You don't seem able to read , and I guess you are not -- how shall I put it -- the brightest Fairy light on the Christmas Tree .
True. I was just going by what he himself said. They were the kids who might end up in future left of centre parties with a multicultural philosophy and I think the party which they support has had a very long hold on power. Correct me if I'm wrong. The strange thing and the different thing as he himself said is that he did not go for Muslims. I am sorry to say it but I suspect there would be some people less displeased if that had happened. As Tommy Robinson said it would be easier to understand (to him at any rate) but it would not have got as much attention as he would just have been thought of as a Muslim hater. As for elite and right wing. Yes traditionally in the UK but those who govern must be among the elite. I think he was possibly just excusing why he did not go for Muslims. His calmness and honesty is part of what makes me believe he is a psychopath. He simply believes he has done nothing wrong. I don't really believe this. In fact at the moment I think with the internet people have more of an opportunity to say what they think and to commune and to promote extreme views than they ever have. I actually believe that they are gradually managing to get some of these ideas mainstream and I would argue that if anything it is their extremism which itself stops talk. I'm a bit tired just now but it seems to me that if there were problems and people were not being racist, they would just sort them out. Life is a constant challenge of different problems and conflicts and resolutions. With all the anti-islam propaganda about and no doubt his time with the EDL and others, he has concepts of Muslims, in London or England usually, which are not accurate at all. He believes for instance that there are no go areas in Luton and that there will be Sharia law there soon. A couple of days ago the Guardian or the Independent listed several of his claims on how Muslims and 'multiculturalism' was effecting England but they were not true. This exaggeration and sometimes plain lies is I think a lot of what causes the problems. People hear there are no go areas in England and they get scared but there are not no go areas. There may be difficult areas and there may be problems but when is there not and we are dealing with them and will continue to do so. When people are told these stories and believe them it obviously causes problems but the very spreading of these lies is nothing but racism itself I think. You see he is sort of double talking himself now. I would argue that as we invite immigrants in we have a responsibility to accept them and help them to integrate, that it is a two way street. He seems to share my point of view that you cannot simply blame Muslims as they were invited in. I think that somewhere his thinking is confused. He doesn't seem to have so bought into the idea that Muslims are inferior or sub human which is quite prevalent among anti - islam extremists. If he had you would think he would probably have killed Muslims. What he seems to have done is bought into it more at the intellectual level - that of cultural materialism and the harm Muslims have done in other places, particularly England. It's like he has not really experienced the 'awful experience of Muslims' himself and so does not have personal hate for them but is believing what he is told at meetings. I suspect it is because he himself has not had these bad experiences but believes what he has heard from the EDL and others that he believes the logical target is the the government which is promoting this 'cultural marxism' which sooner or later will destroy his society creating whatever is today's 'Muslim scandal' Of course there are those who believe he was a hit man.
The case of Brevik has been reported again and again in the media outside of Norway. So let me ask you a question: If a muslim killed 74 innocent children, would the case get the same attention? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Iqbal_(serial_killer) Obviously none of you have ever heard about Javed Iqbal. So the media is obviously racist against ethnic Europeans. It is a real shame the multiculturalists are trying to exploit this case to drown Europe with muslim migrants even faster.
So I know now that you are thinking I'm not able to read. But why are you speaking with me idiot who is not able to read what you wrote? http://youtu.be/qxTpvA-pUG0
Do you know what Brenda Ann Spencer once had said when they asked her why she had done what she had done? She said: "I don't like mondays". Mr. Anders Behring-Breivick says now: "I don't like multiculturalism". Explains this really something? http://youtu.be/POOu05eUvqE
There are "no go" areas in a few places in the USA - mostly certain Black neighborhoods. It is not that one cannot go there, it is just that it is not safe. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to describe these places as "no live" areas, because if you buy a house there, are the wrong ethnicity, and have a daughter, there is a good chance she is going to get brutally gang raped. I have heard first-hand accounts from Hari Krishna monks in the USA and South Africa about how they were attacked, or held at gunpoint, when they went into some bad neighborhoods. And this is not racism at all, because the Hari Krishna movement is very ethnically diverse and promotes universalism.
The UK is not the US and look how you have just added a whole load of allegations. This illustrates an intent to suggest something by any means possible.. What do you think of this video? [video=youtube;eqs_0bY5Cjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqs_0bY5Cjw[/video] What you appear to be doing is gathering together a collection of disparate issues and using that to try and say it says something. It does not. Each situation needs to be looked at separately within it's own circumstances. The stereotyping you are doing of issues all over the world is there to promote an agenda. I could do exactly the same to promote an anti anyone agenda. You haven't answered my question in post 53. http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/243936-breivik-trial-6.html#post1061135703
As opposed to the racists trying to exploit it to incite pointless and dangerous racial hatred. Sparky, why are you so down on Muslims or anyone who isn't your colour of choice? You do know there have been countless "waves" of immigrants over the years for various reasons and then reasons change and the waves recede. The Muslims are no different than any other immigrant. Is the huge panic over Muslims in particular triggered purely by the terrorist threat... Why do people like yourself see any greater a threat than existed in the past? In US everyone is a migrant. It's always been that way since migrants invaded the country. How is it any different and suddenly a threatening thing now?
I was too. I'm a bit confused, as I thought that's what I just tried to say... You've answered this yourself below. He chose this path to stop the people he blames for creating multiculturalism and those who would support and increase it in the future. I find this a strange choice as well. You'd think if he were in fact just a big hate filled racist, he would have just attacked Muslims. But he has killed these people. I agree. Had he done this to Muslims, I think you're right and people would simply have dismissed him as having obvious and unacceptable racist motives, whereas the acts he did commit have left people wondering what the hell is going on. Had he taken the other road, it might even have gained rightie racist support. Or it might have changed things considerably and made prospective terrorists from the other side consider there may be consequences if the Right wing start to act in a similar way to them. And it might have made the rest of us peace-loving people more terrorised than terrorism had previously been able to, as realisation dawns that this potential future would become more horrific than the past... in a new world where tit for tat terrorism might kick off and we are stuck in the middle of these intolerant extremists. I think it was a strategic political choice on his part, a plan. People who kill for their beliefs and think they do nothing wrong are usually in possession of some legitimate authority. Tony Blair I'm sure thinks he did nothing wrong. Is he a psychopath? Personally, unless you are actually killing in self defence as Breivik claims to be, why are you killing at all? What can ever justify it? I don't think he is a psychopath. I think he has political beliefs he was willing to murder people over and he viewed the people as the cause of the destruction of his country. This may be proven wrong as the trial progresses. I heard something today which made me wonder, as they said he had ambitions to do something like this since he was a teenager. Which predates the current terrorist threat and immigration issues. Good point. He didn't see it that way though. He believes right wingers are unable to gain any political advance because the opposing political philosophy prevails and is exclusive. I might agree with him, because I remember the furore here when they tried to televise that right wing BNP type. Perhaps he got his ideas from reading racist forums... I don't care what immigrants do, tbh, as long as they don't tell me what I can do. I don't want to wear a burqa. I don't want to not be able to go out without a male chaperone. I don't like looking at burqa, purely on an aesthetic level they frighten me and that is being honest, not racist or bigoted. However, when ex-pats go abroad, they often stick together and create their own little UK enclave wherever they go. I don't see how the current situation is different from that. In Scotland, a new law came in regarding forced marriage. I'm not overly sure what it's all about, but heard the first protection order came into force yesterday to protect from abuse women who are involved in forced marriages and anyone who infringes this protection will feel the full force of the law. I don't think people need to live as we live, but I do actually think they should live by the existing law of the land for the most part and always with respect to criminal law. I am hopeful this is an indication that this is being addressed and will facilitate assimilation to a level which is acceptable to all.
I wasn't arguing with you. It was late and I was tired. No offence meant No, I don't think it would bother radical islamists at all. They would love it and try to use it as a way to get more recruits. Hell, they don't mind killing Muslims. Most of them think anyone but a radical Muslim, that is most Muslims, is not even a Muslim! Yes, everyone but the radicals stuck in the middle. I don't think it was a good strategy. It has at least temporarily reduced support for right wing parties in Europe. Possibly he is hoping that as people discuss things people will believe something is true and get tricked in. I see them both, radical Muslims and anti-islam extremists as much the same. I haven't ever thought he was. However I remember a documentary some years ago which suggested he definitely suffered from mental problems and it has also been suggested he is a Christian Zionist ...but....I read that Blair did question what he did and asked Bush if he ever thought they had made a mistake. Bush of course said No, never. What you also have to realise is that Blair did not go with a gun and look people in the eye and gun them down even when they were pleading for their lives. He did it all simply by word. They are two very different things and remember Blair will have convinced himself he was setting in motion the killing of dangerous people, Breivik could see he was killing helpless vulnerable people. I do not believe his arguments about cutting himself off. I believe he is a psychopath. I completely agree with you. Self defence is the only justification for killing another. Breivik wants to create a good image of himself so he pretends he believes it was self defence. He is not thick so he knows perfectly well it is not the case. If he genuinely believed what he was doing was 'self defence' I would think we are moving into the area of believing he is mentally ill. Him and anyone else who thinks that...or brainwashed.. I appreciate it is not obvious at the moment particularly because he is justifying himself so much. I have known a couple of non criminal psychopaths. I spotted the second one very quickly after my experience with the first and as I got to know him he ticked all the boxes. Breivik has appeared as such to me though I would not say he is the stereotype view of one. Can he feel empathy, no, though he claims he worked deliberately to stop that. I don't believe that. I believe he does know that most people are different from him and he has learned what is 'normal'. Does he feel guilty, No. Both those are clear traits of the psychopath. Does he take responsibility, No - another psychopathic trait. Does he have an enormous ego, yes. Does he enjoy a thrill. Yup, I think his murderous escapades showed that he does indeed. These things, lack of empathy, lack of conscience, blaming others, big ego and thrill seeking are classic symptoms of the psychopath. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I might change my mind but nothing has made me doubt my original assessment of him. That is democracy viv. The far right of the Conservative Party, UKIP as well as the BNP AND EDL all have a lot in common in their political ideas. Yes, the opposing political philosophy does still prevail. We believe in equal rights and freedom of speech, thought and expression - at least to a substantial degree. These rights are the basis of social justice, if you give them up, you give up social justice. The far right conservatives and UKIP know this and know this side of them is unsupportable within our society as it is now, so they try and hide that aspect of themselves and put the BNP and the EDL down. The right of the Conservatives and UKIP try to bring similar ideas and policy's in hidden by what they try to present as a respectable front. I don't think you can say people do not get their opportunity to be heard. They did televise Nick Griffin on Question Time and the BNP does get Party Political Broadcasts. The EDL has been on Newsnight more than once. seems so, though he may have been looking for a mission. The irony here is that it is our laws, which the anti islamist want to change which protect us. Everyone has to go by the law of the land and Islam does currently have some problems. I am hoping they will sort themselves out in the next few years. I can for instance remember that in the 70's and 80's Muslims really tried to integrate and a lot of them were not practising Muslims. I think at the moment the whole situation is caused by a number of things. Political events world wide for instance and let's not forget the introduction of Salafism into the UK http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12846 . There is a buddhist saying 'let it settle' and that is kind of how I feel but I would be wanting an integrated community not separate. A study of Islamophobia in Scotland a couple of years or so ago found it was tiny among recent school leavers. Both Muslim and non Muslim did not feel prejudice because of the shared school experience..so there are ways of allowing differences while also having shared experiences and I think mixing is extremely important. In Scotland people need to follow Scottish laws and forced marriage is not what we go with. I think this is a good idea. There was a Glasgow Iman who was working hard to try and educate people about this. Mind you some of these anti-islamists might think we were demanding PC of our Muslims!! agreed and not living separately because that breeds fear. People need to know each other. I was reading today about dancing classes for women in East Oslo. Women from all ethnic backgrounds - from indigenous Norwegian to those who usually wore veils. They met together and those with veils took them off and they danced together and got to know each other as women. There are lots of ways to break the ice if that is necessary.
Yes muti-culturalist crap is still crap ,and we should still say so ,As far as the killing of this animal we should say to him give us the names of those that support you and helped you or we will execute your family before we do you. what you rekon sounds fair to me ,lets exterminate all fascist scum .And all methods are legitimate for the self defence of society in general . Hey if he dosen't have family then anything or one he holds dear will do ,we need the names of those that covered up or directly helped him in the past .
the best way to avoid cultural extinct is to ezpand toward the east especially Mediterranean district very important. destroy and get with the help technology or die away.
Let's hope the righties never get around to what Breivik tried to instigate and is trying to instigate now with his studied speeches in Court. At the end of the day, the Nazis tried the retribution thing when their officers were picked off. We try to take a better way forward. Read some US threads, there is not much to choose between them although their beliefs are poles apart. Religious bigots here are in the same game. I am (still intermittently) reading Blair's book, he has some very strange notions. He seems to think he's psychic and pre-destined etc etc. Whereas I'd agree he did what he did for reasons he thought were ethical, I also think he's a nutter. That book is terrifying in parts. It's terrifying to be presented with the evidence that someone I would consider to be unstable so easily acquired power. Then again, how did Obama do it? I'm not saying he is unbalanced, but he acquired the most powerful job in the world by being personable. The quote on the cover of Blair's book says he entered Downing Street with no experience whatsoever of government, never having held any kind of post in government and with no idea of the reality of the job. As to Breivik, I am not versed in definitions of the different types of mental illness, when I am using the word psychopath I really have meant insane. I don't know what justification he has given the Court for using that defence. I assumed he did not mean his life was under threat, but that he considers his country is under threat. I think it is part of the plan he had in mind from the outset, but we'll see. Ah, men. Shower of b*****s. Don't trust any of them. As above, psychopath might not be the correct term. I don't think he is showing insanity. He thought it through for years. He studied terrorist activity for what, 6 years? And meticulously trained and planned his acts. I think he planned it down to what he is saying in Court. None of it is random. He's entirely too calm. One of the Reporters has said though, he thinks once the forensic psychiatrists get their chance they will break him and crack his demeanour. He's been playing a part until now which he has had control of and it's all been part of his forethought and planning. Perhaps the prosecution lawyers will change that. That is the racist tactic, they come into this forum all the time trying to sneak their horrible views in the back door. Breivik is doing exactly that on the stand, with all his logic and reason trying to lead people into seeing what he sees. The fear people have is racists may succeed in convincing the intellectually challenged their views have merit. Yes, they did and there was an outcry. That is the key for me. Was he in fact just looking for a mission? Any mission. In the way that John Lennon's murderer would have murdered anyone famous, just in order to get some kind of strange attention. Or does Breivik actually believe his culture is under threat? It's irrelevant after what he has done, but I'd still like to know if he is just an attention seeker. That's what multiculti is supposed to be about, but it has to be voluntary. I don't remember that period in the 70s, but it must have been better than this hell, surely. But we can't even convince the Catholics to give it up and go into mainstream mixed religion schooling, so what hope is there for any other religion. ...the rest of us are expected to be PC. It should work both ways, although the minority has to be as free as the rest of us. I hear a story that they are considering closing university bars because they offend Islamic students. Now call me old fashioned and a lush, but you can gtf with that idea. It offends me to have to change a well established cultural tradition of the drunken student debating in the uni bar...what is the world coming to. The hand that rocks the cradle...
Hi Adolph - thougt you are dead. Oh - I confused a Nazi with an Antifascist. I'm deeply shocked now. How many innocent human beings and families killed the murderers of your country as animals and indoctrinated your feeling and mind with their deadly ideology? Where do you come from? China?
Hi Adolph - thougt you are dead. Oh - I confused a Nazi with an Antifascist. I'm deeply shocked now. How many innocent human beings and families killed the murderers of your country as animals and indoctrinated your feeling and mind with their deadly ideology? Where do you come from? China?
It seems to be one of the key arguments that the anti-islamists give. Immigrants are destroying our way of life, our culture. In his manifesto he gives the 50's as his favourite time - people were practising Christians, women knew their place, everyone else also still knew their place and there were few noticeable immigrants. Breivik is giving back what he learnt. Munqi puts Breiviks, his own and their position very clearly in post 3 of this thread http://www.politicalforum.com/western-europe/243936-breivik-trial.html#post1061126588 Note how he also blames apparently me for causing what breivik did and accuses me of deciding to eradicate an entire civilization!! For me he means what Breivik and the rest of them call 'cultural marxists' or sadly the very people who were slaughtered by Breivik. It could be said that Breivik is following the logical step of someone who believes the readings of the anti-islamists from the US to the UK. Thankfully I was not in a relationship with either. However it is becoming well known that psychopaths are prevalent in Managerial posts and indeed politics - but that is off topic Which is why I also do not believe he is suffering from any mental illness. He is very clear in his thinking and this was well thought out and he believed the best thing he could do. Psychopathy is a different thing to a mental illness. It is more to do with being dead inside - having no access to your inner feeling self. Hence it is more a spiritual or feeling for the other illness. He can think for the other -' multiculure destroying society'. He can also think 'not the immigrants fault, fault of those who brought them there' so he can think and make logical conclusions but he cannot feel and so can ruthlessly, cold bloodily kill. The problem is that 10 to 20% of the population is psychopathic. It also clearly limits their ability to understand situations. They can only see one side of the situation. I would say he is entirely calm because being a psychopath he has no feelings. To him the killing of those people causes as much feeling as to most of us shooting ducks at a fair would. I agree he has been playing a part up until now, pretending that he is not a psychopath and had to deliberately get himself into the right frame of mind. He certainly has been controlling himself and has been caught in telling quite a few porkies. We shall see what happens. I was amused watching some of their questioning...'and do you think going and killing children is a manly thing to do?' or some such thing. Marx said 'ideologies turn reality upside down'. By that he meant that they took a little bit of the truth and used that to persuade people but in so doing they were twisting reality so that it no longer was the truth. When the little bit of truth is there some people are sucked in. What has been lacking has been a strong counter voice. This is possibly because the anti-islam extremist network is massively financed and works together supporting each other. While none of them being experts, they all refer to each other as experts and in this way convince those who do not have a strong footing. http://crg.berkeley.edu/content/fear-inc-roots-islamophobia-network-america UK is in on it too http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/documents/the-cold-war-on-british-muslims.pdf Democracy Viv Well look 10 to 20% of the population are psychopaths. The cannot feel for another so they cannot enjoy what is the most mutually nurturing and meaningful aspect of being human. I read the only reason a psychopath has not killed someone is because they have not wanted to. It means nothing to them. The have no conscience to tell them this is wrong. Hence when provided with the concept that he could 'save' his country by mass murder or bombs, it was a no brainer to him. However I believe he really did believe that this was so. I do not think the first thing was a mission but I am sure the idea of being the hero was a strong motivation. If I am right and he is a psychopath, he is dead inside. Hence the need for a bit of thrill but he believed what he was doing was for the good of his Nation and he believed that because he had been convinced by the literature and by talks on forums and with individuals. Yes and it takes two. Research is showing that the US has, certainly in the past, been much more effective at helping immigrants to feel at home. This is because they are a country of immigrants. They have therefore felt fine about allowing people to have a sort of hyphenated identity. For instance to feel Iranian/American. In this way people have easily been able to feel they belong in the US, that it is home. They have been asked more to fit the ideals of america rather than to fit a particular custom. In Europe however people are asked to fit into some supposed culture and they never can particularly when they visible come from somewhere else. This link shows how regardless of success and regardless of how hard they tried it was impossible for Iranians to feel at home in Holland. They could never be accepted as 'one of us'. This resulted in them developing a nostalgic and romantic vision of Iran. It was different. Muslims tried to become Westernised and a lot of them suffered severe racism, Paki they were called then, Muslim now. I witnessed that racism against them at first hand and I have never seen a black person being treated in a racist manner. They seemed to learn to fight back. There are as I said a whole raft of issues concerned. 9/11 led to something like 280 attacks on Muslims and Muslim property in 2 weeks in the UK and it was after that I noticed the change. However if you look at the Islam city link I gave in my last post you will find there had been change happening before......as there is now. Oh, and by the way, I have a friend who has worked for decades in the SE in FE. She visited last summer and was talking about her female Muslim students. I said, 'I guess they are all wearing headscarves now'. Oh no, she said, they don't wear them. They are wanting away from all that. I said 'well I know that was the case 30 years ago but is it still now' and she said 'yes, just the same'. So either we are only hearing about one section of Muslims, big likelihood or they are again rebelling against parents. When you say must be better than it is now, are you meaning the hate propaganda against them or do you have concerns about how Muslims are in your neighbourhood? to be continued
Well, we brought in Catholic schools to try to hep people who were suffering discrimination and have found it has rather kept it going so the hope would be we would not make the same mistake again. There was only one Muslim school in Scotland, in Dundee I think and I think it might have been closed for not coming up to standards. I know some Muslims want them started. I noticed one Muslim trying to get Glasgow parents interested 'We all know how bad it is when they come home from school and go to their rooms', he said 'which have a 'Keep out' sign on them. He then went on to describe how Muslims schools would stop this bad behaviour. It remains that Muslims find themselves able to feel a sense of belonging in Scotland to the extent that they feel Scottish, much better than often in some other areas of Europe but. Well forced marriage, which is cultural rather than Islam is forced. It causes great hardship and iis against civil liberties which was what the Iman I mentioned was pointing out. It did not need a law before but does not. The law hence acts to protect young people who suffer from it, that is all. Arranged marriages which people want are still allowed. We'll need to look into that a bit more but it sounds like one of those wild stories. I saw the headlines for this happening in one University too and raised an eyebrow but did not read it. Lots of Muslims do drink so it is not just lushes like yourself who would miss them. It sounds like one of those Daily Mail stories. However if there were a University which have almost exclusive religious Muslims as it's students and the bar was not making any money, then this could happen. Not sure what you were meaning here. Care to elaborate?
In general, I find Muslims are a pretty diverse bunch. There may be some who express extremist views and want othes to abide by values which they believe are Islamic, but these, like fundamentalists of every belif system, tend to be the minority. In my experience, at least in the west the most hard core fundy muslims tend to be converts or otherwise "born again" (eg kids who went off the rails and then find that religion is a driver they use to differentiate between the "old" self and the new, devout self) .... just like the most hard core fundy of any group.
I forgot to put in the link I said I would here Here is it now http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...e Netherlands Judeo-Christian culture&f=false
interesting. It is probably pretty much the same here as well. In australia, about 25% of our population is born overseas, and a sizeable number of Australians have at least one parent born overseas. there are some narrow minded bigots, and of course we had the white Australia policy for most of last century, but in general immigrants from many countries seem to fit in reasonably well. At least in the cities, where most of the population are located. In my experience, multicultralism in a good thing, but I think a society that has good settlement programmes (including intensive support in schools, free language classes, work related training programmes and strong ethnic community support) will do better than one that does not offer these things.
OK, viv, I did a search http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/london-metropolitan-university-muslim-students-oppose-alcohol-ban/
