Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

benwj wrote:Good points both chocs and bora, and i'm inclined to agree... if the attacks weren't so extreme. Yes, what this guy did was beyond belief and hard to comprehend.
Personal beliefs and ideals alone, do not explain what he did.
Religion is the obvious catalyst to take him to the next level of brainwashing, and it would make sense that he is a religious fundamentalist.
He might not have said it but only religion can screw people's minds up to that extent.

I don't necessarily agree with you. How about he was just so pissed off at what was happening in his country! Religion has zero to do with it IMHO. He is not alone in his feelings, there is a huge wave of discontent, but people don't know what to do about their feelings. These are the actions of a man who has simply had enough and is making a point.

Chocoholic wrote:These are the actions of a man who has simply had enough and is making a point.

I have been thinking what was/is his point. Why did he kill ethnic Norwegians and not attack Muslim symbols? I think the main point HE tried to make is that what he perceives as "giving in to Islam by the government", will not secure safety for ethnic Norwegians.
I donot even think he hates Islam per se, he is an ethnic nationalist purist. He stated for example him and al-qaida have much in common. He envisions a world where ethnicities donot mix and each their own territory.
I also certainly believe religion was not a motivator for him.

Flying Dutchman wrote:I have been thinking what was/is his point. Why did he kill ethnic Norwegians and not attack Muslim symbols? I think the main point HE tried to make is that what he perceives as "giving in to Islam by the government", will not secure safety for ethnic Norwegians.
I donot even think he hates Islam per se, he is an ethnic nationalist purist. He stated for example him and al-qaida have much in common. He envisions a world where ethnicities donot mix and each their own territory.
I also certainly believe religion was not a motivator for him.

He was insane and under the influence of drugs.
This can be the only explanation for taking so many lives. These are not the actions of any sane person.
The Police should have shot him on sight and saved the families further heartache of seeing him smiling from the dock.

-- Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:52 am --

How about he was just so pissed off at what was happening in his country!

Chocs! The master of understatement!
I get pissed off every day about what's happening in my country, but there's no way on this earth I would harm a hair on anybody's head. That's just not an excuse.

event horizon wrote:

benwj wrote:Good points both chocs and bora, and i'm inclined to agree... if the attacks weren't so extreme. Yes, what this guy did was beyond belief and hard to comprehend.
Personal beliefs and ideals alone, do not explain what he did.
Religion is the obvious catalyst to take him to the next level of brainwashing, and it would make sense that he is a religious fundamentalist.
He might not have said it but only religion can screw people's minds up to that extent.

He did say it. He said he bases his views on logic and reason and not religion and that he was moderately religious.

I read somewhere that he was Catholic, converted to become a Protestant, and thought the Protestant faith wasa a joke, so how religiously motivated he was is questionable. I think it was more about his hatred towards his government and the number of Muslims that have been allowed to migrate to Norway. Having said that, not everyone who migrates is Muslim, so I would say it was an issue about immigrants in general, the majority who happen to be Muslim.

-- Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:58 am --

Flying Dutchman wrote:

Chocoholic wrote:These are the actions of a man who has simply had enough and is making a point.

I have been thinking what was/is his point. Why did he kill ethnic Norwegians and not attack Muslim symbols? I think the main point HE tried to make is that what he perceives as "giving in to Islam by the government", will not secure safety for ethnic Norwegians.
I donot even think he hates Islam per se, he is an ethnic nationalist purist. He stated for example him and al-qaida have much in common. He envisions a world where ethnicities donot mix and each their own territory.
I also certainly believe religion was not a motivator for him.

It was about his government. See my previous comment. If you saw some of the interviews, you can see that some of the Norwegian kids that survived were clearly from other ethnic backgrounds (Pakistani and Arab). It was a camp for young people who were highly interested in politics. I guess he saw them as the "future" of Norway??

What I thought was interesting were the two quotes in the OP which described this terrorist as a Christian Fundamentalist.

I've been quite clear that I don't think religion is to blame - nor do I think he's used religion as a motivation (i.e. he hasn't invoked religion wrongly).

Eh pointed out that he does refer to papal edicts in his manifesto though, and in his diary he does talk about praying to God (for the first time in a while) and asking him to help him protect European Christendom.

His hatred is clearly for Muslims and his view that there is an Islamic invasion - both in people and as in a cultural invasion - and hates Marxists and those he sees as allowing the Muslims in, and who support multi-culturalism.

In short he shares the political views of the right-wing Islamophobes we have posting here - notably herve, event horizon and Flying Dutchman. (Capiscum is just funny and rants a lot, BM jumps on the nearest anti-Muslim bandwagon).

(eh promised to list the political views of this terrorist that he disagrees with. So far none have been given.)

This terrorist is therefore a right-wing Islamophobe and clearly a racist (but, like the EDL and eh etc denies being racist).

Where he steps out of line is the decision that to make his point he has to kill fellow Norwegians who happen to be left wing (or more simply, who don't agree with the political views he and the phobes share).

The scary thought is that there are probably more like him out there that may be encouraged by his 'success'!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:In short he shares the political views of the right-wing Islamophobes we have posting here - notably herve, event horizon and Flying Dutchman. (Capiscum is just funny and rants a lot, BM jumps on the nearest anti-Muslim bandwagon).

The troll farts again.

Soooooooooo. The only thing you see is that this act of terroism was because of his hatred towards Muslims, and continue to miss the point that his hatred was towards his GOVERNMENT in that they were lenient with immigration. Muslims are not the primary factor Shaf. He wouldn't have a hate issue towards Muslims if his government didn't allow for easy immigration. Substitute atheists, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Scientology, or any other religion for Islam, that was growing in Norway that deviated from Christianity, he would still have done what he did. It was not religious hatred that motivated him, but hatred for his government. A government building? A camp that hosted young people who had a strong interest or view towards politics?? Clearly if he hated Muslims I'm sure he could have found a mosque to blow up.

Everything I've read says the main issue he had with the government was it's policy towards aiding the imagined Muslim invasion. He also hates marxists and those in favour of multi-culturalism. But his crusader analogies, prayers etc - are all directed towards his irrational fear of Muslims.

So, yes, I do see his Islamophobic views as a main part of his terrorist motivation.

In his bizare mind and logic, he says that Muslim and Paki-bashing is counterproductive - again his words. He saw the left as 'jihad enablers' (and therefore bought in to the hate-filled ideology of Spencer - whom he cites many times - and Pam Geller).

All of this is clear from the evidence in the media, and can be checked by looking at the references to his manifesto and the diary entries.

I am not speculating, just reporting what the evidence so far reveals. You seem to be wishing he wasn't Islamophobic etc. But, if I've missed some evidence you've read - I'll be happy to stand corrected. Just quote his words.

Edit:
For example, this NYT article makes the link quite clearly:

The man accused of the killing spree in Norway was deeply influenced by a small group of American bloggers and writers who have warned for years about the threat from Islam, lacing his 1,500-page manifesto with quotations from them, as well as copying multiple passages from the tract of the Unabomber.
..
His manifesto, which denounced Norwegian politicians as failing to defend the country from Islamic influence, quoted Robert Spencer, who operates the Jihad Watch Web site, 64 times, and cited other Western writers who shared his view that Muslim immigrants pose a grave danger to Western culture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25 ... wanted=all

Cheers,
Shafique

Anyone notice the different attitude from shafique when it comes to the Norwegian terrorist and the attacks against Christians in Egypt or other acts of terrorism carried out by Muslims?

There, shafique tried to rationalize their attacks. I even recall him starting a thread shortly after the mass murder of Christians holding Muslim women against their will following the bombing (of course ignoring similar kidnappings of Coptic women by Muslims) - which he claimed was one of the apparent reasons for the bombing, though no group claimed responsibility and we don't have a statement from the actual bomber.

Yet the Norwegians terrorist's grievances against Muslims is clear as day. He talks about 'no-go' areas in European cities. How rape has been monopolized by immigrant youth.

In fact, I read a recent story from one Norwegian city where *ALL* the rapes in that city from last year were carried out by immigrants (mostly Muslim).

Would shafique have created a thread about 'no-go' areas in European cities or how immigrants and Muslims are carrying out numerous violent crimes to try to put the Norwegian terrorist's actions in perspective? Or would shafique have cried racism from the highest mountain?

He certainly has tried to portray Anders as a mindless Islamophobe without legitimate grievances. Muslim terrorist bombings had nothing to do with Anders' own terrorist actions, according to shafique ('He just hated Muslims'). Although shafique never offers a coherent explanation for his view, he is quite dismissive of what another member wrote. This is quite the departure for someone who habitually carries water for Muslim terrorists.

Any guesses why?

Fail.

I quoted the NYT and the terrorist himself - it is clear he shares eh's Islamphobic and right-wing political views.

Above eh is even trying to justify the terrorist's Xenophobia

Whataboutery arguments about attacks in Egypt are nothing more than smoke and mirrors - and dishonest ones at that. I never sought to excuse any terrorist act - I just pointed out where eh's facts were wrong. There's a difference.

Cheers,
Shafique

So did you start a thread shortly after the mass killing at an Egyptian church of Egyptian women supposedly being held against their will by Copts (ignoring the practice is more widely done by Muslims) or didn't you?

Were the Muslim terrorists who bombed the church 'Christianophobes'?

Are you planning on starting any threads on the Muslim rape epidemic in Norwegian cities?

I did correct your mistakes in the threads you started - as I did on this subject here. You started the thread on the terrorist bomb.

I merely started a new thread when the police called the guy a 'Christian Fundamentalist' - i.e. this thread.

What's your point? That I'm not as gullible as you when you pick up misinformation from Islamophobic websites? Guilty as charged. I will, however, continue to condemn all acts of terror and correct your misinformation when you present it.

Now, surely you're not blaming me for not starting threads to highlight Islamophobic xenophobia theories??

Back to the topic at hand - Bora was arguing that this terrorist's Islamophobia was not a primary motivation. I think the evidence shows that it was.

eh - are you working on your list of the political views of the terrorist you don't agree with, or was I right that he and you share the same views??

Cheers,
Shafique

Now, surely you're not blaming me for not starting threads to highlight Islamophobic xenophobia theories??

Is that a 'yes' you started a thread to highlight Christianophobic xenophobia theories shortly after a massacre of Coptic worshipers?

You also seemed to have posted a link in the original thread speaking for the bomber when he never spoke for himself. Strange that.

Now, is it a 'yes' or a 'no' that the terrorists who attacked a church full of worshipers during a service were Christianophobes?

Sigh. (Please start a new thread on Egypt - I'm not playing your smoke and mirrors game)


Back to the topic at hand - Bora was arguing that this terrorist's Islamophobia was not a primary motivation. I think the evidence shows that it was.

eh - are you working on your list of the political views of the terrorist you don't agree with, or was I right that he and you share the same views??

Cheers,
Shafique

I still stand by my argument that it was NOT the primary motivator. You are doing the very thing you accuse people of doing: having a knee jerk reaction that when there is an act of terrorism it HAS to be by Islamist terrorists. Clearly you WANT this to be religiously motivated.

Going back we debated about the pipebomb that was found in a part where a large number of African Americans were scheduled to march - racially motivated, not religiously motivated, right? McVey was politically motivated - not religious, but political - government building. The unabomber was deranged and proven to be psychological mess up, his motivation was technology (?). I argued that "acts of terrorism" as we in Western worlds at least, had a knee jerk reaction: act of terrorism, Islamic terrorists. The definition for act of terrorism has since taken on a much broader meaning, as you pointed out in the pipebomb incident.

Now history has been edited to define attacks as "acts of terrorism" by the following groups:
Animal Liberation Group
Alpha 66 and Omega 7
Army of God
Aryan Nations
Black Liberation Army
The Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord
Earth Liberation Front
Jewish Defense League
May 19th Communist Organization (formed by Weather Underground Organization)
The Order
Phineas Priesthood
Symbionese Liberation Army
United Freedom Front
Weathermen

Acts of terrorism by individuals:

Bombing of Los Angeles Times Building (October 1910) I mention the date because "act of terrorism" was not coined and widely used until 1996 - the first attack on the World Trade Center.
Ludlow Massacre (1914)
Wall Street Bombing (1920)
Bath Michigan Bombings (1927)
Unabomber Attacks (first one 1978)
Oklahoma City Bombing (government building)
Centennial Olympic Park Bombing
2001 Anthrax Attacks
Murder of George Tiller (abortionist). There were other abortion clinics attacked as well. These attacks were not religiously motivated by morally motivated
Holocaust Memorial Museum Shooting
Fort Hood Shooting
Austin IRS Attack

All of the above committed by groups/organizations/individuals where in most cases the term act of terrorism was not applied, but are now referred to acts of terrorism. All acts of terrorism motivated by religious, political, moral and/or racial.

The fact that Brievik's acts of terrorism took place against a government faclility and a camp that was politically oriented clearly defines his primary motive - again, attack on the government. Religion was not the catalyst. As I said before, he would have attacked Muslims - a mosque - if was primarily religious.

If you didn't want so bad for it to be religious, you would see that.

I never for once stated that I thought the terrorist act by this Islamophobe was inspired by his religion. I made it crystal clear that I would not link his terrorism to violent verses in the Bible etc.

Why are you imagining otherwise? Please try and read what I have written.

However, the fact remains that his motivation is an irrational fear of Muslims and an Islamic invasion. His Islamophobic views are not based on religion - I don't believe Christianity is compatible with the irrational hatred of Bob Spencer et al.

If you are saying his Islamophobia was not a primary motivation for his hatred of the Labour party and government, I'd like to see on what you are basing this belief. His manifesto and the articles linked to above all point to the Islamophobia.

Cheers,
Shafique

I would personally refrain from calling his faith as the main motivator although I would also not totally disregard it, after all he refers to himself and his ( still to be discovered or even real ) two other cells as the Knights Templar : crusaders defending the holy land in his lenghty manifesto.

Also you don't have be a religious person to be a phobe, which he clearly is and I think was the main motivator until ofcourse more details come through from the fog of confusion surrounding this incident and fellow.