haz
I AM OT!
onmore disturbing diary notes http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/07/manifesto-anders-behring-breivik.html
Correct, and if we give a sign that mass murder is effective way to make ideological thoughts to be heard publicly, we are triggering this to happen again.
They are as insane as the perpetrator, probably/hopefully a bit less violent.You have got to be fucking kidding me.. Conservapedia tries to smear
thanks for caring, but it's important for me to know what has happend and how he was thinking, it gives me a broader perspective. I am grown up, have military training and have served NATO also. I am up for taking a mental beating, but thanks again.
Analyzing his motives publicly does not necessary mean giving a sign that mass murder is an effective way to be heard. We (more exactly, you) can't just forbid to talk, read, print or even think about these things.
I did see some twitter post, that some large US news networks started scaling down the coverage when it appeared that the guilty guy were closer to the Tea Party than Al Quida.They are as insane as the perpetrator, probably/hopefully a bit less violent.
(intentional double post this one time)
"Did a liberal insert the terms "Christian" and "conservative" on a Facebook page about the perpetrator of the Norway massacre, causing the lamestream media to smear conservatism in headlines around the world? The evidence suggests the labels were not genuine: [5]"
Why? It's human nature to want to understand, if we stop seeking that we are no longer human.
I did see some twitter post, that some large US news networks started scaling down the coverage when it appeared that the guilty guy were closer to the Tea Party than Al Quida.
I think it's an improper thing to say. But as a piece of black humor, I did giggle.
I think there may be some language-barrier problems here. I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have understanding or somehow "respect", if I can use that word, his beliefs. That's not what's meant by wanting to understand him. It's more a curiosity about how someone gets so wrong. What is going on inside his head and how is he justifying it to himself.There mustn't be any kind of understanding to what he did.
What I find interesting is that if this guy was a muslim, there would be a lot of talk about what responsibility the average muslim had. And how islam was a danger to the west.Funnily enough, they are not that far off about the terms not being genuine. A slaughterman on a killing spree can hardly be defined "christian". Problem is many people claiming to be "christians" do fall in the same category because they are not actually following what Christ was saying (according to a most famous book).
More funnily still, ultra-conservatives trying to veer off attacks against their extremists methods by addressing this problem are willingly ignoring the fact that this guy did indeed consider himself a righteous servant of the christian god, and one with the right to impose this will on other people (as we have all seen, unfortunately), so much that he covered his page in crosses and idiotic references to templars and other "christian" historical events or leaders. They also forget the fact that this guy showed most of the usual ultra-conservative indicators.
I think there may be some language-barrier problems here. I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have understanding or somehow "respect", if I can use that word, his beliefs. That's not what's meant by wanting to understand him. It's more a curiosity about how someone gets so wrong. What is going on inside his head and how is he justifying it to himself.
If the answer is that he is a mentally disturbed psychopath completely lacking empathy, that's still an answer of sorts. If he's not, maybe we as a society can learn something and prevent others from going down the same path.
Mac Guffin, please do not tell me what I can not do. Trying to learn is the only way. He was from the same town as me, same age and he bombed my town and set my fellow citizens in great danger and killed over 90 people.
I very much agree, but sadly there is a dilemma. What the current situation is: That kind of manifesto will never get any political/media attention or are outright suppressed BEFORE anything happens. Now, AFTER the mass murder, there is a great interest towards it. Shouldn't it be vice versa? If some extremists know that their views are suppressed until they go for a killing spree (and after what media will love their radical views), I'm afraid that they won't hesitate to go for that. In other and very cruel words, we are now saying that your extremist views have no value until you go and kill people.There will be debate about whether this manifesto should be out there, or whether sources should remove it (websites).
I think everyone should be able to read it - reading the words of someone clearly maladjusted (no matter how cogent and intelligently he presents himself) will harden people against extremism as they begin to realize how off the rails that train of thought is. It's the same problem that will keep scientology down - they need people to know about it to keep people coming in and paying, but the more people are aware of it the more people are critical of how crazy it is, the less popular it gets. Extremism is the same. The only people who would be inspired by the manifesto are already maladjusted nutters.
Worse, attempting to remove the manifesto and supressing it from public consumption will give the extremists ammunition as they'll be able to simply claim they are being politically suppressed in the name of multi-culturalism.
You seek for understanding.
But you must learn to accept, that you will not be able to grasp his motives (it will only make you even angrier) and that sometimes trying to understand is wrong. For example when something is so clearly evil, as what Breivik has done.
an inner voice starts shouting very loudly "LALALALALAALA" in my head and I simply don't wanna hear or know.
I think that's impossible. There's so much proverbial mud on the web, that we can't give attention to all of it. There's probably manifestos like this one all over the net in different forms, and most will never amount to anything.I very much agree, but sadly there is a dilemma. What the current situation is: That kind of manifesto will never get any political/media attention or are outright suppressed BEFORE anything happens. Now, AFTER the mass murder, there is a great interest towards it. Shouldn't it be vice versa? If some extremists know that their views are suppressed until they go for a killing spree (and after what media will love their radical views), I'm afraid that they won't hesitate to go for that. In other and very cruel words, we are now saying that your extremist views have no value until you go and kill people.