The war on terror is irrelevant, since the perpetrator is a christian right wing anti-islamist.

While I agree the leader of the backlash was a Christian Right-Wing Anti-Islamist, and a fool at that (or is that redundant?) wouldn't it be more accurate to call the Anti-American, Anti-West terrorists who crashed two planes into the Twin Towers the perpetrators/instigators of the war?

(Unless you're going the "Bush did 9/11" route, which I REALLY hope you're smarter than...)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, Obi. But please don't explain. This thread is for questions and answers.

Will Norwegians and people more generally now understand that 'Islam' or 'Christianity' are not the problem. Terror is not perpetrated by the religion but by men who distort religion. It saddened me when people started to consider Islam and Muslims as evil because of 9/11 and other atrocities. I somehow feel there will be no backlash against Christians (as well there shouldn't be) but hopefully people will reconsider tarring everyone who says they are religious with the same brush.

''I somehow feel there will be no backlash against Christians (as well there shouldn't be) but hopefully people will reconsider tarring everyone who says they are religious with the same brush.''

Well said Maniac, I am not hopeful, however.

This is appalling and shocking, but it does raise one huge question. A single Norwegian madman has managed to shoot dead over 80 people and succesfully explode a devastating home made bomb. The ingredients for said bomb would have raised eyebrows if anyone but a farmer had obtained them, but he ingeniously got round this by simply becoming a farmer.

The question is... why on earth are people like Islamic extremists and American fundamentalist lunatics so bad at being terrorists? The average al Qaeda operative trying to do the same thing would have attracted the attention of half the intelligence agencies on the planet and managed to blow himself up by accident with his own bomb on the way to Oslo. The typical Yank gunman generally gets off a couple of rounds of shots, hits half a dozen people, and then shoots himself in embarrassment. Even the relatively successful 7/7 bombings were carried out within spitting distance of a meeting of the British Medical Association and the largest concentration of doctors in London, leading to a much reduced loss of life.

Are most terrorists by nature incompetent idiots, or is there some spark of humanity in all but the most evil of people that knows what they are doing is deeply wrong, and makes the terrorist subconsciously want to make a mistake?

Questions, not statements diagnoser as questions.

*
Disguised

Will the norwegian law enforcement change in any way? Command structure to equipment, really anything.

Most terrorists aren't cowardly fucks who target children's youth camps.

He also posed as a police officer and told the campers to gather around him. Gonna be hard for Mohammed Atta to do that.

Timothy McVeigh was pretty successful in the US with bombing the daycare side of a federal building, also by being a farmer.

But a question. They say the death toll is 92 and they're still looking for bodies. Realistically, is it possible that there will be over 100? I mean, I heard he was shooting people swimming for land, what's the consensus of how many kids this sick fuck killed in total?

Yeah what is AMA?

Also what can you tell me about the perp I've not seen his details?

Sacred, the final death toll is still unknown.

At the moment police can't account for a number of participants, and the situation is unclear. At least 85 dead on the island, probably more. The total may climb to over 100, including the bomb.

Tergem, it is likely.

Timothy McVeigh was a farmer? I didn't know that, maybe we should be warry of farmers rather than religious guys.

Well I think it's a bit sad that people jump the gun and blame Muslim extremists. The Christian fundamentalist right is just as dangerous, and is more accessible in western society. This guys was a moderate before he turned to extremism, and the moderates are the ones who facilitate people to do such mad things, after all there are lots of crazy people out there and as this proves it only takes one violent person to cause a huge catastrophe. I'm not suggesting all imams, all preachers, and all moderate conservatives are at fault. But when the core ideology of these groups is very close minded and that close mindedness is a threat.

As Octavious says, this situation is telling of how simple it is for a person like Breivik to turn to violent intentions, and ideologies without attracting the attention of authorities the way an Islamist jihadi would. In the west Islam and people from the middle east are foreign, but Breivik looks just like the next guy. This proves how the ideologies of the Christian Fundamentalist right pose a greater threat to society in the west.

McVeigh owned a farm, saying he "was a farmer" was kind of intentional comparison to Octavious' mention of Breivik "becoming a farmer." He wasn't a farmer by trade.

Perhaps there should be more regulations on the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer, and better tracking of their use. I dunno. To put in a question: Do you think higher degrees of fertilizer tracking would be a good idea? It's now been used in two major bombings, which is two more than the "dirty bombs" that the news always gets us terrified of.

denis bleated, "The Christian fundamentalist right is just as dangerous, and is more accessible in western society"
##############################################################

One would think that the 751 Muslim No-Go zones in France would convince stupid cocksuckers, like you denis, that Islamists pose a far more dangerous presence than any Christian fundamentalist.

Wake up.

Muslim extremism does draw the attention of the public and the authorities more than far right Christian fundamentalism. Thus we in general pay more attention to such groups, making it harder for them to act in the west. When you see Muslim no go zones and racial profiling at airport security, it shows that more people recognize it as a threat and are better prepared to stop the threat, thus making it less of a threat. On the other hand people like Breivik can go anywhere without arousing any suspicion in western countries. There are no Christian Fundamentalist no go zones in France are there? The public doesn't think when they see a blond hair blue eyed guy and norway and think has a better chance of being a violent extremist, because it isn't foreign in the west the same way Islam and middle easterners are. They pose a threat for the exact reason that one would assume that they do not pose a threat. Especially when the ideology that facilitates this kind of action is not found on Neo-Nazi or jihadist websites or groups that are watched by authorities. People like Breivik do not need to go to extremists to fuel there extremism, they kind find the same garbage in the conservative mainstream.

There are plenty of white Islamic extremists out there. The Soviet Union and its descendents created thousands of them, and there are plenty of home grown examples all over Europe. It was a white Islamic terrorist from the neighbouring small town to me that tried (and failed) to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoes. It was a white Islamist terrorist from Plymouth who tried (and failed) to blow up my favourite cafe in Exeter.

Most terrorists are "cowardly fucks" who are more than willing to target children, and plenty of them can blend in with the natives as well as this Norwegian chap. But most of them are unbelievably bad and almost comically incompetent when it come to carrying out their plans.

"When you see Muslim no go zones and racial profiling at airport security, it shows that more people recognize it as a threat and are better prepared to stop the threat, thus making it less of a threat."
##############################################################

The Muslim No-Go Zones in France are not threats at all. They are faits accomplis.

YOU are a politically correct moron.



denis,

The 751 Muslim no-go zones in France

Great.

I call a moron a moron and fuck up the post that I'm doing it in.

Oh, my struggles.....

@Octavious The shoe bomber was of African descent, Muslims in the former USSR are from the caucuses and central Asiaso they do not look like your average guy in the west. A person like Breivik would pile them into the same group and call them immigrant scum... And home grown terrorism it's usually among people of middle eastern descent , in any case in order to be active in such ideologies people often viit jihadi websites thus attracting the attention of authorities, but most governments in the west don't arrest people for looking at far right fringe groups and joining them,as long as their not Neo-naz, but even then it doesn't get as much attention as jihadi's...

@denis, pay no attention to mapleleaf - he is a wretched human being.

You state what *should* be obvious - the fact that a Breivik or McVeigh can go unnoticed in the west due to their ethnicity... and the fact that, like a snake hidden in the grass, this increases the threat they pose. I imagine that Afghanistan suffers a similar problem... hard to detect who is a potential bomber when they blend into the populace. This sort of issue of camouflage, if you will, is something that should be considered more... and though the comment Maniac made about paying more attention to farmers is actually in the right direction. ...not that I think there is anything wrong with farmers as a group... but that profiling of a kind should be done - but that we need to get smart about how we do it. The profiling ought to be more about what people *do* (such as purchasing large quantities of fertilizer, as SacredDigits points out) or membership or association with known extremist groups... or some other "tells" such as demeanor (which the Israeli's use at airport screenings - to great effect, apparently). Though it is true that some terrorists are Islamists and some are Christianists... but there may be other things that we can identify to clue us in. The use by the French of Muslim no-go zones is far too broad brush and measures like this probably exacerbates the problem by alienating additional youth that might have otherwise been integrated into mainstream society and its values.

@mapleleaf
The point was that when people pay so much attention to a threat like radical islamism, and when our society is constantly on the lookout for such threats it makes radical Islam less of a threat, because it is harder to actually accomplish something on a large scale without being caught before hand. I wasn't calling Muslim no go zones a threat, I was calling radical islamism a threat.

"most governments in the west don't arrest people for looking at far right fringe groups and joining them,as long as their not Neo-naz, but even then it doesn't get as much attention as jihadi's..."

And perhaps the governments *should* be arresting people who openly conspire on far right fringe group sites. Several of the recent attacks by extreme righties in the U.S. were preceded by threats - direct and indirect - posted online... that were only noticed after the fact. We don't seem to have our antennae up about these types of terrorists. It is, apparently, a blind spot.

Dexter makes a good point. The xenophobic attitude that people hold towards Islam, only radicalized Muslims in foreign countries, because they feel that the words of islamists have a ring of truth