the guy in this case can be linked through far-right idealogies. Is that so much vaguer? To what extent was the Fort Hood perpetrator’s idealogy the same as the 9/11 perpetrators?
As a minor point, I think your argument here has a slight flaw - McVeigh’s act, by your definition as I understand it, does not need to be terrorism for someone following the same ideas to be a terrorist. In fact, if terrorism requires prior to the act a prior act of terrorism of the same cause, then nothing can be terrorism, because there can be no “first” case of terrorism.
I will somewhat reluctantly spare you the choice of words I used
with the other member.
It occurs to me to observe that everything you have said above,
and the mental attitude associated with it is actually an example
of neurotic and groundless self-hatred.
I have more faith in the mental health and good will of your countrymen
than you do, and I speak with inference from the incontrovertible
historical facts of the last several decades:
(from my post #180):
You have the temerity to mention one case of assault, two cases
of some nebulous “harassment” and some internet blather, and
offer them as evidence that Norwegian Muslims were in more danger
than they would normally have been in? You are providing me with
more evidence of your neurotic self-hatred. I hope there are not
many others like you.
Addressed above, and bears repeating: I have more faith in the mental
health and good will of your countrymen than you do. Everything you have
said above, and the mental attitude associated with it is an example of
neurotic and groundless self-hatred.
From what I can tell Stiklestad is somewhat equivalent to Yorktown
and Gettysburg in the US, but there is not enough information in the
link for me to judge Elvin Lund’s case on its merits.
Addressed.
Here are some others for the record:
Angela Merkel
(from link):
Nicolas Sarkozy
(from link):
But I guess further comment would be better discussed in another forum.
It needs to be, and I hope neurotic reaction to Breivik’s awful crime does
not lead to suppression of legitimate debate.
Oh, I agree with you entirely. I’m just pointing out that, even by magellan’s own very odd definition of “terrorist,” Breivik was unquestionably a terrorist.
I don’t remember the DC snipers having a manifesto at all, although I’m open to correction on that point.
So basically, colonial, you’re coming up with a non-xenophobic argument to back a conclusion you reached because you actually want Muslims (rather than Norwegian racism) to be the target of distrust? That’s gross.
What the hell are you talking about?
There is no reason that I am aware of to distrust either native or Muslim Norwegians.
I have expressed prejudice against neither.
I have not said I want one or the other to be target of distrust, although two other members have expressed clear prejudice against natives.
For you to have missed all that must mean you are pretty fucking stupid.
But most armed groups, armies, are not killing civilians willy-nilly. But groups of “soldiers” in some parts of Africa certainly qualify. Raping, maiming, and killing in order to dominate and squelch any opposition. But I’m really not sure what your point is.
Uh, you might have noticed that Islamic extremists are acting in concert—that is, to the same ends—to kill westerners and anyone who supports the west. Shall I remind you of 911, the bombings in England and Spain, the failed shoe bomber, underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, the Locherbie flight, the Muslim U.S. soldier who killed some fellow soldiers with a grenade at the beginning of the Iraq war…do I really need to go on? DO you really believe that all these people were not, as you say, “acting from the same, larger plan”?
Let me repeat: one man can absolutely be a terrorist. Someone like The Joker in The Dark Knight. The Unabomber would have qualified if there was either a more obvious pattern or many more bombs. He never generated a sense of terror among the populace. The Son of Sam comes closer.
As far as linking MacVeigh with this guy, I don’t see it. Even if you can classify them both as right wing nuts, there causes were worlds apart. Muslim extremists, on the other hand, are on the same page. They have the same goals, and for the same reasons. The signature “Allah Akbar” is kind of a clue, don’t you think?
Nope. If this in Norway had escaped capture and then planted subsequent bombs and shot other people—we’d have a terrorist. Even now, if other incidents happen committed by others, then it would start to look like terrorism.
You’re worried about “suppression of legitimate debate” and poo-pooed real accounts of attacks against Muslims after terrorist events? You actually called someone a “cunt” for saying they were glad the perpetrator wasn’t a Muslim (ergo wouldn’t bring down wrath against Muslims), yet you’re now expressing concern about how anti-Muslim bigots will be treated?
You’re trying to feed us shit. It may be gilded shit, there may be a cherry on top, but I’m still not going to eat it.
That if you define terrorism in terms of causing terror without any care as to the intention, then armies are pretty much by definition terrorists. They cause terror, among an opposition army certainly, among civilian populations possibly.
Here you seem to be drawing from a different definition - with your points seeming to suggest that such “soldiers” in Africa are terrorists because they’re deliberately seeking to cause terror - a definition i’d be more inclined to agree with.
No. “In concert” does not mean “to the same ends”. It implies a greater connection than the end alone; it implies cooperation to the means, as well. “Acting from the same, larger plan” entails either actual mutual planning, or at the very least some measure of following orders or a chain of command. Simply blowing people and places up because other people with the same cause blew people and places up is not acting in concert or working from the same plan - it’s two groups working seperately for the same cause.
Even then, I disagree that it’s the exact same cause. Oh, it’s similar in those cases, i’m sure. But it seems unlikely to me that the planned end result of each of your examples - as well as the short-term planned result, and the reaction to their actions - was the same in each of the minds of the perpetrators.
So, rather than an initial person never becoming a terrorist, rather, an initial action cannot be terrorism? It requires more than one act?
Again, I disagree, at least to the notion that “Muslim extremists” are clearly on the same page and have the same goals and the same reasons, while “right wing extremists” clearly do not. The two idealogies would seem, in my eyes, to have relative equal room to include a multitude of different goals and reasons. The clue is no more clue than, presumably, said perpetrators believed in Allah; again, that is no more sign of exact, lockstep idealogy than in my eyes would be said perpetrators believing in extreme right-wing political viewpoints.
Yes.
Ms Hilda from Norway also has some concerns about the nature of the debate,
among other things. See her post #211:
Previously addressed at length.
Yes.
No, I have not expressed such concern in my contributions to this thread.
You must be thinking of Ms hildea. See quotation above.
You’ve been eating shit your whole life
Wow. The amount of misrepresentation, hypocrisy, and unrepentant aggression in your posts just stagger me. Oh well.
I’m Norwegian too, and: Ditto
One of my first thoughts after the bomb was “ohmygod, this is really going to increase hate against Muslims and other brown-skinned immigrants”. Because that would probably lead to more deaths than the bomb itself. When I heard what was happening at Utøya, I was pretty sure that this had to be a homegrown terrorist, because you have to have been living in Norway for quite some time to understand how much Utøya means for the Norwegian Labor Party.
I don’t think it was a coincidence that the police were extremely quick to announce that the terrorist was ethnically Nordic after they knew it…
This 2square4u asshole makes two classic examples of native Norwegian
neurotic and baseless self-hatred.
So This 2square4u asshole thinks his fellow native Norwegians are such
awful people that there would have been an anti-Muslim pogrom resulting
in more dead than the bombing? I think it is therefore fair to assume he
thinks if a Muslim had been responsible for Utoya then the anti-Muslim
death toll would have been over 70 innocent people. That would actually
make Norwegians far worse than other Western nationalities victimized
by Islamic terror. Recall that another member was able to dredge up record
of exactly two retaliation murders in the US after 9/11, and I wonder if
London and Madrid resulted in any.
I am getting sick and tired of replying to the assholes like this, and I think
it may be time to bow out of the thread.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Sometimes though, it’s worth wondering where all those wrong-way drivers you keep encountering in this thread are coming from…
…that it’s quite impressive how colonial can read his mind based solely on a short text on an Internet message board. Quite impressive.
…that someone ought to improve his/her reading abilities to be able to distinguish between 6 and 70, and also between hate violence and pogroms.
…and that
may be a good idea
Ooookay. So if I’m afraid that there are Norwegians who hate Muslims enough to murder innocent people because of that hatred, that’s neurotic? You know, I really, really wish you were right.
(Admittedly, early Friday afternoon, when all I knew about was the explosion in Oslo, and we weren’t even sure if it was a bomb or not, I thought that if it was an attack from extremist islamists, it would lead to beatings and harassment of innocent Muslims. I certainly didn’t at that time fear that a Norwegian islamophobe would commit mass murder.)
(Yes, I know, colonial has left the thread.)