Explosion in Oslo

[Liability]

It does sound like the bomb was a diversion.

It took the SWAT team 40 minutes to get there from what I've read. So yeah, the kids were sitting ducks.

From what I've read he is anti-immigrant and especially anti-muslim but I fail to see why his choice of target was a bunch of kids?

That is the question. It's bad enough to murder adults, but to go and SEEK OUT children to murder?

For what damn it, for what..........????

It is usually futile to ask sane, reasonable, human questions about the "thinking" of an insane, irrational and inhuman person.

 

[Ringel05]

It does sound like the bomb was a diversion.

It took the SWAT team 40 minutes to get there from what I've read. So yeah, the kids were sitting ducks.

From what I've read he is anti-immigrant and especially anti-muslim but I fail to see why his choice of target was a bunch of kids?

Good luck trying to figure out the logic of madness, the psychiatric community has been trying for quite a while now.

 

[saveliberty]

Sometimes I have to be sad to understand happy better.
Other times I have to see true evil to want to do more good.
Everyone want to make a postive difference today?

 

[QUENTIN]

For much of the day yesterday, the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible, one that, as James Fallows notes, remains at the Post with no corrections or updates. The morning statement issued by President Obama -- "It's a reminder that the entire international community holds a stake in preventing this kind of terror from occurring" and "we have to work cooperatively together both on intelligence and in terms of prevention of these kinds of horrible attacks" -- appeared to assume, though (to its credit) did not overtly state, that the perpetrator was an international terrorist group.

But now it turns out that the alleged perpetrator wasn't from an international Muslim extremist group at all, but was rather a right-wing Norwegian nationalist with a history of anti-Muslim commentary and an affection for Muslim-hating blogs such as Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugged, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch. Despite that, The New York Times is still working hard to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals:

Terrorism specialists said that even if the authorities ultimately ruled out terrorism as the cause of Friday’s assaults, other kinds of groups or individuals were mimicking Al Qaeda's brutality and multiple attacks.

"If it does turn out to be someone with more political motivations, it shows these groups are learning from what they see from Al Qaeda," said Brian Fishman, a counterterrorism researcher at the New America Foundation in Washington.

Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist. Of course, before Al Qaeda, nobody ever thought to detonate bombs in government buildings or go on indiscriminate, politically motivated shooting rampages. The NYT speculates that amonium nitrate fertilizer may have been used to make the bomb because the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, owned a farming-related business and thus could have access to that material; of course nobody would have ever thought of using that substance to make a massive bomb had it not been for Al Qaeda. So all this proves once again what a menacing threat radical Islam is.

Then there's this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT -- first noticed by Richard Silverstein -- explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible.

In other words, now that we know the alleged perpetrator is not Muslim, we know -- by definition -- that Terrorists are not responsible; conversely, when we thought Muslims were responsible, that meant -- also by definition -- that it was an act of Terrorism. As Silverstein put it:

How's that again? Are the only terrorists in the world Muslim? If so, what do we call a right-wing nationalist capable of planting major bombs and mowing down scores of people for the sake of the greater glory of his cause? If even a "liberal" newspaper like the Times can't call this guy a terrorist, what does that say about the mindset of the western world?

What it says is what we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't). As Maz Hussain -- whose lengthy Twitter commentary on this event yesterday was superb and well worth reading -- put it:

That Terrorism means nothing more than violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes has been proven repeatedly. When an airplane was flown into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, it was immediately proclaimed to be Terrorism, until it was revealed that the attacker was a white, non-Muslim, American anti-tax advocate with a series of domestic political grievances. The U.S. and its allies can, by definition, never commit Terrorism even when it is beyond question that the purpose of their violence is to terrorize civilian populations into submission. Conversely, Muslims who attack purely military targets -- even if the target is an invading army in their own countries -- are, by definition, Terrorists. That is why, as NYU's Remi Brulin has extensively documented, Terrorism is the most meaningless, and therefore the most manipulated, word in the English language. Yesterday provided yet another sterling example.

One last question: if, as preliminary evidence suggests, it turns out that Breivik was "inspired" by the extremist hatemongering rantings of Geller, Pipes and friends, will their groups be deemed Terrorist organizations such that any involvement with them could constitute the criminal offense of material support to Terrorism? Will those extremist polemicists inspiring Terrorist violence receive the Anwar Awlaki treatment of being put on an assassination hit list without due process? Will tall, blond, Nordic-looking males now receive extra scrutiny at airports and other locales, and will those having any involvement with those right-wing, Muslim-hating groups be secretly placed on no-fly lists? Or are those oppressive, extremist, lawless measures -- like the word Terrorism -- also reserved exclusively for Muslims?

Continue reading for full article: The omnipotence of Al Qaeda and meaninglessness of "Terrorism"

 

[alexa]

Hi Quentin,

Terrorism is of course something which has no universal description. Part of the problem may come from the US not really knowing terrorism till 9/11 and then it took the position that it was an act of war.

Europe - France, Spain and the UK anyway, have lived with terrorism. The US had even openly funded Irish terrorism which a lot in the US did not seem to see as terrorism.

Of course Britain chose to see terrorism as a criminal offence and the US saw it as war so it could be said the concept of terrorism changed then. I think to some extent the UK has moved also in putting too much emphasis on Islamic terrorism but we do still need to deal with sporadic NI terrorism even now.

Your questions are interesting because today one of our reporters asked a Norwegian spokesman whether this could now be called terrorism. He said he definitely saw it is terrorism. It was against the Government and against the Labor youth party. What else could it be?

My own belief on terrorism is that in order for it to be terrorism it needs to be done by a group. That is either a group organises it or the person who does it belongs to a group which sanctions this as a political means. The person would be doing it on behalf of the group and the group would support it. That is my view. Like I said there is no universal view on terrorism.

We don't yet know what this guy has been up to. We know he is extreme right wing. We know he is a Christian fundamentalist and all fundamentalists are potentially dangerous. We know he hates immigration and is anti Muslim. The Norweigans say that his behaviour is extremely unusual for right wing fanatics. What he did took a lot of planning while they usually just go on an impulsive spree so we don't yet know what he was up to and are not even sure he was on his own.

With regards to Daniel Pipes and friends, good question. Canada recently tried to convict similar for hate speech. I read a lot of what they said in their reports. Their belief was that Nazi Germany had shown us that we cannot rely on the rational and basic goodness of humans to show through and defeat ideas which should be beyond touch of most human beings. They believed that it had been shown that if you expose people to sufficient hate material they will start to hate and to be honest that is true. Of course that can be contradicted by reading other stuff as well but clearly there is a danger of this happening. It is a very tricky situation and I think it is well that you bring it for consideration.

 

[CitizenPained]

I think random attacks on civilians to send an ideological message is terrorism.

 

[CitizenPained]

Canada recently tried to convict similar for hate speech. I read a lot of what they said in their reports. Their belief was that Nazi Germany had shown us that we cannot rely on the rational and basic goodness of humans to show through and defeat ideas which should be beyond touch of most human beings. They believed that it had been shown that if you expose people to sufficient hate material they will start to hate and to be honest that is true. Of course that can be contradicted by reading other stuff as well but clearly there is a danger of this happening. It is a very tricky situation and I think it is well that you bring it for consideration.

Israel has laws against speech that incites violence/hate speech/etc.

Jews have been arrested as well as Muslims. It's a good idea and one I wish more western countries would follow.

 

[QUENTIN]

I take the simple and clear definition of terrorism used formally (but almost never in practice) by most international organizations, the U.S. government (again, only formally, not actually) and courts, and the dictionary.

Politically motivated violence against civilians.

It's violence against non-combatants intended to terrorize a population and either bring glory to one's cause or make some political outcome more likely.

I don't see why one has to be a member of a group to do that. If an individual suicide bomber is a radical but doesn't specifically belong to an organized group of fellow radicals, he's still a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh, for instance, is certainly a terrorist as far as I'm concerned.

The problem with the word isn't that it genuinely lacks a definition, it's that it has been so manipulated and misused that it no longer means what it was intended to and instead is just a buzzword used to describe violence by Muslims. Even when the violence is militaristic in nature, not attacking any civilians or non-combatants but solely aimed at soldiers of an invading foreign army ("guerilla warfare" like we've seen throughout the ages) it is described as terrorism (I suppose we were fighting terrorism in Vietnam then too) and when the violence is explicitly terrorism, attacking civilian non-combatants for political reasons such as the Joseph Stack IRS attack or white nationalist bomb planting at an MLK parade or this bombing and shooting in Oslo, as long as the perpetrator isn't a brown Muslim it's called something other than terrorism despite meeting the textbook definition of a terrorist act.

As for outlawing speech, or the concept of "hate speech," I vehemently oppose it. I support the right to free speech and expression, period. Incitement to violence is against the law for a reason, but merely stating an opinion or belief others find "hateful" (and who is going to be the arbiter of that?) is a dangerous and authoritarian infringement on the most basic human freedom - that of expressing oneself. If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those whose views you despise, then you don't believe in freedom of speech at all. "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it," etc. I was merely mocking the hypocrisy evidence by Anwar Al-Awlaki, a Muslim extremist whose "crime" is inspiring violence against Americans without taking part in it and who has been targeted to be assassinated as a result of exercising his free speech, being given such different treatment than Christian extremists who inspired this violence with their speech but who will suffer some verbal reprobation at worst. I don't support either of them being killed or jailed for merely speaking their mind, even if what I think they say is vile and can influence stupid, impressionable people to commit crimes and violence. Keep in mind, America was founded by people calling for violent revolution against the state. Outlawing unpopular, even hateful opinions, is simply totalitarian - no matter how well-intentioned.

I think this cartoon sums up the reaction we saw throughout the U.S. and particularly in the first few pages of this thread quite well:

 

[CitizenPained]

I spend a whole day in my high school civics trying to cover the question, "What is terrorism?" in the context of, "What is war?"

They love it.

 

[xsited1]

Canada recently tried to convict similar for hate speech. I read a lot of what they said in their reports. Their belief was that Nazi Germany had shown us that we cannot rely on the rational and basic goodness of humans to show through and defeat ideas which should be beyond touch of most human beings. They believed that it had been shown that if you expose people to sufficient hate material they will start to hate and to be honest that is true. Of course that can be contradicted by reading other stuff as well but clearly there is a danger of this happening. It is a very tricky situation and I think it is well that you bring it for consideration.

Israel has laws against speech that incites violence/hate speech/etc.

Jews have been arrested as well as Muslims. It's a good idea and one I wish more western countries would follow.

Never fear. The way the Constitution is being trashed you probably won't have long to wait.

 

[saveliberty]

If I understand correctly, any speech that is offensive will not be allowed under this new concept? So much for message boards.

 

[alexa]

Canada recently tried to convict similar for hate speech. I read a lot of what they said in their reports. Their belief was that Nazi Germany had shown us that we cannot rely on the rational and basic goodness of humans to show through and defeat ideas which should be beyond touch of most human beings. They believed that it had been shown that if you expose people to sufficient hate material they will start to hate and to be honest that is true. Of course that can be contradicted by reading other stuff as well but clearly there is a danger of this happening. It is a very tricky situation and I think it is well that you bring it for consideration.

Israel has laws against speech that incites violence/hate speech/etc.

Jews have been arrested as well as Muslims. It's a good idea and one I wish more western countries would follow.

Yes, the UK has laws about hate speech which incites violence as well and I think most of Europe does too. The problem comes from how you prove it. Obviously it is easy if someone gets up on a soapbox and tells people to go and kill some particular group but that rarely happens within earshot so we are dealing with it on a much more subtle level and I think particularly with the Internet where people are exposed to material they never would have been before on a mass scale and also where they can easily find people with whatever ideas they have.

The question is when does it become incitement to hate and violence.

 

[CitizenPained]

Canada recently tried to convict similar for hate speech. I read a lot of what they said in their reports. Their belief was that Nazi Germany had shown us that we cannot rely on the rational and basic goodness of humans to show through and defeat ideas which should be beyond touch of most human beings. They believed that it had been shown that if you expose people to sufficient hate material they will start to hate and to be honest that is true. Of course that can be contradicted by reading other stuff as well but clearly there is a danger of this happening. It is a very tricky situation and I think it is well that you bring it for consideration.

Israel has laws against speech that incites violence/hate speech/etc.

Jews have been arrested as well as Muslims. It's a good idea and one I wish more western countries would follow.

Never fear. The way the Constitution is being trashed you probably won't have long to wait.

Incitement to riot isn't protected. Nor is obscenity or defamation.

Unfortunately...it is too often protected...because SCOTUS gave the impression that it should be, not because the Founders thought it was a good idea.

Trashed, indeed.

 

[CitizenPained]

Canada recently tried to convict similar for hate speech. I read a lot of what they said in their reports. Their belief was that Nazi Germany had shown us that we cannot rely on the rational and basic goodness of humans to show through and defeat ideas which should be beyond touch of most human beings. They believed that it had been shown that if you expose people to sufficient hate material they will start to hate and to be honest that is true. Of course that can be contradicted by reading other stuff as well but clearly there is a danger of this happening. It is a very tricky situation and I think it is well that you bring it for consideration.

Israel has laws against speech that incites violence/hate speech/etc.

Jews have been arrested as well as Muslims. It's a good idea and one I wish more western countries would follow.

Yes, the UK has laws about hate speech which incites violence as well and I think most of Europe does too. The problem comes from how you prove it. Obviously it is easy if someone gets up on a soapbox and tells people to go and kill some particular group but that rarely happens within earshot so we are dealing with it on a much more subtle level and I think particularly with the Internet where people are exposed to material they never would have been before on a mass scale and also where they can easily find people with whatever ideas they have.

The question is when does it become incitement to hate and violence.

In America, it has to be an imminent threat, which is why racist fucks in the KKK can get away with what they do. You can stand on soapbox and preach about black people and Jews needing to die and you won't be arrested (unless you're disturbing the peace) because it's "protected".

 

[alexa]

Israel has laws against speech that incites violence/hate speech/etc.

Jews have been arrested as well as Muslims. It's a good idea and one I wish more western countries would follow.

Yes, the UK has laws about hate speech which incites violence as well and I think most of Europe does too. The problem comes from how you prove it. Obviously it is easy if someone gets up on a soapbox and tells people to go and kill some particular group but that rarely happens within earshot so we are dealing with it on a much more subtle level and I think particularly with the Internet where people are exposed to material they never would have been before on a mass scale and also where they can easily find people with whatever ideas they have.

The question is when does it become incitement to hate and violence.

In America, it has to be an imminent threat, which is why racist fucks in the KKK can get away with what they do. You can stand on soapbox and preach about black people and Jews needing to die and you won't be arrested (unless you're disturbing the peace) because it's "protected".

I wonder though which is the more successful. Most people if they hear someone on a soapbox suggesting the killing of all whoever, will think nutter and move on....but if you gradually submit yourself to material which has a little bit of truth in it, then it can gradually send you to extremes. I was on a website where a guy used to do things like post pictures of Mecca with nukes landing on it and get thanks. One day he confided that his hatred of Muslims was reaching such an extreme he was scared he might do something about it - like kill one.

So back to the topic. This Norwegian murderer was not known to the police. He had no history at all. They say that they had no reason at all to think he was any threat...but he used the net and he used extreme websites. It may be that that formed his focus group, made him feel he had a purpose.

At the same time what Quintin spoke of, always seeing Muslims as being the terrorists can produce the effect it had in the bloke on that website....and these are subtle. They happen from continually submitting yourself to hateful ideas.

There have been attempts to take people who are subtly peddling this hate which can lead to violence to court - and there is no reason to believe they cannot lead to mass violence - there were I think two in Canada and also the Wilders trial. None of them came to anything.

I think it is just something that people need to be aware of. Maybe because of the changes in the way we communicate something which people need to be taught about at school so that they take care and do not accidentally allow their minds to be polluted by hate which is subtly taught by those who have an agenda not necessarily noticed.

 

[jillian]

OSLO, Norway — A loud explosion has shattered windows at the government headquarters in Oslo which includes the prime minister's office, injuring several people.

Norwegian news agency NTB said the prime minister is safe.

An AP reporter says newspaper offices in the area are also damaged and smoke is drifting in the streets.

Explosion damages gov't building in Oslo - CBS News

I have to wonder why it took you to post this. You'd think all the rightwingnut "profile the
A-rab" folks would have come out of the woodwork...

oh wait... the terrorists weren't Arabs.

guess that shoots that whole profiling thing in the you-know--what....

 

[alexa]

It appears now that this Anders Brehing Breivik had links with British Far Right group the EDL

Anders Brehing Breivik, the man accused of the murder of at least 91 Norwegians in a bomb and gun massacre, boasted online about his discussions with the far-right English Defence League and other anti-Islamic European organisations.

The Norwegian prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, said Norwegian officials were working with foreign intelligence agencies to see if there was any international involvement in the slaughter. "We have running contact with other countries' intelligence services," he said. had links with British far right groups in particular the EDL

Norway attacks: Utøya gunman boasted of links to UK far right | World news | The Observer

For those who don't know them

This is England: On the trail of the English Defence League | Mail Online

Special Investigation: English Defence League and the hooligans spreading hate on the High Street | Mail Online

 

[Ravi]

I just can't believe the picture of him taken from a helicopter, walking around among the bodies of the kids he killed.

And really, if you read his writings so far released, he only seems like a garden variety hater.

What the hell happened here?

 

[CitizenPained]

Yes, the UK has laws about hate speech which incites violence as well and I think most of Europe does too. The problem comes from how you prove it. Obviously it is easy if someone gets up on a soapbox and tells people to go and kill some particular group but that rarely happens within earshot so we are dealing with it on a much more subtle level and I think particularly with the Internet where people are exposed to material they never would have been before on a mass scale and also where they can easily find people with whatever ideas they have.

The question is when does it become incitement to hate and violence.

In America, it has to be an imminent threat, which is why racist fucks in the KKK can get away with what they do. You can stand on soapbox and preach about black people and Jews needing to die and you won't be arrested (unless you're disturbing the peace) because it's "protected".

I wonder though which is the more successful. Most people if they hear someone on a soapbox suggesting the killing of all whoever, will think nutter and move on....but if you gradually submit yourself to material which has a little bit of truth in it, then it can gradually send you to extremes. I was on a website where a guy used to do things like post pictures of Mecca with nukes landing on it and get thanks. One day he confided that his hatred of Muslims was reaching such an extreme he was scared he might do something about it - like kill one.

Good point.

 

[hortysir]

So it was a blond-haired, blue-eyed, Norwegian conservative Christian who perpetrated the terrorist attack.

Do those who mocked the idea this could have been anyone but Muslim extremists have anything to say about that now?

Nope.
Not even a little apologetic.

I was playing the odds.




Is anyone that wants to defend Muslim extremists happy that it was a white Christian?

See how that works?