If they were serious about punishment
they'd give him a Windows 8 machine instead.
Norwegian convicted mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik has threatened a hunger strike if prison authorities don't upgrade his video game system to a PlayStation 3, among other demands. "You've put me in hell," Breivik wrote to officials in November in a letter obtained by Agence France-Presse, "and I won't manage to survive …
"much cheaper to let him starve to death and use his body to fuel a furnace."
If you let him starve to death the energy content of the corpse will be fairly low. Better to fatten him up, leave a few nooses around as a hint, and then burn him. Possibly restrict his liquid intake so he's a bit dehyrdrated - the higher the water content the less energy you get out.
I'm all in favour of dead people as a renewable fuel. In fact I'd round up hippies, convicted murderers, and climate change enthusiasts and throw them in the hopper alive - why waste bullets, or make a bolt gun dirty?
"In fact I'd round up hippies, convicted murderers, and climate change enthusiasts and throw them in the hopper alive - why waste bullets, or make a bolt gun dirty?"
Climate change enthusiasts? People who are working for climate change? Curry, Linden, Mcintyre, Watts, those guys?
I think you're a bit harsh.
>"Climate change enthusiasts? People who are working for climate change? Curry, Linden, Mcintyre, Watts,"
Why the hate? Do you really think anyone is listening to the eggheads? Don't worry you and the Koch brothers are going to get the future you want careful what you wish for, etc. As for wanting people to die I guess you fear people when they have to something to say that is dangerous.
"Prison is about rehabilitation, not punishment."
100% wrong. Prison has four aims:
1. punish the offender
2. keep the offender out of society so they can't reoffend
3. deter other members of society from committing similar offences
4. rehabilitate the offender
Item 4 is one of those things that's only done if possible. The level of recidivism in released inmates clearly shows that giving them playstations, TVs, etc weakens 1 & 3 so much they are essentially ineffective. Rehabilitation is basically one of those things - "while we have him in our prison, we may as well try...."
With a name like Fluffy Bunny, you'd think you'd be less serious. My comment was an insulting dig at Windows 8, not actually a comment about the role of prisons.
If I was actually commenting on Brevik, I'd say just surgically remove his eyes, ears and tongue and let him spend the rest of his miserable life, dark and alone, dependant on the charity of others, not whining that his playstation doesn't have the cool new games.....
100% wrong. Prison has four aims: I love this, but feel the need to explain.
1. punish the offender
The purpose of this is to make him hate us. If he didn't hate us before, we must make sure that he does. This is important to point 4 below.
2. keep the offender out of society so they can't reoffend
This one has a side effect - it protects us.
3. deter other members of society from committing similar offences
In other words, scare us so bad, only psychopathic miurderer and criminals will ever commit crimes.
4. rehabilitate the offender
See point one. We need criminals, we need them to apply peer pressure to one another, use their cognitive dissonance to rationalize their crimes, so they can commit better ones when they get out.
Punishment has been used for 30.000 years. It's a proven solution.
"Punishment has been used for 30.000 years. It's a proven solution."
But only if the punishment is sufficiently severe to prevent the offender from ever re-offending. A callous mass-murderer has already stepped completely out of societies norms and value-system. Lovely one-to-one chats that aim to re-adjust their perspective can never work.
But a sentence of absolute misery, deprivation and unending torment might just spark the realisation that "if I do bad things, bad things will happen to me, so be nice". I'm not talking about torture or capital punishment here, I am talking about unending boredom mind-numbing tedium, hard hard work, zero stimulation, absence of routine, constant fear and discomfort. Giving prisoners TVs and a playstation to occupy their days is purely electronic baby-sitting - I know people who spend all day every day in front the TV/playstation - out of choice. If they trash their cells or riot as a group, well so long as they can't get out of the facility that's fine by me - they will learn to live with the consequences of their actions - certainly no loss to me or society as a whole.
You forgot the 5th one which applies in most countries.
5. Waste tax payers money giving them luxuries they don't deserve!
As inhumane as some former communist countries were and maybe some still are, Sometimes a bullet to the back of the head is the best option for certain crimes! cheap and painless and puts an end to it all so everyone can move on.
So it's not punishment you want, it's plain simple public revenge? Great 90% of the time when when you get the right person but a real bark when you paint the wall with the brains of an innocent person!
Tell you what why bother with all that justice bullshit either, eh? Just instigate several teams of covert death-squads, simple, plain street justice it's "cheap and painless and puts an end to it all so everyone can move on". The biggest advantage is that with no evidence of who killed the person, no one has to clean up the mess, except the victim's family! Save an absolute bundle in taxes!
Just a word to the wise though, don't piss off the wrong person, cut anyone up on the road or annoy any of your co-workers, they might mark you out as an undesirable and next thing your family might be soaping down your guts from their living room wall!
"So it's not punishment you want, it's plain simple public revenge? ... Tell you what why bother with all that justice bullshit either, eh? Just instigate several teams of covert death-squads ..."
That's a slippery slope fallacy. That Shane 4 suggested quick punishment (or revenge) for a self-admitted and convicted killer does not directly lead to eliminating the preceding trial, due process, careful consideration of evidence, and appeals.
"It's worth pointing out that Norway has one of the lowest levels of recidivism in the world, something which is largely attributed to the focus on rehabilitation over punishment"
But Breivik can not be rehabiliated - ever!! It is absolutely impossible, how can he ever be reintroduced to society. Lets say he's released in 20 years time, would you accept him living next door to you, dating your daughter, showing your son how to use a gun or how to lead a moving target? I'm guessing not.
So given that rehabilitation is completely out of the question, all that is left is incarceration and punishment and he deserves a lifetime of both.
@ proud2bgrumpy
To give a couple of examples.
Members of the Baader-Meinhoff* terrorist organisation RAF in Germany did return to society after serving gaol time.
Members of the Blekinge Gang terrorist organisation in Danmark returned to society after serving gaol time.
These people were ideologically driven political terrorists with no compunction about killing their targets in cold blood - amongst the most ideologically driven evil people you are likely to imagine. Yet apparently they now walk freely amongst us here in northern Europe.
Now, I leave it to you to decide if you think that it is a good thing or not, but the blanket statement "But Breivik can not be rehabiliated - ever!! " is not true just because you say so and choose to believe it so. It may be true, but neither of us have any way of knowing that.
*For those of you who did not live in Europe during the baader-meinhof RAF terror era, here is a link chosen at random - http://www.baader-meinhof.com/
@ Philip Lewis
Breivik can never be rehabilitated because society will never accept him back - I tried to make that point - it doesn't matter if he has a change of heart, he can never rejoin society because he is simply too well known and his appalling crimes will never be forgotten within the lifetimes of the affected generations.
So you might argue that perhaps he *could* be given a new identity, but I'd say that rejoining society with a false identity is NOT rehabilitation because he will continue to live on the periphery of society where he never has to answer to his past actions which are simply too heinous for forgiveness. If you disagree, I'll ask again - would you want him dating your daughter after his apparent reintroduction to society?
Now, I do know an ex-car thief, an ex-burglar and an ex-drug dealer (marijuana) - the're all law-abiding guys now (so they say, and I have no reason to disbelieve them). Two of these guys do regret their actions, the other simply doesn't want to go back inside, -BUT- they don't have (or need) new identities because the extent of their crimes are within the bounds of society to forgive.
So like I said before Breivik can never be rehabilitated (back into society as Anders Breivik) and giving him a false identity so he can pretend he never did bad stuff is just not rehabilitation.
Well known UK ex-cons who have accepted what they did and who are accepted back into society:
Mark Wright (footballer / car thief), Gino D'Acampo (TV chef / Burglary 2 years), Leslie Grantham (actor / 10 years manslaughter), Martin McGuiness (First Minister of Northern Ireland / former provisional IRA & proud owner of a 500 ibs car bomb), Robert Thompson and Jon Venables (child murderers) in 1993 who were apparently rehabilitated, given new identities only to reoffend similarly again in 2010 (Thompson, I think)
Even in the context of this escalating list of crimes and ex-cons, there's one hell of a gap before we get to Anders Breivik. So like I said Breivik can never rejoin society (under his own identity) and therefore can therfore can never be rehabilitated.
BTW, I did give you an up-vote because even though I completely disagree with your conclusion, your observations are interesting and add to the debate
@ proud2bgrumpy
You can hardly disagree with my conclusion - "hanging is too good for them" and "lock him up and throw away the key". Those two statements sum up my personal position and are quoted in case you missed them. So, it is hardly likely I want ABB dating my daughter.
However, my personal position is irrelevant to discussing the concept of rehabilitation of politically motivated murderers! They exist, have always existed, and apparently rehabilitation happens (proofs by existence).
The knee-jerk reactions of some people's posts here need a counterpoint of abstract reflection to demonstrate that those opinions and feelings are not necessarily "truths" in any abstract or logical sense. They are in many cases not even defensible positions to take in many societies.
You might look up what some of the now released Baader-Meinhof felons did. These people were very seriously evil. Apparently "society" can and does accept the rehabilitated back, no matter how heinous the crime. Like I said, it is up to the individual to reconcile themselves with this fact, and the society in which they live, or indeed want to live.
"BTW, I did give you an up-vote because even though I completely disagree with your conclusion, your observations are interesting and add to the debate"
Well said, sir, amongst the peurile humour (guilty, yer honour), the dogmatic moralising grandstanding, the factually wrong, and the purely opinionated, that is the best contribution in this thread.
And for all those complaining about supposed trolls, do you not think the whole article has really, really weak tech angle, and is PURELY and simply posted to generate some interest?
A bit of foam on the floor?
Pfft, just let him sit on the cold, hard floor.
Oh, and take away everything, including his games and his bucket. Then board up his window, let him eat the putrid slops discarded by the prison kitchen, and hose out his cell about once a year, with high pressure, boiling hot water mixed with bleach.
This a sadistic mass murderer, not a boy scout, and he's supposed to be in prison, not a holiday camp.
"This a sadistic mass murderer, .."
Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but a "sadistic mass murderer" he very definitely is not. You probably should read up on the subject before you have an opinion. He is very definitely a sick puppy with serious psychological issues, but his motivation was clearly political and well thought through. His action was an extremely well executed killing spree intended to strike at the heart of the Norwegian political establishment.
a) Attack the "head" by blowing up the PMs office and anything nearby
b) Attack the "roots" by slaughtering the young "blue eyed" recruits to same establishment
He is exactly, not a sadistic mass murderer.
The political establishment, the mainstream media and pretty much everyone else has learned the wrong message (if they actually learned anything, which I doubt) from this tragic event. The political establishment has learned nothing and continue to act in a way that more or less guarantees that another Anders Behring Breivik will turn up in the future and do the same dastardly thing.
And for good measure, so you know where I stand I will throw in a few colloquialisms. "Hanging is too good for him" and "they should lock him up and throw away the key" spring eagerly to mind.
"Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but a "sadistic mass murderer" he very definitely is not."
"He is exactly, not a sadistic mass murderer."
Well ... he killed 69 people, so he's pretty definitely a mass murderer. Not sure how you get around that. He murdered more than one person. He's a mass murderer. He is, that's what that means. Mass murder. He murdered more than one person. Can't really make that any clearer.
Is he sadistic? Not sure, haven't read the news reports in a few years. Is your post to make the point that he wasn't sadistic? It's very unclear what point you are trying to make, you're very vague.
"The political establishment has learned nothing and continue to act in a way that more or less guarantees that another Anders Behring Breivik will turn up in the future and do the same dastardly thing."
Well, he's been variously diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, then later as having a narcissistic personality disorder.
You'll have to walk the rest of us through how you legislate against someone having a mental illness that manifests in violence. Because no'one in the history of the world, so far, has worked that one out, but you seem to think you've more clue than the current legislators. Maybe you do. Considering you're not sure what "mass murder" means though, I'm not hopeful.
The adjective "sadistic" is what is wrong about the OP. From that incorrect adjective, false conclusions follow. You, likewise chose to ignore that adjective and make out that I do not think ABB is a mass murderer, which is a gross misreading of what I wrote.
Judging by the downvotes, you were not the only one who failed to read all of what was written.
It did not at all suggest ABB was not a mass murderer as he is by any definition of the adjective "mass" used in connection with "murder". I went on to point out that his crime was not motivated in any way by sexual or other deviant notions, as with a great many mass murders (incl. the "sadistic" ones). Basically, mass murders typically do it because killing people gives them their jollies, though clearly there are lots of variations). ABB is very definitely not one of those - which was my point.
FYI: I live in Scandinavia - this all happened in our territory and trust me, we got bombarded from all sides with way more information and op-eds than you can imagine.
ABB is certainly a few bob short of a pound, but he is not a sadist and no one to my knowledge has suggested otherwise.
The rest of your post is pointless and largely wrong and/or irrelevant because it assumes that I do not think ABB is a mass murderer, a gross misreading of my post. So you, like the post to which I replied, make conclusions based on a false premise.
Hi Phil,
Not to keep banging over the same ground, but you literally said
"Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but a "sadistic mass murderer" he very definitely is not."
"He is exactly, not a sadistic mass murderer."
That's not you saying "he's not sadistic". That's you saying "He's not a sadistic mass murderer". Twice.
So I addressed the "mass murderer" part (err, yes he is) and you've confirmed you agree. Great!
I then asked if your point was that he's not sadistic, because it was hard to tell what your point was. Apparently your point was that he's not sadistic. Great!
Hope you don't mind a quick tip - Next time it would be better, if you, in your original post, were to say (twice), something along the lines of;
"Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but "sadistic" he very definitely is not."
AND
"He is exactly, not 'sadistic' "
Because then it's clearer what you meant. Because you've missed the "mass murderer" bit off both times. See? Great!
I also asked why you mentioned legislation, because it seems we're agreed that he has violent mental health issues, and you seemed to suggest that could be legislated against - when you wrote (and sorry to keep quoting you, but it helps, when addressing things that YOU wrote, that didn't make much sense to me, as a reader, to reference the bits you wrote that made no sense whatsoever. Okay? Great! )
So, you said
"The political establishment, the mainstream media and pretty much everyone else has learned the wrong message (if they actually learned anything, which I doubt) from this tragic event. The political establishment has learned nothing and continue to act in a way that more or less guarantees that another Anders Behring Breivik will turn up in the future and do the same dastardly thing."
Afraid I still don't understand that. What should they legislate that would prevent another Anders Behring Breivik type character, a man with violent mental health issues (who isn't sadistic), doing something similar in future?
Sorry about the confusion with the whole "you obviously didn't mean to say he's not a mass murderer" thing, it's just you wrote (twice) that he's "not a sadistic mass murderer", so I jumped to the conclusion that you meant "he's not a sadistic mass murderer", and not that you ACTUALLY meant "he's not sadistic". Sorry about that, I'm easily confused when people write things they don't mean, and I read them.
Have a Great! day
Yes, but you do have to be explicit that you're querying the use of the adjective, and not a three word phrase when you write your posts Philip, or else no'one knows what you mean. Because people cannot read your mind.
If I write "I wouldn't say that you're an intransigent mouth breather", is it clear that I only object to the adjective? Or could I perhaps be objecting to the entire three word phrase? Could my meaning be misunderstood?
Why yes, my intended meaning could be misunderstood, so the onus is on me to rephrase it more clearly, IF I want my meaning to be understood.
That said, I'm not sure you do want to be understood. Or you'd have explained the legislative point I've twice queried.
"That said, I'm not sure you do want to be understood. Or you'd have explained the legislative point I've twice queried."
Your legislative question is logically irrelevant because it assumes a government can only act legislatively. This is simply incorrect. A question so formed as to require an untruth to be true, cannot be logically answered.
""That said, I'm not sure you do want to be understood. Or you'd have explained the legislative point I've twice queried."
Your legislative question is logically irrelevant because it assumes a government can only act legislatively. This is simply incorrect. A question so formed as to require an untruth to be true, cannot be logically answered."
That's just gibberish. You can't logically answer the question? A question that simply asks you to explain the point you were trying to make, because it's unclear what your point was?
You're making yourself look increasingly ridiculous here Phil
I said,
"Well, he is a nutter to be sure, but a "sadistic mass murderer" he very definitely is not."
"He is exactly, not a sadistic mass murderer."
Perhaps this will help you understand why you need to keep adjectives and nouns together.
"Well, Stevie Wonder is sane to be sure, but a "white musician" he is very definitely not."
"He is exactly, not a a white musician"
Hi Phil,
Are you genuinely trying to say you NEED to say "he is a nutter to be sure, but a sadistic mass murderer he very definitely is not.", and you couldn't convey your intended meaning more clearly by writing "he is a nutter to be sure, but he is very definitely not sadistic"
Is english your second language? Ever heard of predicates? You absolutely did NOT need "mass murderer" in either of your sentences to convey your intended meaning.
http://wals.info/chapter/61
I didn't put the adjective there, the original poster did and I responded to that.
The poster did so to modify the obvious truth statement that ABB is a mass murderer. Since he chose to modify "mass murderer" with "sadistic", I responded, pointing out that his statement is incorrect and so on.
Adjectives can modify the noun they precede of the adjective they precede when two or more adjectives are used consecutively.
a sadistic mass murderer - sadistic modifies murderer
a minor mass murderer - minor modifies mass since murderer is an absolute
a sadistic minor mass murderer - sadistic modifies the noun again
In all cases there is a murderer and some kind of mass murderer, at no point does the extra precision afforded by adjectives imply semantically or syntactically that the noun is not understood or that it is no longer relevant. Pulling the nouns apart from the adjectives (and the adjectives from each other) and going off on a long misinformed rant after having done so, is misleading and logically invalid. It really is an intentional and gross misreading of my post.
"Stevie wonder is a white soul* musician" is not a statement of truth
"Stevie wonder is not a white soul musician" is a truth statement
Stevie, God bless him, remains in both cases a soul musician.
*choose your best genre here.
Fucking hell Philip, what are you on about with the Stevie Wonder example? He is a fucking musician.
If your point is that he's not white, just say "But white he is not". How fucking hard is that?
You don't put "But a "white musician" he is not", when you're trying to say he's not white. Why would you do that? That's just stupid.
HE IS A MUSICIAN. YOU'VE JUST SAID HE'S NOT A WHITE MUSICIAN. WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY "HE'S NOT WHITE".
It's actually easier to form the sentence without clumsily shoehorning in the word "musician", which is wildly irrelevant in the context you invented for the sentence.
"A political motive does not somehow justify murdering innocent children,.."
No one said it did! Massive comprehension/logic failure.
What it does is explain the event. The same way it explains many terrorist and other acts throughout history.
As for remorse, he "believes" and that is a defining characteristic of political mass murderers through human history - and this guy is a beginner compared to the Pol Pots of the world and other seriously evil politically driven individuals.
This particular evil bastard targeted adolescents specifically as well as adults and random bystanders. I fail to see why he is any worse than any other politically motivated terrorist.
We know exactly what to do with folks like him.
Death Row at the Huntsville, Texas federal prison wouldn't include a Playstation 2 or 3. And definitely not a weekly monetary stipend.
But he would be "free" in a much shorter period of time than in Norway, in a manner of speaking. As per the latest Hobbit movie, his disgusting head would be soon freed from his worthless neck.
"We know exactly what to do wit folks like him.
Death Row at the Huntsville, Texas federal prison wouldn't include a Playstation 2 or 3. And definitely not a weekly monetary stipend."
But the drugs don't work.
Why give him a relatively quick finish, why make a martyr of hm?
He can have my El-Cheapo Nokia phone and put up with Snake - and only Snake.
He also complained about how censoring of his letters amounted to denying him is freedom of expression. If he was a small child his naive cluelessness would be endearing.
The thing with psychopaths is that while they intellectually understand why they're in prison, they still don't feel they deserve punishment, because they only killed unimportant normal people who do not matter, while they themselves of course are the most important people on the planet.
It probably baffles Breivik that Europe isn't engulfed in a civil war catalyzed by his heroic murder of defenseless teenagers, and that there aren't huge demonstrations protesting that Breivik is inhumanely denied a Playstation 3.
I hope Norway doesn't go all humanitarian and gives him parole. I hope that 35 years from now he still hasn't set foot outside the prison. Rot in hell Breivik, you deranged fucking justification for capital punishment.
This post has been deleted by its author
" (particularly of equality, fair-mindedness and justice) "
Yes, obviously adherering to politicall correct principals are the most important consideration when dealing with someone who killed over 70 kids.
I'm really beginning to wonder if the liberal ideology in scandinavia is more of a religion than a political point of view as they seem to cling onto it like a life raft regardless of anything that happens in the real world.
"I fully expect that when his release finally comes up it will be debated - fairly and justly - for about a minute before time is added to his sentence"
Oh I'm sure some deluded bleeing hearts will crawl out from under their festering rocks and appeal for him to be released for "rehabilitation".
The best thing that could happen to Brevik would be to be put in a locked room with the parents of those kids while the guards turn a blind eye for half an hour.
"Given those parents are neither muslim fundamentalists or americans, but Norwegians you may be surprised at the outcome."
I'm sure even the occasional norwegian has a pair of balls.
"Thing is with being better than some people, it actually requires that you sometimes be better."
Which is another way of saying you wouldn't have the balls to take revenge against your murdered child. That says a lot about your sort.
I have more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
My political/social[ideological agenda extends further than "ME ME ME ME ME ME"
My mother and father were not at all closely related.
I live in the real world.
I am _not_ a merkin.
Try to imagine my lack of surprise that you failed to understand the premise of my comments, an have demonstrated yourself to be exactly the same kind of degenerate 'thinker' as Breivik.
U
S
A
fuck yeah!
lol
'I'm sure even the occasional norwegian has a pair of balls.'
'Which is another way of saying you wouldn't have the balls to take revenge '
I bet your nuts are so big you can't put your knees together, a real MAN {tm}
Revenge -- ah, now we see.
No 'justice', just revenge.
You are so weak.
"Which is another way of saying you wouldn't have the balls to take revenge against your murdered child. That says a lot about your sort."
You appear to think that murdering someone for revenge is a brave and praiseworthy act, and that it somehow makes you better than the person you killed.
You are incorrect. It does, however, explain a lot about the sorry state of the USA at the moment (but please correct me if I am wrong about you be from that country)
"Which is another way of saying you wouldn't have the balls to take revenge against your murdered child. That says a lot about your sort."
If anything sums up the cultural divide, it's that one sentence. To a merkin, there HAS to be 'revenge'. If you are not prepared to kill SOMEONE because you have been hurt, then you have 'no balls'.
So a coward seeks to preserve his or her hard won standards when dealing with a hideous crime. And in the case of Norway, demonstrated that justice can be done without resorting to mob violence.
A REAL man (one assumes the merkins have no desire for their women to grow testicles at this point) grabs his gun, yells "America! Fuck Yeah!" and immediately guns down the nearest convenient (and if possible, defenceless) target, apparently in the hope that killing someone will bring their lost ones back.
Life's not much fun when your 'World policeman' is a gun toting psychopath with an 'Eye for an eye' T shirt.
"If anything sums up the cultural divide, it's that one sentence. To a merkin, there HAS to be 'revenge'. If you are not prepared to kill SOMEONE because you have been hurt, then you have 'no balls'."
Yeah , just one minor thing - I'm not an american, I'm european. Not everyone in europe is a spineless feminised wimp like you.
Still, its easy for you all you lot to tread the right on , turn the other cheek line to get all the kudos from other comfortable middle class lefties like yourselves, but I promise you , if someone ever did something to your child if would be a different story. And anyone who didn't wish revenge - yes revenge , I know , a dirty word to all the bien pensant types on here - on someone who murdered their child has no business being a parent in the first place.
All of the parents are Norwegian, but many are "footballers". I've learned the hard way during a father-son game of football when my son was 3 that Norwegians compartmentalize. When I was passed the ball, a normally very passive father smashed me in the chest with his shoulder, laid me out, took the ball and kept going. I was like "Isn't this supposed to be a friendly game?", the other guys explained that football wasn't a game, it's a sport and the kids should learn that. I later watched two boys, about eight years old practicing a football move where their fathers were offering tips. The move was how to smash into another player and steal the ball in a way that would hit hard enough to knock the other kid down without getting penalized for it. The fathers were saying "Good job, now try this".
One of my neighbors worked as a prison guard of ABB's holding leading up to the trial. He told me that the biggest problem was keeping him alive. They had to make sure he didn't kill himself and that no one got access to him.
Most Norwegians believe (rightfully so) that prison is about removing criminals from the public until such time as they have been rehabilitated. They then make an honest attempt to help rehabilitate them and ease them back into society. When they are released, they have programs such as student aid and others to help them reintegrate into the world.
All that being said, I don't expect ABB to make it more than 10 steps from the prison when he is released. One of those footballer fathers is going to be there waiting.
Thing is with being better than some people, it actually requires that you sometimes be better.
Which is absolutely valueless if those people and those who believe and support their twisted ways only view your 'being better' as weakness.
"3 people who don't get/like that their liberalist values are viewed by many in the world as weakness"
And several more who don't like the idea that their kneejerk reaction of 'I can't be bothered to consider the ramifications, let's just kill someone' is generally regarded outside the US as a sign of morally deficient dickheadedness.
Takes all sorts I suppose.
Interesting that it's the people (esp merkins) who were entirely untouched by this event who are calling for blood and disembowelling, while the Norwegians are calling for the rule of law.
"I'm really beginning to wonder if the liberal ideology in scandinavia is more of a religion than a political point of view as they seem to cling onto it like a life raft regardless of anything that happens in the real world."
You mean their astonishingly low crime rate and a murder rate the envy of the word? Those kinds of things that happen in the real world? Equality, fair-mindedness and justice aren't some form of hypothetical politically correct concepts, they're how modern nation states should operate.
Abandoning their principles because of Breivik would award him a victory for his terrorism - he would have achieved the societal change he intended.
"Equality, fair-mindedness and justice aren't some form of hypothetical politically correct concepts, they're how modern nation states should operate."
Sadly norways idea of justice for a mass child murderer is putting him in a cosy prison with a playstation.
Sorry - that is just pathetic , and the whole liberal mindset is pathetic and weak.
Oh , and btw - its easy to have a low crime rate with a lot of happy smiley citizens when you're sitting on a trillion dollars worth of oil.
"Sadly norways idea of justice for a mass child murderer is putting him in a cosy prison with a playstation."
An eye for an eye leaves us all blind. Violence begets violence. Norway's response was admirable and mature, the sign of a country at peace with itself and confident of its place in the world. Breivik is in a place where he can harm no-one else, no-one has been made a martyr for others to avenge or imitate, Norwegians continue their lives in the manner they did before. Your anger says more about you than it does about Norway.
"An eye for an eye leaves us all blind"
Does it? Someone should have told all the people who fought against Hitler that.
Or maybe they'd have better things to do that listen to someone spouting tired old biblical pacifist cliches.
"Your anger says more about you than it does about Norway."
And your laid back indifference shows what an easy untroubled comfortable life you've had.
"Oh , and btw - its easy to have a low crime rate with a lot of happy smiley citizens when you're sitting on a trillion dollars worth of oil."
America is sitting on a lot more oil than Norway. (Both their own and other people's). And the crime rate in the USA is?
> I'm really beginning to wonder if the liberal ideology in scandinavia is more of a religion than a political point of view
Yes, it has taken on religion-like qualities. Anyone who disagrees with its core tenets (like, say, nazis or people opposed to islam do) is treated as a heretic and shouted down; it is even illegal. Immigration and islam are particularly sensitive, it simply isn't done to criticize islam in any way, and currently a member of the ruling conservative party of Sweden is being expelled from his party because he tweeted that Sweden should not accept more immigrants from Syria than it could afford (in context one should know that Sweden automatically affords permanent residency to all immigrants from Syria, plus to all of their family members).
There is also an odd strain of self-loathing running through it all: it is politically sensitive to oppose female genital mutilation, forced marriage, or child brides, and will automatically be met with charges of racism and statements to the effect that western culture is worse.
So yeah, Scandinavia is not paradise, and it has arguably elevated political correctness to state religion, but I'll still take that over the militarism and robber capitalism of the GOP.
It's one thing for a person to desire revenge upon someone who has taken away a loved one, but to destabilize your entire culture with knee-jerk reactions from the government is another matter entirely.
We have shown, here in the UK (and the other madhouse across the pond) that these kind of overly-emotional reactions result in poor policy and a tendency to let every single negative thing that happens put fear into the populace against 'the enemy'. This fear leads to nationalism, xenophobia and racism, which fuels the whole 'hate machine'.
Please explain to me again how this prevents similar atrocities happening again? (As opposed to creating a fertile breeding ground for fundamentalists of all stripes).
The grown up (i.e. emotionally mature) response to this heinous crime would be to treat the killer as you would any other criminal with mental health issues and not let your emotions put you in a position where you lose even more of your identity.
However, that said, you go right ahead and kill and hate and feel somehow superior to the 'weak' liberals. I expect we'll see you on the news one day eh?
For what it's worth, not being an angry, irrational, vengeance filled person doesn't mean you are weak and are unable to make a stand for the things you believe in.
norway experienced a terrorist attack, that shocked each and every Norwegian (poetic licence required - probably not _everybody_) to the core, and the states response?
They apprehended the bad guy, and gave him a fair trial, convicted him, and then sentenced him in-line with the existing judicial framework, and he is now incarcerated as a common criminal in their prison system.
In 2001 the US experienced a terrorist attack, that shocked each and every american (except the CIA sponsors) to the core. and the states response was;
They invaded Afghanistan
They invaded Iraq
(though neither country was involved)
stripped the american people of the rights they constantly bang on and on about (patriot act)
established a concentration camp in Cuba - when largely innocent men with beards where detained without charge indefinitely.
Massively stepped up their campaign of covert surveillance of it's own population.
completely disable their aviation industry.
Sometimes the only two options are;
a) cling to this here life-raft
b) drown
I guess it takes a special kind of 'freedom' to understand that.
Well, Breivik was a lone nut (literally too crazy for Stormfront), while Al Qaeda was a major organization working with and supported by the Taliban government of Afghanistan. And Norway doesn't have the resources to attack any other country even if it wanted to. So, not exactly equivalent situations.
"And Norway doesn't have the resources to attack any other country even if it wanted to. So, not exactly equivalent situations."
Is it your contention then that Norway wants to attack an unrelated country (as Iraq was unrelated to 9/11) and that the difference is simply that it lacks resources? No? Then in what way is your comment an actual rebuttal of what the GP said? Just accept that not every nation is like the USA.
> Is it your contention then that Norway wants to attack an unrelated country
No that is obviously NOT what I said. Pretending that the person you're arguing with has said something he hasn't sure makes his argument easier to knock down, but it's still dishonest debating tactics. Fuck you right back.
> as Iraq was unrelated to 9/11
Maybe that's why I said Afghanistan and not Iraq?
Any more strawman arguments you'd like to invent? Perhaps I'm arguing that Norway wants to nuke Iran?
>>"No that is obviously NOT what I said. Pretending that the person you're arguing with has said something he hasn't sure makes his argument easier to knock down, but it's still dishonest debating tactics. Fuck you right back"
No strawman - you deliberately cut off the second part of what I wrote immediately after asking "Is it your contention that..." which was "No? Then how is what you wrote a rebuttal to what was actually said". My post is right above yours for anyone to check.
But the thing is, YOU raised the argument that "Norway lacks the resources to attack" so now that you're agreeing with me that it's irrelevant, can we discard that? I mean it only really does lead to the argument which I hypothetically raised and then dismissed (myself) and which you agree is academic because Norway don't want to attack anyone else.
>>"Maybe that's why I said Afghanistan and not Iraq?"
The person you were replying to and arguing with talked about Iraq.
Al Qaeda was invented by the US administration after the first attack on WTC (Rumsfeld and Clinton - both on record admitting this) so they could use RICO legislation to go after OBL for the various embassy attacks he had arranged - there was no other mechanism for them to do this (this was back in the old days when uncle sam still gave a fuck about the word of law.)
The 1/2 dozen blokes that made up AQ (they had to buy in goons from Islamic jihad to act as extras in their videos FFS) were backed by SAUDI money. the Taliban never gave a fuck about AQ - all the taliban was ever about was to run their islamic state and kick the shit out of their own people - they really dont give a fuck about us infidels! This is a huge ideological divide between AQ and all other islamic bad guys. those guys really couldn't care less about us, AQ does.
Norway has one of the richest populations in the world! (they are ALL millionaires - oil money)
and finally the _point_ of my post. the bit you most egregiously failed to get.
Norway was attacked and stood by it's beliefs. (clung to the raft)
America was attacked and diched _EVERYTHING_ it ever stood for. (drowned)
"In matters of principle, stand like a rock." as your Thomas Jefferson put it
america this century? a bunch of whining pussy losers.
_now_ do you get it?
I didn't think so
> Al Qaeda was invented by the US administration after the first attack on WTC (Rumsfeld and Clinton - both on record admitting this) so they could use RICO legislation to go after OBL for the various embassy attacks
Why are you getting upvotes for lies? Seriously, people, get your brains in gear -- he's spouting conspiracy theory fantasy.
As I understand it, "Al-queda" is more like Anonymous - a loose confederation of small groups that only come together in general terms. At least that's what MI5 was saying about them. They were not a "major organisation working with and supported by" the Taliban. In fact 9/11 was mostly conducted by Saudi nationals, and Osama Bin Laden was a member of a family who were best mates with the Bushes.
And you still haven't "explained" the Patriot Act, and how that relates to Afghanistan. Or, more especially, Iraq.
Your disinformation narrative presumably comes direct from Langley, Va.
> And you still haven't "explained" the Patriot Act, and how that relates to Afghanistan. Or, more especially, Iraq.
Why the fuck would I? I haven't even mentioned Iraq or the Patriot act! You ARE aware that Iraq and Afghanistan are different countries and two different wars, right?
> 9/11 was mostly conducted by Saudi nationals, and Osama Bin Laden was a member of a family who were best mates with the Bushes.
It wasn't Saudi Arabia which hosted and supported Al Qaeda, it was the Taliban government of Afghanistan. It wasn't the bin Laden family which ordered the attack on the WTC, it was Osama.
You know, when I asked you to invent more strawman arguments, I didn't actually mean it. Please stop fucking making shit up and pretending it's something I've said.
Gosh...
I guess that all those FSK/HJK troops we sent to Afghanistan(among the first to arrive) did nothing, then?
(The FSK is ranked among the top 3 special forces in the world by many)
And the F-16s we sent to bomb Libya, who flew sorties almost constantly?
(The only other country with matching flight-hours per plane was Denmark.)
'Targets taken out at a tenth the cost'...
(compared to British missiles, at least)
No, we don't have big nuclear subs to threaten with. But our diesel-electrics are feared every time there's a big naval exercise.
One, on its way home from patrolling the mediterranean, passed undetected under the heavy blockade of the Gibraltar strait.
Occupy a country?
No. But we sure as H! can mess it up completely...
"politicall correct"
P.C. actually was born from people like yourself who constantly drone on about 'something must be done'. But that 'something' often ends up affecting directly the whingers who then moan that 'it's PC gone mad' .
You wanted it, you demanded it, now fucking live with it!
Just thought I should second this.
I live in Norway and flew to Heathrow less than two weeks after Utøya. The first intemperate remark I heard on the subject came not from a Norwegian but from the woman at the car hire counter at Heathrow who's first words to me when she saw my Norwegian driving licence were "I hope he hangs". Public discussion on the subject in Norway, with few exceptions, has been measured and rational while discussion outside has been often hysterical. Almost no one in Norway is untouched by this atrocity, almost everyone either knows someone who was there or has a friend or close relative who does, yet calls for savage retribution were few and widely condemned in favour of upholding the law and constitution. The then prime minister made it clear that Breivik was to be treated as the criminal that he is and that no laws would be changed in response, that he would not be treated as a special case but merely as an extreme one.
Do you really think he is making these petty demands seriously? More likely, I would have thought they were a tactic to rub the faces of those in charge of the liberal system when they pathetically grant everything the prisoner demands.
You can lead a horse to water but I'm not going to cry him a river or something like that. I'm all in favor of his right to self determination and choosing to not eat. Once his needs are provided for, since I don't see how the state has a right to force feed him, the state's obligations are met. I'm sorry but video games don't fall under needs. If he wants intellectual stimulation let him read a book. I recommend he try the Iliad, Odyssey, Dao De Jing, Heart Sutra and maybe some Thoreau for starters. Who know, he might even find it more interesting than 541 laps of Super Mario Cart.
"You can lead a horse to water but I'm not going to cry him a river or something like that. I'm all in favor of his right to self determination and choosing to not eat. Once his needs are provided for, since I don't see how the state has a right to force feed him, the state's obligations are met."
I say "not".
I think the best thing would be to allow this fellow to starve himself, out of protest, close to death. Then, weak and frail, take him into the infirmary, strap him down completely immobile, and force intravenous feed him.
He'll complain that 'we don't have the right to do that!" but I believe that we DO. IMHO in essence the imprisonment is a enforcement that the state OWNS YOUR BODY as punishment for your actions. We can't torture you - that is mental anguish, and we don't own the mind - but the BODY has been made to pay for your crimes with unusual restrictions so it is within our right to keep you alive as long as possible to pay your social debt.
Have a nice life - we're going to extend it as long as we possibly can. You owe a LOT of people a LOT of payback.
Actually...I just thought of a better idea!!! Let the Norwegian government say "We don't acquiesce to your demands", wash their hands of him...and then DEPORT HIM TO NORTH KOREA and "allow" him to receive their forms of punishment.
I like that idea SO much better. :-) Let him get a taste of how cushy his current life really is.
I'm all in favor of his right to self determination and choosing to not eat. Once his needs are provided for, since I don't see how the state has a right to force feed him, the state's obligations are met.
I'm surprised that they bother feeding him at all, let alone give him choices about whether to eat or not.
I wonder if his victims would have appreciated having some choices? Like the choice whether to be shot or not? I wonder about the thought processes of those who demand and campaign for his right to have choices when he so readily deprived so many of any choice. I can't help wondering how those who feel free to forcibly make choices for others, expect to retain their rights to make choices at all. Most of all I wonder where the punishment is? Why are crimes not punished anymore? What is it in the liberalist agenda which has 'loss of freedom' down as being some kind of punishment. To the extent that such loss is enough punishment for any crime, no matter how many died brutal deaths. Murder 70 people, and the worst the liberal societies of the west will do to you is takeaway your right to freedom of movement. They won't even take away your right to play video games.
WTF happened to "the punishment being seen to fit the crime", so that justice can be seen to be "being done"?
Surely the repetitive song from the multi-cultural Disneyland ride It's a Small World would be more effective?
The English portion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jiaU0xbOKs
Though it actually loops in about a dozen different languages, sometimes played simultaneously. This video gives a better impression of its true horror:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bNWkXvNDTE#t=3m50s
Naah mate, *you* put *yourself* there. Unless you man up and take responsibility for your own life, you're not going anywhere in life.
Entitlement anongst the citizenry is bad enough, but prisoners... bah!
Here in NZ our Green Party said prisoners should be fed organic vegetables. I don't see why not, the prisoners have lots of time on their hands and can grow their own.
and part of that punishment is being segregated from the wider community.... and not having a playstation!
or a tv
or a radio
no books
no newspapers
if he needs something to occupy his mind, give him a chair with one leg missing - sitting on that 18 hours a day will focus what passes for a mind in his case.
he killed 70 people, young people
he should have plenty to think about for the next 50 or so years.
See Mycho's comment, a little below, but also...
In his case, the guilt is pretty clear, but in would-be-capital cases in general the evidence is more ambiguous. By never executing anyone, society avoids the impossible problem of where to draw the line. Given the small number of cases, rather than have a hugely complicated decision-making process, it is probably cheaper just to give up and always just imprison for life. (I believe that's what they've found in the US, which is hardly "a soft touch" in these matters, but has enough of a legal system that the cost of repeated appeals on a capital sentence exceeds the cost of imprisonment.)
So it's cheaper AND the bad guys don't like it.
Read this about Kenneth Mc Duff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff
He raped and murdered a teenage girl, kill her two friends and was sentenced to death. Then he got out and killed some more. the book "Bad Boy from Rosebud" is absolutely terrifying because it shows how many times he should have been in Jail and got back out to kill again.
> He wanted to be executed.
Nah, that was just talk. He's a psychopath, he wants to be adored and recognized for the ubermensch that he thinks he is. His act in the court was just an act -- the fake crying, the grandstanding, all of it, was his idea of how to best play the resistance hero he thinks he is.
I agree with everything you say but I cannot work out how you reach the conclusion that his own death was not part of his psychopathic plan. Had he been executed he'd have the same place in Norwegian history that Gary Gilmore has in American history. That was what he wanted but sod that, he's not getting it.
> He's a psychopath
No, he's not, at least not in legal terms. The court found him to be sane, and treated him accordingly. If he was found to be insane, he would not have been in prison, but in a mental institution.
(That's not to say that in more common terms, he is surely nuts)
> No, he's not, at least not in legal terms.
Yes, he is. The psych evaluation found him to be a narcissist, which is another term for psychopath. The only difference between a narcissist and a psychopath is that a narcissist is able to admire and identify with powerful people and causes, in Breiviks case white supremacy.
> The court found him to be sane
No, the court found that he was able to understand what he had done. In Norway only suspects too mentally ill to understand what they've done are exempt from prosecution. Psychopaths are perfectly aware of what they do and that it's wrong.
Now that would hurt his overblown, sociopathic ego. Maybe as a reminder and deterrent mention once a year that the fucker is still rotting in prison as he deserves. But other than that - never mention him again on the news, never read about his sick personality games, never comment about him on internet forums... Shit, just failed. OK, so starting from... NOW.
This f*ckwit doesn't know what hell is.
I have a five year old who thinks that Spongebob Squarepants is the greatest cartoon ever, that "Gangnam Style" needs to be repeated incessantly at EVERY child's birthday party and that One Direction are the best band in the world.
I'd happily swap his "hell" for mine, any day of the week.
Especially now, "Gangnam Style" has just come on again.....................for the eighth time in a row.
1: If they'd have just executed the guy they'd have created a martyr - that's politics 101 - to the point even David Cameron could grasp it...
2: Whether you care to admit it or not, credit where credit is due, Breivik has proven to be a tactician of the scale of a Von Manstein, Allenbrooke, or Blucher - if he'd have been in an army in wartime he'd be parading round the place with a Dannebrog, a GCMG and at the least a Ritterkreuz mit Eichenlaub & Schwerten... FOR DOING EXACTLY THE SAME DAMN THING.
3: Drone Strikes - aka bobbing for brides/whack a wedding... and don't you dare tell me they're legitimate targets if Russian partisans weren't. Oh silly me - if I'm a private citizen & kill 80 odd people that's a crime - if I'm a police officer, a soldier or a politician -they'll give me a goddamn medal..
4: Contrary to popular belief its in the authorities best interests to keep this unpleasant individual happy - happy sociopaths are quiet sociopaths - and having the world media barf out the whole situation and the embarrassing incompetence of the security forces is not helpful - nor does it help the victims survivors/families.
If your pet sociopath wants his games, especially if he's an anti-darling of the media, you'd best swallow your revulsion & pony up, if only to shut the guy up. In this case all publicity is bad publicity.
5: I find it pretty telling that in Europe when this sort of thing happens gun control is tightened up before they've found all the bodies - in the US they debate Uzi's for schoolkids.. god I love the American Dream..
Finally - for *insert deity here*'s sake - actually sit down and look at your society critically just for once. Do that and hopefully you'll begin to understand why people like Breivik pop up. Modern society in alot of senses makes life in the dark ages positively dreamy by comparison.
I don't condone what this individual did but then I'm sure I'm not the only one who's contemplated the improvement garnered by the British economy if someone had emptied a Sten into a certain Mr Osbourne a few years back. Its an unpleasant truth that should be stated - the only difference between Anders Breivik and the majority of the rest of humanity - he did what many of us contemplate daily..
Don't you just love civilized society?
Your point 2 is quite wrong. Von Manstein and Alan Brooke [sic] may not have been very nice people in some ways but they were great men. Breivik is a very small man, which is why he killed children rather than starting a political movement. Von Manstein and Brooke wouldn't have diverted a single squaddie with a rifle to attack unarmed children on an island because it would not have contributed to winning the war or the peace, and they certainly wouldn't have awarded anyone a medal for doing it. You really need to read the biographies of Brooke. And you ought to read about Ritter von Thoma, as an example of the best kind of German general.
As for point 3, I was not aware that Norway participated in drone strikes.
As for point 4, I partially agree. What I'd do is, though, I would let him participate in Internet forums - but using that trick that when he posts he can see it, but nobody else can. That would eat away at his self importance, wondering endlessly why nobody ever replies to him or votes him up.
In reply..
Both Erich Von Manstein & Allenbrooke used the same tactic as Breivik did and both were decorated. The difference - two were army commanders, and paid to kill - the other did it for admittedly whacked beliefs - but last I noticed the people they killed are collectively just as dead. Your point re 98ks & lee enfields is a little facetious - when on the one hand its Stens & MG42's and on the other a platoons worth of automatic weapons. More to the point is how the little sod got his hands on them in the first instance. The point should also be made that for all three the people they killed or died as a result of their orders were legitimate targets, the difference being Breiviks view is not shared by anyone else - whereas for the others its legitimate government policy, that is the sole difference - unless you count Zhukovs troops emptying sub machine guns into unarmed German teenage girls as somehow any more legitimate than what Breivik did?
You are right - so far as I know Norway isn't into crashing weddings with cluster bombs - but again just as dead & importantly just as civilian.
I hate to be blunt about it but the poor kids involved in this - many of them wanted a career in politics - one of the things politicians do? oh yes, that's right, wars and the prosecution of same. Killing people, at however many remove.
And I suggest you read your history - the British army were the ones who came up with concentration camps - and have you seen the mess a Lewis Gun can make of Indian women & children? As for Von Manstein - history is dubious there especially during 11th Army ops - although personally I'm on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I like your idea re forums but not giving him actual access - whatever else he is he's intelligent - and since Norwegian authorities seem to have yard of lard syndrome he might find a way to exploit it...
I don't quite understand your post. Are you also referring to other posts on the assumption that there is only one person posting AC?
Perhaps you could clarify by explaining what tactic you think that von Manstein and Brooke used that was the same as that used by Breivik? And which post referred to models of weapon? I am wondering if English is not your first language and you are using "tactics" to mean something different.
If you are referring to the killing of civilians I agree - I consider Harris to be as much a war criminal as, say, Himmler. But I can't get the British Government to agree with me, though immediately after WW2 Harris was extremely unpopular.
Although I didn't make any reference to the Russians, it is worth pointing out that when the Soviet Union invaded East Prussia, the people doing the shooting of civilians were aware that five Soviet soldiers had died for every German. They saw how rich even backwards East Prussia was, and could not understand why the Germans had invaded them. I don't excuse them, just point out that there is a bit of a difference between having seen your comrades killed by invading Germans, and having a fantasy about Muslim immigration. Or are you comparing Breivik's difficulties in life to those of the people in the Battle of the Kursk Salient, or the defence of Leningrad?
Your argument seems to be, if I am making it out correctly, that soldiers kill people in wars, therefore Breivik is morally no different. Is that correct?
1) A martyr to whom? The nazis? The nazi movement is miniscule in Scandinavia, they could all fit on a tennis court (with room to spare). Also, AFAIK even the nazis don't like Breivik, as he killed mostly norwegian children.
2) What tactics? Dressing as a police officer and attacking children on an island doesn't exactly require tactical genius.
3) Huh? What's drone strikes got to do with Breivik??? FWIW, there's significantly less collateral damage with drone strikes than with strikes with conventional aircraft.
4) He is happy when he gets attention. Unfortunately the norwegian society has given him too much of that, and continues to. But, like you say, as long as he's happy he's unlikely to start trying to kill the prison wardens.
5) Thank god there's no NRA in Europe. This we can agree on.
As 77 dead bodies attests even one person seeing him as a martyr is dangerous - and I don't think we know the entirety of the Nazi groups - there's a fair few in the US...
Did you forget the part with the bomb(s) in the capital? - aka a diversionary attack and a masterpiece of the genre. Those tactics.. part of the reason Breivik is so damn dangerous is he did single handed what entire armies failed to pull off, perfectly. Even if you loathe him to the point of hanging him by his balls over a Mamba tank - it was artistically done. Just one person copying his method (which has now been slathered through the press) means maybe 80+ dead - now try a whole group... Breivik has to die of natural causes in his natural time.. the results otherwise could be horrific.
The point is simple - you and I or Breivik kill 80 civilians - its a crime. US Army does it - its government policy & perfectly legal. As for less collateral damage - drone aircraft deliver the same munitions in the same way, same weapon same damage, only difference is its cheaper & no meatbags.
> Did you forget the part with the bomb(s) in the capital?
We recently had some bank robbers not only used multiple decoy attacks, but spread caltrops over the road to stop pursuing police cars, and changed stolen getaway vehicles twice, which they then both burned. If Breivik setting off a bomb to lure the tiny Norwegian police force to Oslo so he'll get more time to kill unarmed children trapped on a small island is perfect tactical genius, then what would you call those bank robbers?
> Breivik is so damn dangerous is he did single handed what entire armies failed to pull off,
Haha no seriously, come on. He set off a bomb, and shot trapped, unarmed, children. You have very low standards for perfection (not to mention what armies are capable of!).
> it was artistically done
No, it wasn't. The only inspired choice Breivik made was to pick a small island as target. Everything else was superfluous: the Norwegian police is tiny and had no rapid response capability, and no one had even considered the possibility that someone might be so irrational as to do something like this. He could have just gone to the island and started killing, and everything would have played out the same.
> the results otherwise could be horrific
The retults otherwise would be a dead Breivik, the usual complaints from liberals opposed to capital punishment -- and that's it. His fanatical legions of phantom supporters do not exist, all there is are highschool kids who want to see him as some sort of evil mastermind rather than a deluded and confused man with a lot of guns.
> As for less collateral damage - drone aircraft deliver the same munitions in the same way
Yes, and kill much fewer innocents. The reason is believed to be because a) combat is stressful, and stressed pilots sometimes make mistakes, while a drone operator is not personally in danger and therefore not as stressed, and b) the longer chain of command and the signal time from operator to drone means that drone operators never take split second decisions.
If one feel that it's OK to target and kill terrorists, as I do, then one should support drones. If on the other hand one feel that it's not OK to target and kill terrorists, then one should be at least as opposed to strikes by manned aircraft.
Maybe it is not right to shoot lots of children
I wouldn't complain about having any console if I were interred for a serious crime.
I'd probably try to spend most of my day doing exercises and reading books to be honest.
Maybe even writing one or two, perhaps trying to further the knowledge of man even.
I'm almost done with gaming in real life as it is creeping into my time too much.
I'm surprised at this mans audacity but then I remember - he shot lots of children
I see commentators here continually posting the falsehood that ABB killed "children". That is disingenuous, intending to evoke some sort of idea that he went around slaughtering the innocents. This is a common tactic used throughout history to paint "evil"
* The victims were adults and adolescents
* The victims were politically active (by their own choice) for the party and indeed the political establishment that ABB intended to (and in fact did) attack, and thus legitimate targets (in his reasoning).
* If you "carry the flag", you are a legitimate target for the opponents of the "flag"
* There were innocent bystanders killed in Oslo, from ABBs viewpoint, casualties of war
You don't have to like the idea, but when looking closely in the mirror, ABB did what many secretly "want" to do, but instantly reject as wrong. ABB just didn't have the brain circuitry to reach the conclusion that most others reach.Make no mistake, the "thought" of doing what he did has been had by many (which parenthetically is why the notion of "thought crime" is an abomination). Instead, we just go and play FPS games and imagine that it is David Cameron that we are obliterating, and having quelled our frustrations, move on with our daily lives.
"I see commentators here continually posting the falsehood that ABB killed "children". That is disingenuous, intending to evoke some sort of idea that he went around slaughtering the innocents. This is a common tactic used throughout history to paint "evil" "
Errr .... you seem to be implying that killing 69 unarmed people, some as young as 14, is not "evil"
That's a bit worrying
This post has been deleted by its author
"Please forgive me for being offended that some childish pricks make breathtakingly vapid remarks about a man who killed ten people and injured dozens more, in the process risking my own life and the lives of those I love when he set off a bomb in central Oslo, intended to set off one or two more, and then merrily headed off to a political party's summer camp to murder a further 70 teenagers. Call me pathetic all you like but the fact that the first comment on this article was a pathetic dig at Microsoft says a lot more about the commenters on this website than anything else."
A million times 'well said'.
Fuck him. Let him die, fucking scum.
He'll continue to make up one thing or another to complain about from time to time. He can't stand being slowly forgotten, but he will be. This is simply him wanting to be in the press, and it's working.
There really isn't any news value to this thing, except that it's him saying anything. The sooner that also loses its news value the better.
Why does this moron have access to any gaming system in the first place?
I definitely respect Norway's negative stance on the death penalty, esp when the public response after Breivik was to NOT change it. Takes cojones for a society not to overreact to an atrocity like this. But this guy doesn't deserve anything besides being kept alive and well so he sits out a loooong life in prison.
Torture? No, but don't grant him anything that makes his life nice. I would perhaps draw the line at solitary confinement as well, but this guy is pathetically worthless scum, not a normal criminal, and should be treated as such. Punishment, in a dignified and legal fashion, not rehabilitation, should be the order of the day.
As for the Win8 dig at the start. Juvenile, yes! But so very funny!
HolyFreakingGhost - get a chill pill and a sense of humor. Remember, this is an IT forum and the angle here was PS2 vs PS3. So it is only normal that people comment on computer stuff. The thing about digging at MS is how so many of us saw Win8 heading for a trainwreck and how that exceeded all our expectations. Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of MS, it takes a special attitude to tell the great majority of your customers that you couldn't care less what they think because you know so much better.
To the Norwegian Correctional Services: I am offering, free of charge, my IT/IS and coding skills to the creation of a website to be used as a video streaming platform. For the purpose of freely allowing everyone on the internet to witness the slow death of this rotten scum during his hunger strike. I'll even throw in the webcam.
@ MonkeyCee
I think the german special terrorist force practiced this on a particularly evil individual moments after he had murdered a plain clothes colleague in cold blood, as he realised the gig was up. The German police took some stick for it in the left wing press, but IMHO it was a suitable solution in those specific circumstances.
This person is at best delusional and at worst a psychopath. He killed many others because he was not 'getting his own way', just like a two year old brat. We must always not ever lower ourselves to his level of selfish violent acts of retribution. Otherwise we become just like him!
Let the unbiased rule of law take care of his future as it should. Bert
Give the bastard a PS3, long as he STFU, we're good.
Seriously folks, these cream_of_the_crop_assholes have lots of time on their hands, with nothing to lose. There will be downvotes from the 'hard time-fuck-em folks' and there is some validity to their argument, but I'd rather have my officers go home unscathed. Give him the damn PS3 since you won't execute him - former shift sergeant, AZ Dept of Corrections.
It's not as if he can walk over and ask, since he's in solitary confinement...
And most other prisoners have promised to maim him on sight.
I only have one request of The Register, and the world press in general:
PLEASE STOP POSTING HIS RANTING!
Stop posting about him at all!
He enjoys being the focus of attention!
Also, as long as the sick bastard gets attention he'll be a martyr/idol for other such sickos.
Reading the comments , it appears that the reason Brevik did what he did is almost completely ignored . Muslims across Europe in jail demand (and get) much more outlandish requests than those seen in the 'story' .. yet this does not appear to require comment and is quietly accepted .
Niemöller is oft quoted , history repeats itself (as S.Bassey said) - support/condone an ideology that is diametrically opposed to the values you pledge to hold dear ---whose crazier?
FWIW , make him play JSW 'The Banyan Tree' with infinite lives poke.
Why does this piece of crap even have electricity or light? He killed over 70 people and probably disfigured and traumatized over 300, and they let him live? He should be grateful for each day he wakes up and doesn't have to eat 1/2 lbs of broken glass washed down by bleach. Wow, I guess if you want to be an arch-criminal Oslo is your town.
I wouldn't even give this guy a coloring book and crayons. Let him entertain himself.
Norway is treating him how they treat anybody. The parallel with the US isn't 9/11, but the Oklahoma City Bombing (domestic terrorist, we executed him). I don't believe he can be rehabilitated, only warehoused.
I think the last execution in Norway was Vidkun Quisling... If you have an exception, that's a good one in my book (ABB is not in that ballpark).
Crime and punishment here in the states, it differs depending on state (which is responsible for most of the laws), and the severity of the crime. We're a fickle lot, especially when it comes to drugs. With higher populations, the prision quality goes down. With a diverse population, that makes prision even more fun to manage. Gangs in Norway? I know they have a Hell's Angels chapter, maybe a skinhead group or two.
It's a chicken and egg thing. Is the system making the criminals in the US, or the criminals making the system? Implementing a Norwegian-style system probably won't work here.