Jump to content

Norway: Blast near prime minister's office in Oslo


Mr. Gayle

Recommended Posts

Is the point of the journalists article not about highlighting the culture of hate that these people peddle?

It might be his point, but it is simplistic, relativistic, intellectually lazy and facile.

Glenn Beck might be an Incendiary and controversial broadcaster, but when has he told his audience to slay the infidel wherever he may find him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of their messages are of hate, one is worse than the other, in your eyes because he actually says the word kill.

To me, there is very little difference between the purposes both of them want to serve. And both of their purposes is to stir up fear and hate through whatever medium they have possible and influence in most cases fragile minds.

And I think this is what the article was simply explaining.

I'm sure if Anwar had a global television channel in which he could send out his message he wouldn't actually say the word 'kill', either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of their messages are of hate, one is worse than the other, in your eyes because he actually says the word kill.

To me, there is very little difference between the purposes both of them want to serve. And both of their purposes is to stir up fear and hate through whatever medium they have possible and influence in most cases fragile minds.

And I think this is what the article was simply explaining.

I'm sure if Anwar had a global television channel in which he could send out his message he wouldn't actually say the word 'kill', either.

I'm sure if Anwar had a global television channel in which he could send out his message he wouldn't actually say the word 'kill', either.

Really? You've met him? And he has indicated this to you? Typical liberal relativistic nonsense. If he was a man of the Left you would have no problem with him, admit it.

When has Glenn Beck incited violence, as in actually "Go out and kill these particular people"? You might think his tone is hateful, but he can say what he likes as guaranteed to him by his First Amendment rights.

Mr. al-Alwaki address his audience by saying:

To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim

Please produce anything comparable to any of Glenn Beck's rantings?

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was a man of the left I would support him?! Yes, my problem with the man is that he is on the right preaching nonsense instead of the left preaching it.

What a joke.

Where did I write Beck incited violence?

Going back and forth with you is long and pointless. As I am typical person on the left, you know all I have to see say. And you can merely infer what you want from what I have written.

Like rubbish that I would support any mad man that preaches hate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he was a man of the left I would support him?! Yes, my problem with the man is that he is on the right preaching nonsense instead of the left preaching it.

What a joke.

Where did I write Beck incited violence?

Going back and forth with you is long and pointless. As I am typical person on the left, you know all I have to see say. And you can merely infer what you want from what I have written.

Like rubbish that I would support any mad man that preaches hate.

You conflated Beck and al-Alwaki as being one and the same, you stated that they employ the same tactics. al-Alwaki incites violence. Logic follows, that beck must also incite violence.

I didn't say that was your main problem with him. But hypothetically speaking, if he was a firebrand against religion, capitalism, the right etc etc and he spoke with the same forcefulness and incendiary controversial vigor that he does now, even though he would still be preaching nonsense, you would not have a major problem with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quick things

through these various essays and arguments that have been goin on since the beginning of RWD or whenever u started posting on here.

have any of you actually changed your minds about a stance you had on a certain issue after arguing back anf forth about it?

not talking tomato is a fruit/Chinese Whispers n the like, but them arguments where u link to news stories and articles n write a dissertation on the matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why u hating on my boy breivig

ive spent the afternoon reeading his manifesto and im convinced hes the most spectacular genius/windup merchant ive seen in my lifetime...

its actually fantastic reading, entertaining and makes surprising sense

id love to have afternnooon tea with breivig, v nasty from white girl mobb and desmond tutu

would be some wonderful conversations

He'll end up raping you for being an afghan then kill you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to bed in a terrible world and awoke inside a worse one. At the time of writing, details of the Norwegian atrocity are still emerging, although the identity of the perpetrator has now been confirmed and his motivation seems increasingly clear: a far-right anti-Muslim extremist who despised the ruling party.

Presumably he wanted to make a name for himself, which is why I won't identify him. His name deserves to be forgotten. Discarded. Deleted. Labels like "madman", "monster", or "maniac" won't do, either. There's a perverse glorification in terms like that. If the media's going to call him anything, it should call him pathetic; a nothing.

On Friday night's news, they were calling him something else. He was a suspected terror cell with probable links to al-Qaida. Countless security experts queued up to tell me so. This has all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida attack, they said. Watching at home, my gut feeling was that that didn't add up. Why Norway? And why was it aimed so specifically at one political party? But hey, they're the experts. They're sitting there behind a caption with the word "EXPERT" on it. Every few minutes the anchor would ask, "What kind of picture is emerging?" or "What sense are you getting of who might be responsible?" and every few minutes they explained this was "almost certainly" the work of a highly-organised Islamist cell.

In the aftermath of the initial bombing, they proceeded to wrestle with the one key question: why do Muslims hate Norway? Luckily, the experts were on hand to expertly share their expert solutions to plug this apparent plot hole in the ongoing news narrative.

Why do Muslims hate Norway? There had to be a reason.

Norway was targeted because of its role in Afghanistan. Norway was targeted because Norwegian authorities had recently charged an extremist Muslim cleric. Norway was targeted because one of its newspapers had reprinted the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Norway was targeted because, compared to the US and UK, it is a "soft target" – in other words, they targeted it because no one expected them to.

When it became apparent that a shooting was under way on Utoya island, the security experts upgraded their appraisal. This was no longer a Bali-style al-Qaida bombing, but a Mumbai-style al-Qaida massacre. On and on went the conjecture, on television, and in online newspapers, including this one. Meanwhile, on Twitter, word was quickly spreading that, according to eyewitnesses, the shooter on the island was a blond man who spoke Norwegian. At this point I decided my initial gut reservations about al-Qaida had probably been well founded. But who was I to contradict the security experts? A blond Norwegian gunman doesn't fit the traditional profile, they said, so maybe we'll need to reassess . . . but let's not forget that al-Qaida have been making efforts to actively recruit "native" extremists: white folk who don't arouse suspicion. So it's probably still the Muslims.

Soon, the front page of Saturday's Sun was rolling off the presses. "Al-Qaeda" Massacre: NORWAY'S 9/11 – the weasel quotes around the phrase "Al Qaeda" deemed sufficient to protect the paper from charges of jumping to conclusions.

By the time I went to bed, it had become clear to anyone within glancing distance of the internet that this had more in common with the 1995 Oklahoma bombing or the 1999 London nail-bombing campaign than the more recent horrors of al-Qaida.

While I slept, the bodycount continued to rise, reaching catastrophic proportions by the morning. The next morning I switched on the news and the al-Qaida talk had been largely dispensed with, and the pundits were now experts on far-right extremism, as though they'd been on a course and qualified for a diploma overnight.

Some remained scarily defiant in the face of the new unfolding reality. On Saturday morning I saw a Fox News anchor tell former US diplomat John Bolton that Norwegian police were saying this appeared to be an Oklahoma-style attack, then ask him how that squared with his earlier assessment that al-Qaida were involved. He was sceptical. It was still too early to leap to conclusions, he said. We should wait for all the facts before rushing to judgment. In other words: assume it's the Muslims until it starts to look like it isn't – at which point, continue to assume it's them anyway.

If anyone reading this runs a news channel, please, don't clog the airwaves with fact-free conjecture unless you're going to replace the word "expert" with "guesser" and the word "speculate" with "guess", so it'll be absolutely clear that when the anchor asks the expert to speculate, they're actually just asking a guesser to guess. Also, choose better guessers. Your guessers were terrible, like toddlers hypothesising how a helicopter works. I don't know anything about international terrorism, but even I outguessed them.

As more information regarding the identity of the terrorist responsible for the massacre comes to light, articles attempting to explain his motives are starting to appear online. And beneath them are comments from readers, largely expressing outrage and horror. But there are a disturbing number that start, "What this lunatic did was awful, but . . ."

These "but" commenters then go on to discuss immigration, often with reference to a shaky Muslim-baiting story they've half-remembered from the press. So despite this being a story about an anti-Muslim extremist killing Norwegians who weren't Muslim, they've managed to find a way to keep the finger of blame pointing at the Muslims, thereby following a narrative lead they've been fed for years, from the overall depiction of terrorism as an almost exclusively Islamic pursuit, outlined by "security experts" quick to see al-Qaida tentacles everywhere, to the fabricated tabloid fairytales about "Muslim-only loos" or local councils "banning Christmas".

We're in a frightening place. Guesswork won't lead us to safety.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/charlie-brooker-norway-mass-killings

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media reporting of all of this has been an utter shambles. So quick to point the finger, and low and behold it's a child of hitler, blonde hair,blue eyes who is shooting up innocent children.

Will see a war against any christian fundamentalists? Do people even know that there are christian fundamentalist? or every time they hear the word they expect to see a brown person who is muslim?

Very sad. Yes it is unfortunate that the media was too quick to jump to conclusions. But there in no equivalency between christian "fundamentalism" and Islamic fundamentalism. As far as we know, he wasn't exactly shooting people, with a cry of "IN THE NAME OF JESUS", and how incongruous would that sound. Not only did he not follow the example of Christ in loving everyone as yourself and eschewing violence, he was a Freemason which is wholly incompatible with Christianity.

the difference between christian fundamentalism and islamic fundamentalism is the western christians have mastered the art of hypocrisy> these are the same people that were going to church while giving slaves a 'day off' to go to their separate churches too.

the same type of christians who killed and murdered entire cultures and civilisations in the name of 'god' and reforming them, stole their land and resources claiming another mans land for their king or queen, a king or queen who in their beleif was ordained by 'god' to rule over the lands.

the same type of christians today who fly in F-16s and ABRAHAM tanks to blow up 'enemies' whos only offence was being a citizen in their own country, who when they get killed are flown home as 'heroes' and buried in church affiliated parades, with members of the ruling class attending "christian" solidarity services paying respects to soilders who murdered innocent people in a war they never declared on the UK.

there is absolutely NO difference in the islamic fundamentalism and christian fundamentlism carried out by (as i continue to say) European and arab scum, they are both state sanctioned acts of terror, and western state sanctioned terror is more apprent than islamic terror, and the fact that you even give Glen beck an ounce of credibility and cant see his warped view of the world is a shame.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if thats their law thats their law. people have killed more than 600x that number and are treated like royalty in the UK and other places,

now a common man does something and evryone wants his head off.

As the Norwegians are mourning the brutal deaths of scores inside the country, another shooting has reportedly left a male critically injured in the southwest.

The 27-year-old victim was the target of a headshot in Sandnes on Sunday, Xinhua reported.

He has been placed under medical care, but his condition is reportedly unstable.

Reports say two men in military fatigues knocked on his door, broke into the house and carried out the shooting. Police are looking for the two suspects.

Witnesses also saw two men fleeing from the scene in a red Audi car.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...