[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by prog2djent)
and .... carry on

Going on a murder-spree targeting people who have nothing to do with the ills of multiculturalism (or, let's be frank, Muslims in Europe), is illogical. No reasonable person can say that it is a natural consequence. What Breivik did, he did on his own count, not racial or religious tensions.

[Charzhino]

He doesnt look insane to me, if he can sucessfully pull of this attack then hes not just some local nutjob but obviously a highly calculated methodical killer. Why is this trial even going on if he has confessed he did it and would do it again? Lunacy

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Charzhino)
He doesnt look insane to me, if he can sucessfully pull of this attack then hes not just some local nutjob but obviously a highly calculated methodical killer. Why is this trial even going on if he has confessed he did it and would do it again? Lunacy

Leftism happened, that's what. Can't believe his sentence is limited to 21 years.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Mehmoodd)
He'll use whatever reason he can to justify himself.

He's a nutjob.

He was against the islamification of Europe and multiculturalism but killed more nationals...

And the reason he states why he killed them?

[Mehmoodd]

(Original post by prog2djent)
And the reason he states why he killed them?

He was against multi culturalism?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
Leftism happened, that's what. Can't believe his sentence is limited to 21 years.

Ironically the so-called "leftism" he was against is saving his years and life.

[Molts]

In before the idiot thats going to talk about 'cultural marxism'

[Notethis]

First, what is multiculturalism in its European form?
Statistics speak for themselves; wildly disproportionate crime rates for non European, non East Asian immigrants and their descendants. Segregated communities; areas which, before walking through, you must check the colour of your skin; black and asian youth gangs; an endemic of asian pedophile rings; attitudes towards women, justice, education, free speech, progress, kuffar which could make the most level headed man feel as if he'd walked through a time portal (or been transplanted to the Middle East), etc.

Breivik observed multiculturalism in Oslo, believed European culture, which is being systematically effaced (he believed), was, not necessarily superior, but worth preserving on the European continent, and, as he termed it, "resisted". He couldn't target immigrants, because protective measures, integration methods and national, what he believed was self-destructing sympathy would increase tenfold. Some might consider that he acted out of revenge against those who pushed multiculturalism onto his country, most would consider that he was at the least trying to make a massive statement and focus all eyes on himself and his views.

So, are people disenchanted with multiculturalism a logical outsome of multiculturalism? Yes, they are the most logical outcome. Breivik, however, possessed a crusaderesque ideology which does not seem so logical in its formulation, which seems fantastical. I would disagree that Breivik is a logical outcome of multiculturalism.

[Manitude]

(Original post by prog2djent)
Ironically the so-called "leftism" he was against is saving his years and life.

But he was fully prepared to be killed in his mission, so life in prison is arguably not as bad. But then, if he expected to be killed then he could see imprisonment as worse than death.

I was reading parts of his diary today and he refers to his mission as 'martyrdom' sometimes.

Also, his planning for the mission is so intense that I seriously doubt that he could be insane. He kept his concentration and thought deeply into the planning of the attacks for years in advance. I don't believe that an insane person could do that.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Mehmoodd)
He was against multi culturalism?

"He'll use whatever reason he can to justify himself.

He was against the islamification of Europe and multiculturalism but killed more nationals..."

He didn't go out on a killing spree on a whim because he is insanse, he wrote a whole manifesto about his motives, sent a load of letters, had videos, wrote on blogs, and even had a novel planned. It was a concise and thought-out attack on people he saw as the enemy.

Yes, he was against the "islamification of europe" and an opponent of multiculturalism, he overstaed many of these reasons but some base points hold discussion worthy value. He want to directly attack the people that gain from multi-culturalism, or are at the centre, i.e. N.African, Arabic and Asian Muslims, but wanted to attack the people who, as he saw, were the people that were creating these conditions, and the negative effects that come along with them.

If you read the work of Geert Wilders, maybe you can get a view point from someone who raises the same central points, but is himself not a christian-conservative conspiritor.

There are many liberals on the anti side of the debate.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Notethis)
First, what is multiculturalism in its European form?
Statistics speak for themselves; wildly disproportionate crime rates for non European, non East Asian immigrants and their descendants. Segregated communities; areas which, before walking through, you must check the colour of your skin; black and asian youth gangs; an endemic of asian pedophile rings; attitudes towards women, justice, education, free speech, progress, kuffar which could make the most level headed man feel as if he'd walked through a time portal (or been transplanted to the Middle East), etc.

Breivik observed multiculturalism in Oslo, believed European culture, which is being systematically effaced (he believed), was, not necessarily superior, but worth preserving on the European continent, and, as he termed it, "resisted". He couldn't target immigrants, because protective measures, integration methods and national, what he believed was self-destructing sympathy would increase tenfold. Some might consider that he acted out of revenge against those who pushed multiculturalism onto his country, most would consider that he was at the least trying to make a massive statement and focus all eyes on himself and his views.

So, are people disenchanted with multiculturalism a logical outsome of multiculturalism? Yes, they are the most logical outcome. Breivik, however, possessed a crusaderesque ideology which does not seem so logical in its formulation, which seems fantastical. I would disagree that Breivik is a logical outcome of multiculturalism.

I too believe his actions aren't the logical outcome, however, his ideas are, the multi-cultural fascists have essentially created the conditions of extremism to breed, both from Christian Conservatives like Breivik, far-right Islamists, neo-nazi groups (who Breivik opposed), and far left groups who genuinly do want to destroy liberalism for the sake of equality.

[DeanFoley]

Brevik isn't the logical outcome of anything.

[Mehmoodd]

(Original post by prog2djent)
"He'll use whatever reason he can to justify himself.

He was against the islamification of Europe and multiculturalism but killed more nationals..."

He didn't go out on a killing spree on a whim because he is insanse, he wrote a whole manifesto about his motives, sent a load of letters, had videos, wrote on blogs, and even had a novel planned. It was a concise and thought-out attack on people he saw as the enemy.

Yes, he was against the "islamification of europe" and an opponent of multiculturalism, he overstaed many of these reasons but some base points hold discussion worthy value. He want to directly attack the people that gain from multi-culturalism, or are at the centre, i.e. N.African, Arabic and Asian Muslims, but wanted to attack the people who, as he saw, were the people that were creating these conditions, and the negative effects that come along with them.

If you read the work of Geert Wilders, maybe you can get a view point from someone who raises the same central points, but is himself not a christian-conservative conspiritor.

There are many liberals on the anti side of the debate.

Would you not consider him mad for what he did?
Fair enough if he thoroughly planned everything but it still doesn't mean he had a few screws loose.

That seems quite interesting.
Thanks

[danny111]

(Original post by Idle)
I agree with his beliefs to an extent however his actions have only made it harder for those battling his fight the correct way through democratic means.

EDIT: Going to neg me for condemning violence and saying I partially agree with some of his views that you probably haven't even read? OK

Ryan Philippie is so bad-ass.

[G8D]

I sort of sympathise with Breivik's supposed views.

What they have motivated him to do cannot be deplored enough, though.

[Big Jaffa Cake]

The guy had his life ruined, lack of success made his isolated and he decided that instead of suicide he'd do something to get him 'fame' so that he is remmembered for years to come. His intent behind what he did is just an excuse I would say.

[whyumadtho]

Is this British woman representative of anyone's grandmother? How about the sociocultural behaviours of the Queen?

[plimsolls]

What a scary thought that this man was not suffering from any kind of psychosis (schizophrenia is the diagnosis) when he was planning and then executing this crime.

Also, If he were psychopathic, then why would he need to wear an ipod and listen to music when he was approaching his victims for the purposes of trying to 'calm his nerves'.

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
Going on a murder-spree targeting people who have nothing to do with the ills of multiculturalism (or, let's be frank, Muslims in Europe), is illogical. No reasonable person can say that it is a natural consequence. What Breivik did, he did on his own count, not racial or religious tensions.

If Muslims made a thread apologising for a terrorist they'd get hounded out, why is it so acceptable for people to say things like 'we need to do something about multiculturalism otherwise there'll be more Breiviks?'. I've heard a lot about people saying Muslims secretly support terrorism because they haven't come out and condemned it yet people are openly using Breivik's slaughter of children to lobby the government to reduce immigration. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by G8D)
I sort of sympathise with Breivik's supposed views.

What they have motivated him to do cannot be deplored enough, though.

What if a Muslim said this about Osama Bin Laden?