Explosion in Oslo - Car bomb?

What I don't get is why you think "elites" are so bad, bad enough to kill them. We need somebody to run a country, and, compared to several other countries, Norway's political leaders are fairly "un-elitish". It is not considered very glamorous to be a politician. Most of the people involved in it are idealists. Those who want power go into business, police or law.

Oh, and Glenn Beck was celled a facist by a member of labour. Double Godwin?

edited 26th Jul '11 5:08:39 AM by Sidewinder

Proove it.

edited 26th Jul '11 5:09:45 AM by JosefBugman

@Tsukubus: I really, really don't get your views. To be honest, they even scare me.

It comes off for me as a combination of Insane Troll Logic (Breivik's actions themselves were an excellent example of that) and Minority Report.

So do you think some people (kids, no less) can be punished now for their future crimes - which you don't have an iota of proof they will or will not commit? Is this really your argument?

edited 26th Jul '11 5:26:26 AM by Sati1984

Presumably "we killed the man who was going to do it" has more problems than "we got the man that did it".

No, it's not punishment. It is more war than justice. Collateral damage isn't close to justice, and it isn't desirable, but there's an acceptable amount people are willing to tolerate. Every cause, even the most righteous, left a lot of innocent people dead.

You're either trolling or you're one of the most twisted individuals I've ever seen. Regardless, I'm ignoring you from now on.

@Tsukubus: Exactly how were the children at that camp been terrible influences?

edited 26th Jul '11 5:40:48 AM by Kino

So war... war is a good thing then.

Hmm... But this was no act of war, this was mass murder, no matter how you try to defend it. Oh, and collateral damage is bullshit, no matter how you try to twist it.

I mean - seriously? Seriously? You are OK with a concept of "collateral damage" when there is no war? And you call this shooting "justice"?

I... It's just... I can't even comprehend this.

edited 26th Jul '11 5:43:22 AM by Sati1984

Really? Then Proove it. You seem content to say "they would be bad people" or "I don't support what he's done but I am glad he has done it".

Essentially, you are saying that its a good thing because he murdered a lot of children who you would consider to be "potential damaging".

If we're using that logic, then a bunch of people here need to go; what with the furries, and the anarchists.

I don't understand how these kids were supposed to be harmful. Norway is, according to almost every statistic (be it quality of life, Human Development Index, GDP per capita, etc,) one of the best places on Earth to live. This is largely due to the Centrist and Leftist parties in the country.

The ruling party is not composed of "elites" who were groomed from youth. Like other Nordic countries (and most of Europe in general), the SDP (or Labour, in the case of Norway) and other Leftist parties are mostly composed of members of the working class and academia. Of the academia, a significant portion (potentially a majority; I'm not sure about Norway) are probably from a working class background.

Left-wing politicians in Europe are usually people who become interested in politics in their teens and end up in Leftist parties through their youth organisations, which are more about talking politics and partying than "indoctrination". They're usually very open, and most events are open to everybody.

Chances are that these kids were for the most part from working class families with no political prestige. Sure, the kids of current politicians were probably also there, but it's unlikely that they were a majority. Heck, there were more people on that camp than there are political elite in a country the size of Norway. Most of them were going to be average workers or members of academia, only active in the party during elections and other significant periods when grassroots activism is getting organised.

The youth at Utøya were normal Norwegian kids who happened to have an above-average interest in politics and who subscribed to social democratic ideals. They were people who came from all walks of life, some probably had rich parents and some probably had poor parents and the majority probably had middle-class parents.

As for the former prime minister who was also a target, the one who was described in here as parasitic - Gro Harlem Brundtland. After having been prime minister, she was the leader of the World Health Organization for some years, during which her main focus was on educational programs to help combat cigarette smoking around the world. Currently, she's a member of the board of an NGO working on human rights called The Elders. The Elders was put together by Nelson Mandela, and the board consists of such people as e.g. Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan and (would she have been allowed by her government to join) Aung San Suu Kyi. I hardly think the qualifier "parasitic" is applicable.

Even if this post wasn't trolling, it's had the same effect.

Deleted

edited 26th Jul '11 10:52:06 AM by Madrugada

I actually see Tsukubs position as somewhat logical, though I disagree.

If you believe that those people might be a future threat, you can argue that killing them is a good idea. Baby-Hitler etc...

On the other hand, I don't think he did his case a favor - people in Norway just don't agree with mass killing sprees, and instead of focussing on a (assumed) threat of multiculturalism they will be less conscious about it. There will be an increased opposition to his views about multiculturalism. Terror of foreigners becomes less of an issue, terror of anti-foreigners becomes more important. With his actions he pushed the public - and in a democratic system that also means the government - farther away from anti-multiculturalism. He achieved the opposite of what he supposedly wanted to achieve.

Ultimately he didn't just kill a lot of people, but also failed with his objective.

Don't forget Tsukubu, if fighting a parasitic elite means association with people who support his actions, the population will chose not to fight the parasitic elite at all. It would be the less of two evil. You are not helping your case, at all.

He didn't do his case a favor, and that's not a bad thing. His brand of Islamophobia is fairly...unjustifiable. Nothing is better than when two enemies go to war.

edited 26th Jul '11 6:02:37 AM by Tsukubus

You see, in my opinion, the only situation where a massacre of innocents is justifiable is when not doing so would result in the death of even more people, with no other possibilities present (the Ozymandias case, for example). This is definitely not such a case.

edited 26th Jul '11 6:11:03 AM by MilosStefanovic

Most of the politically active teenagers are Wide Eyed Idealists. In 90% of cases, those don't manage to enter politics, let alone succeed in them.

edited 26th Jul '11 6:16:30 AM by MilosStefanovic