The acts of violence are indefensible from any prespective.
Blame? I guess that will eventually play out.
Is Islam a threat to Western Civilisation? I think so.
Why more now than previously? Our own weakness and division. We need to regain the high moral ground and our economic independence.
Are the stakes high? Is the outcome certain?
We will see what the people of the U.S. are made of. And for the world? We shall also see if the forces of evil prevail.
My copy of "the book" says they ultimately are defeated. In my lifetime? unknown
The Oslo Accords empowered the Palies to go on a murdering, terroristic rampage against Israel. And the Norwegian government allows the Muzzies they have imported to wage jihad against their own citizens. It wasn’t a matter of if but only when a Norwegian decided to fight back against the enablers of Islam.
The Scandanavians also have the 10 rules of Jante Law.
There are ten different rules in the law as defined by Sandemose, but they all express variations on a single theme and are usually referred to as a homogeneous unit: Don’t think you’re anyone special or that you’re better than us.
The ten rules state:
1. Don’t think you’re anything special.
2. Don’t think you’re as good as us.
3. Don’t think you’re smarter than us.
4. Don’t convince yourself that you’re better than us.
5. Don’t think you know more than us.
6. Don’t think you are more important than us.
7. Don’t think you are good at anything.
8. Don’t laugh at us.
9. Don’t think anyone cares about you.
10. Don’t think you can teach us anything.
An eleventh rule recognized in the novel is:
11. Don’t think that there aren’t a few things we know about you.
In the book, the Janters who transgress this unwritten ‘law’ are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law
False premise. The author is uneducated.
THE THIRD TERRORISTThe Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing
by Jayna Davis
Foreward by David P. Schippers
We still don't know what is up. We see a false facebook page went up claiming his Christianity AFTER the killings.
If a practicing Christian, where was his church, who was his pastor and what did other congregational members think of this guy?
The whole point of the First Amendment was to allow people like this killer to redress his grievances in public debate - and even allow for political parties to form that would be (at least nominally) anti-immigration, if immigration was becoming a problem.
Not true in Norway (and much of Europe). Try to debate the issue and you get thrown in front of judges and often jailed for “hate crimes”, which are really thought crimes in these cases. Without open debate, people resort to other means.
God help us if we lose the ability to debate immigration in this country - that will be the one SURE SIGN that our days as a free country are numbered.
The writer has a point. When people are not allowed to discuss an issue, or express their opinions, without being hounded as racists or xenophobes, they could very well become frustrated and lash out in the only way they see available to them that could, they believe, make their point, and call attention to the problem. Sadly, violent acts only seem to call attention to the perpetrator and his or her political or religious leanings, and the media completely ignores a discussion of what the person might say led to do what was done.
Come on guys.. you're dealing with Marxist-Alinsky spoiled brat nut jobs here in the U.S. What happened in Norway is a horrible tragedy -- those thousands murdered by radical Islam is just a statistic.
Besides.. here in the U.S. the media and Obama's Home Land Security are dancing with joy shouting "Hot damn! A Christian terrorist man!"
BTW, in April 1995 Bill Clinton was a stumblin' and a fumblin' -- he used the deaths of hundreds and just a few months later he was a shoo-in for re-election. How will Obama use these deaths? --- question: Was it Allah's will that this horrible act took place?
This piece reeks of the same moral relativism the left employs full time and it’s even more nauseating.
Actually, I think his motives have to be examined more carefully, because he was actually in favor of the establishment of the “caliphate” since he thought this would keep the Muslims in one location, and that the resulting Islamic attacks on Europe would actually be a positive because it would coalesce “European identity.” He had the same theory on the Jews (whom he obviously was not planning on keeping in “his” Europe).
He went to a meeting in Liberia to discuss his ideas with various people, including a Serb (possibly the one who gave him the pro advice on how to do it and actually ran the operation), and the only thing he was worried about with his contacts with Islamists was that he was afraid he couldn’t trust them.
So at the end of the day, all we’re talking about is a more sophisticated European version of the Aryan Brotherhood.
But there isn't going to be more debate now. There will almost certainly be less.
If there were a real counter-power, symbolic or spiritual, enabling a critical debate on the role of Islam in the world without being accused as a racist, maybe this inexcusable and vile act would have taken another form?
First of all, there's something a little bizarre or obscene about the sentence. "Take another form"? Like handing out leaflets or having a public forum or publishing an article in the newspaper? Those aren't "other forms" of killing 90 people. They are acts of a different kind.
Secondly, to say there's no debate is deceptive. This guy was debating these issues on line for some time, as other people have been. Some outlets don't want to admit that there is a debate. Most governments would rather ignore it. But the idea that there isn't any debate going on doesn't fit with reality.
Politics is two steps forward and one step back (if even that). It takes time to change things -- and effort. This nutcase didn't want to put in the effort to change things peacefully. Anybody who encourages hopelessness encourages people like him.