Oslo bombed

[Al B. Sure!]

And crusaders weren't Christian?

[Nikolai]

The crusades were wrong, we've aknownedged that for centuries. Anyway, this is getting way OT, what's important in this discussion is this guy said himself that Christianity is not what he bases his actions on. He says he is not a religious person and that using Christianity as a basis for his "defence" of Europe was to get the message more easily accepted!

[Docfeelgood]

to murder another human is just ****ing sick

[Nikolai]

to murder another human is just ****ing sick

QFT

[Docfeelgood]

Are abortion clinic bombers Christian?

republicans

[BeBMan]

Bebro:

The man said that he was not a religious Christian. That's not a scotsman, that's taking what he said at face value.

If you approach a guy and you claim he's a scotsman, and he says, no, my parents were from Manchester, that's pretty much cut and dried.

I was replying to:

Because a true Christian would not kill people for their religion, seeing as Christ said not to? Of course, in this case it helps to point out that he himself says he is not a strong believer in God.

The first sentence is a general statement. I replied in general as well.

[a.kitman]

what's important in this discussion is this guy said himself that Christianity is not what he bases his actions on. He says he is not a religious person and that using Christianity as a basis for his "defence" of Europe was to get the message more easily accepted!

where are you getting this information from? from the little i have stomached to read about the guy and his manifest he certainly seems to be into christianity.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

if you give me an ideology, I will find a nutter who supports it... that simple.

[a.kitman]

yes, i completly agree. part of why i think this whole "his not a christian" just comes of so desperate. atleast from the info i got right now it comes of like the war on christmas crap. and just to be clear iam not saying that christians should answer for this guy or anything.

[Nikolai]

where are you getting this information from? from the little i have stomached to read about the guy and his manifest he certainly seems to be into christianity.

From his QA section. Some is what I have stomached to read, some is from articles of people stomaching more than me.

[Az]

Crusades - Evil.
Muslim invasion of Europe - Manifest Destiny

[Sava]

Muslim invasion of Europe - Manifest Destiny

If the marauding Muslim hordes are overwhelming the Euros with their POWER OVERWHELMING, best to defuse that bomb with the same strategy that has weakened the West... integrate them into civilized society so they suffer dramatic decline in birth rates

get their women and children into schools and the workplace... well, the women, not the children... put the kids in the coal mines where they belong!

[Asher]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/mass-murder-and-the-internet/article2113291/

Mass murder and the Internet
TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jul. 29, 2011 2:00AM EDT

“You can ignore jihad, but you cannot avoid the consequences of ignoring jihad.” That was the first reaction of American anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller to news of the terror attacks in Norway. When it turned out the mass murderer was an anti-Islamic terrorist, whose 1,500-page online manifesto was replete with material from anti-Islam writers such as her, she shrugged: “He’s a bloody murderer. Period. He is responsible for his actions. He and only he. There was no ‘ideology’ here.”

“No one has explained or can explain how this guy’s supposed anti-jihad views have anything to do with his murdering children,” said Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer, another blogger quoted favourably by the bomber/shooter, Anders Behring Breivik. “Freedom fighters” such as Mr. Spencer, said Mr. Spencer, should not be tarred with this brush.

Bruce Bawer, the Oslo-based American author of a jeremiad about the Muslim takeover of Europe, was more thoughtful. Noting that Mr. Breivik, in his manifesto, “quotes approvingly and at length from my work, mentioning my name 22 times,” Mr. Bawer reflects, with decent dismay: “It is chilling to think that blog entries that I composed in my home in west Oslo over the last couple of years were being read and copied out by this future mass murderer in his home in west Oslo.”

So what, if any, is the link between their words and Mr. Breivik’s deeds? What should the consequences be for the way free societies treat writers that Mr. Breivik quoted so approvingly?

First of all, people such as Ms. Geller, Mr. Spencer and Mr. Bawer are not responsible for what Mr. Breivik did. It is as wrong to proclaim them guilty by association of mass murder as it is to make non-violent (though sometimes extreme) Muslim writers guilty by association with the Muslim terrorists who bombed New York, London and Madrid. Since that’s a game they themselves have been playing for years, one might feel a bat’s squeak of schadenfreude at seeing Geller & Co. so effectively hoist with their own petard. But we must not do the same. They are not guilty by association. Period.

But if it’s ridiculous to suggest there’s no link between Islamist ideology and Islamist terror, it’s also ridiculous to suggest there’s no link between the alarmist view of the Islamization of Europe these writers spread, and what Mr. Breivik understood himself to be doing. ‘No “ideology” here’? You bet there was. A significant part of Mr. Breivik’s manifesto is a restatement of precisely their horror story of Europe as “Eurabia”: so weakened by the poison of multiculturalism that it submits without a fight to a condition of dhimmitude under Muslim supremacy. He then leaps to the conclusion that the lonely Justiciar Knight (himself) must deliver a heroic wake-up call to his enfeebled society – a “sharp signal,” as he told Norwegian investigators.

What, then, should be done about such inflammatory words? Ban them? Of course not; it would just drive these thoughts underground, where they’d fester and become more poisonous. It would also chill legitimate debate about issues such as immigration or the nature of Islam. It would bring to court fantasists such as Samina Malik, a 23-year old shop assistant prosecuted in Britain for writing bad verse glorifying jihadi martyrdom and murder, but not the real men of violence.

Direct incitement to violence should always be met with the full rigour of the law. The ideological texts that fed Mr. Breivik’s madness did not cross that line. Allowing the expression of the crusader fantasies of extreme Islamists and anti-Islamists alike is the price we pay for free speech.

Does that mean they should go unanswered? Of course not. Just because the price of banning is too high – and, in the Internet age, impossible to achieve anyway – we need to meet them in open combat. One key battlefield is politics, where mainstream European politicians, looking at the electoral success of xenophobic populist parties, are appeasing rather than speaking out against extremist myths. Another is the so-called mainstream media. In a country such as Norway, public service broadcasting and a responsible quality press generally assure that, while extreme views are aired, the dangerous myths they peddle are punctured by fact and common sense.

But what if you get your news from rabble-rousing tabloids, of the kind favoured by Rupert Murdoch? Or from a partisan TV channel, be it one of Silvio Berlusconi’s in Italy or Mr. Murdoch’s Fox News in the U.S.? On the night of Mr. Breivik’s mayhem, the guest host on Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor reported “two deadly terror attacks in Norway, in what appears to be the work, once again, of Muslim extremists.” After describing the attacks, she continued: “In the meantime, in New York City, the Muslims who want to build the mosque at Ground Zero recently scored a huge legal victory.” Bloody Muslims, you see, planting bombs in Oslo, building mosques in New York.

And what if you get your news from the Internet? Online, you can easily find the thousand other people who share your perverted views. You then get a vicious spiral of group-think, reinforcing the worst kind of ideology: an internally consistent, systematic world view, totally divorced from everyday humanity. The Breivik manifesto is a textbook example.

There are no easy answers. The challenge is to work out how we can maximize the extraordinary capacity of the Internet to open minds – and minimize its tendency to close them.

[Asher]

It seems to me the only thing that makes this guy any different from one of Ben's idols, Mark Steyn, is this guy had an automatic weapon and a bunch of cornered targets. Mark Steyn hasn't done that...yet.

An honest-to-God quote from Steyn:

Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since the second World War? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography — except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

For the record, for those who couldn't guess, Steyn is a hardcore Christian.

[Ben Kenobi]

It seems to me the only thing that makes this guy any different from one of Ben's idols, Mark Steyn, is this guy had an automatic weapon and a bunch of cornered targets. Mark Steyn hasn't done that...yet.

I'm a big fan of Steyn, but that's like saying you've got everything in common with Kevorkian because you agree with him on assisted suicide

The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

He's right about this, btw. Your problem with Steyn is what? That he reports facts that you don't like?