I think I misread code_grey’s post the same way the first time and was about to reply with the same, but upon rereading it seems code_grey is saying he wasn’t surprised to learn that Breivik was cogent because he had done his grisly job well.
Ah, I see! It did seem a slightly strange construction.
Makes me think Stieg Larsson should have been writing about ethnic clashes instead of institutionalized misogyny.
Sounds just like the vidoes suicide bombers make before blowing themselves up.
An email exchange I had with a friend:
[QUOTE=Great Antibob’s Friend]
In this case I really feel like they ought to just take that fucker out and hang him.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Great Antibob]
I think hanging him is probably the best realistic result.
Though in my world, I’d fucking release him and make an example of him. Restrict his freedom and let him be openly mocked by the public but not physically harmed or praised in any way (and arrange a like penalty for anybody lauding his actions). Arrange for a ton of degrading acts and televise it. Basically, I’d completely denigrate him and rob him completely of any human dignity without giving him the hope of the surcease of death. With a hanging, you get a hood. Fuck that. Let the entire world see that you don’t get a quick out or the relative dignity associated with an execution. Or even the relative dignity of a show trial and incarceration. Let the whole world see that rather than a decent end, you get to be the fucking butt of a joke for the rest of your pathetic life. Forget martyring him. He doesn’t even deserve it. I’d rather see him humiliated and reduced to a pile of shit in human form.
Forget fair play. Some behaviors are so egregious and some attitudes so devoid of a reasonable morality that you need punishment equal to the crime. Unfortunately, as humans, we don’t have it in us to provide real punishment. Only restraint and physical pain,
Of course, that would require one sadistic overseer to ensure he is properly tormented his entire life. I’d probably be up for it, but the job surely wouldn’t pay well and the hours would be crap. And you’d have to deal with excrement in human form as your job. Would be copycats need to know you don’t get a glorious send-off, though. And they’d be made to realize that even if they believe in a heavenly reward, in the meantime, they’d have to deal with decades of mockery and irrelevance.
Also, while the above probably indicates some psychological deficiency in my makeup. I still sleep ok at night.
[/quote]
As for RaleighRally, the only reason to engage him is to make sure anybody who happens upon any of the threads he posts in does not somehow (however unlikely it is) think his viewpoints are reasonable or even rationally argued. Screw his deliberately irrational, unsupported viewpoints.
Nitpick: To the best of my knowledge, that’s never happened - all suicide bombers have been launched by organized groups. They always have other people recruit them, build their bombs, select their targets and often provide transportation to the site.
OK, here’s a definition we can, I hope, agree on: Lone Wolf Terrorist.
ETA: reports now saying he may have had (an) accomplice(s), and is being charged with terrorist offenses.
To whit, Vikings were making bank as palace guards, pirates and mercenaries as far away as Byzantium, Novgorod and Baghdad. Presumably they also did some carousing and whoring while they were there, on account of being Viking sellswords.
Do you think that a lone person cannot commit terrorism? In the words of the “new” Sherlock Holmes in the BBC series: DO your reading, will you?
From Wikipedia, but with further references:
UN General Assembly definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
Where’s the requisite of more than one lone person? A terrorist action is defined by the action and the motive, not how many persons who are involved.
But it really doesn’t matter, the guy is probably a complete psycho- or sociopath who will get 21 years of custody, after which he’ll have to qualify psychologically to be released. And I’ll bet you a Euro to a US dime that he won’t qualify even after 21 years of forced custody. It doesn’t matter what part of the law they’ll slap him with, in Norway you can’t be put in ordinary prison for more that 21 years no matter the crime. Whether it’s terrorism or mass murder they charge you with
I’ve read that the longest prison sentence Norway has is 21 years. I haven’t read that the prisoner then needs to qualify for release. Could you go into more detail, please?
I’ve got a lot of distaste for the U.S. justice system that hands out life without parole sentences as if they are Halloween candy, but a maximum of 21 years seems to me to be the other extreme.
Seriously. This guy deserves to have the blood eagle reinstated in his honor.
See here.
It’s correct that the longest prison sentence in Norway is 21 years. But the criminally insane, or another person determined an unacceptable danger to society (typically, if the risk of repeated offenses is too great) will not be punished by a prison sentence. Such a person will be taken into closed custody which, since this is not a punishment but a way for society to protect itself, can be prolonged indefinitely. However, if you’re sentenced to closed custody you may be released after just a few months if you’re no longer considered a danger to society also because close custody isn’t a punishment.
The best known person in Norway to get 21 years of closed custody was Viggo Kristiansen who participated in the raping and killing of two small girls in Kristiansand some ten years ago. He’s recently applied for release on the grounds of not being dangerous anymore. When that failed, he tried the “wrongfully sentenced” approach…
Not innocent in this lunatic’s eyes. These kids were the future Socialist leaders groomed to continue the policy of swamping Norway with Muslims until the call of the muezzin would be heard in every corner of his one-time Aryan paradise. The logic of the hopelessly insane and doubtless subscribed to by our own resident nutjob here, although I’m sure he wouldn’t have shot the kids. Let me guess, RaleighRally, forcible re-education camps? That more your style? Utoya would be a perfect location for such a camp,wouldn’t it?
Ah. I haven’t been following that thread. Thank you.
Yes, you are. I associate it with the campouts and conferences and trips to the state capital I took with the College Democrats. (WRT the College Republicans you might have a point. And I offer no 
there, the difference is real.)
And in Russia they actually took over the country.
I do see your point in general, but you are wildly overestimating this.
These camps are in my experience very far from indoctrination, most people I know have come from these camps with a more balanced and informed view than when they entered. The primary focus is on fun and sun, with a large side serving of politics. I am no more worried about these camps than I am about letting people raise their own kids.
The political polarization is quite less extreme in Norway than say USA. There are more influential political parties and they have to cooperate more. This makes the tone of the politically active less black and white. Attempts at indoctrination makes you lose members.
In addition, AUF is more of a seperate entity affiliated with the labor party than they are the labor partys youth organisation. And the two have their occasional clashes, and major disagreements, so I think the indoctrination fears are unfounded for the time being
A healthy doze of skepticism is necessary when dealing with youths and politics, but you seem to prefer informed apathy.
agreed,good points.
But ONLY if he is out there to do the killing. If this guy got away, then another bomb or shooting incident occurred and he got away again, then I’d say it was terrorism. I’d even go as far as to say that if Oswald was never caught and two weeks later a U.S. senator was assassinated, then we’d have terrorism. Or, if after Oswald was caught other U.S. political leaders were shot, by others, then we’d probably also have a terrorists situation. (Assuming there was some link between the killings.)
That’s not with MacVeigh did. While he showed a disgusting disregard for life, he attacked an institution. His act was clearly political, but I don’t think it qualifies as terrorism because, like Oswald, it was the one act.
I’m not sure I’m following you here, but it appears that we agree. He may or may not be a terrorist. Since he is now off the streets, there would need to be other similar acts.
The key difference is that they didn’t just kill one day and it was over. There was a aura of fear in the area. Fear of when they might strike again and who might be the next victim.
No, it doesn’t. Based on what we know now, he was a lone political-ideologue nut. The Fort Hood asshole acted as a part of the Muslim extremist movement, in the name of Islam. Is was yet another incident in a long line of murderous incidents by Muslim extremists. The incident in Norway seems to be an isolated incident by one individual. If information comes out to counter that, then that cold very well move him into the terrorist camp.
I’d ask you to read what you quoted by me more closely. I never stated that a single person could not be a terrorist. The point of the passage you quoted was that you can’t have a single incident by a single person—who is then caught—and have terrorism. The Beltway Sniper—even if he had acted alone—wold qualify as a terrorist. Why? Because he created terror that another person could be shot the next day or week.