Tortured at the asylum center in Norway

Dagen.com ^ | Aug 26, 2011 | Alice Tegle

[icanhasbailout]

They were advocating for the causes of Islamic murderers. Why else would Norweigians be involved in anti-Israel rallies? Do you need to see a picture (they are available)?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Yes, I've seen the pictures: BOICOTT (Boycott) ISRAEL, the little lakecraft with "break the blockade" banners and all that. But they didn't know they were supporting murderers. Pam Geller, whom I consider a reliable source, notes that all of their young lives they'd been told just the opposite; she says most Europeans have never even heard that the HAMAS charter calls, not for some bogus "two-state solution," but for the elimination of Israel.

I also read that when Breivik started shooting down the campers, some of them for a few moments thought it was a skit, a piece of make-believe intended to dramatize how the Israelis shoot down unarmed Palestinian civilians. Wrong-o.

So: (1) First these kids are made the victims of lying propaganda

(2) Then comes Breivik, who actually takes the anti-Zionist lies and transforms them into reality. The word made flesh! He literally does shoot down unarmed civilians.

Got that? First their own Norwegian Labour leaders, their parents, the media, the schools, lie to the kids, slander Israel and its supporters; then Breivik turns it 'true' after all, by killing them.

Their parents, the Labourites, victimized them by falsehood; Breivik did far worse and victimized them by murder. So they are twice victimized.

And then a third thing: now even more Norwegians are convinced that the lies are true: that the Muslims are innocent victims and the anti-jihad movement is run by either psychotics or criminals and probably both.

As Talleyrand would say, it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.

Breivik cut the legs out from under his own movement, which has now been smeared with the blood of beardless boys and bluejeaned girls and set back for a generation.

Repulsively evil and useless to boot: it certainly illustrates the maxim, "Sin makes you stupid."

[EyeGuy]

“The recent bombing and murder there by a right-wing fanatic....”

###

Incorrect terminology.

The guy was all over the charts, and was probably least of all, “right wing”.

[icanhasbailout]

IMO the fault lies squarely on the parents for training their kids to be soldiers and traitors. They created the circumstances that made the ideal method of striking back at them through their kids. It is illegal in Norway - guilty until proven innocent - to even protest the rapid Islamization of their country. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” In light of the circumstances acts such as these are acts of resistance against tyranny, ugly and unfortunate as they are.

Whether it is a blunder remains to be seen. The widespread reporting of the incident and dissemination of the “manifesto” gave his ideas more publicity than any other method could have - remember, he would have been tried and convicted of hate crimes had he attempted to spread his ideas peacefully. Certainly violence has worked extremely well for Islam in spreading their ideas and influence into the West.

[Dubh_Ghlase]

Doesn’t matter so much what he is, but how he is being portrayed. In the Norway press, he’s a right-wing fanatic...

[EyeGuy]

“Doesn’t matter so much what he is, but how he is being portrayed. In the Norway press, he’s a right-wing fanatic...”

####

Well, it does matter what he is.

After all, why would we expect the international CommunistPress to portray him as anything BUT a “crazed right winger”?

How else to further their ongoing agenda?

See the gross historical mischaracterization of Nazi Germany, as a bunch of foaming at the mouth, hate-filled RIGHT wingers.

[Dubh_Ghlase]

That's exactly my point. Doesn't matter what his real reasons were (Can you say "just plain crazy"?). He has become a poster-boy (tool) for the liberals to use to portray their enemies.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It strikes me that if Breivik didn't exist, the Left would have had to invent him. He has proven to be immensely useful to the Norwegian Labour Party, already, in promoting more intensive multiculturalism in the schools and the media, and more comprehensive investigation and prosecution of those "guilty" of "hate-speech". The net impact has been to motivate Norwegians to dig deeper into the hole of Islamo-lala-ism .

I think we agree about the Norwegian Left ideologically poisoning these kids. But it is not correct to say that the campers' parents were guilty of "training their kids to be soldiers". Quite the contrary: they disarmed them both mentally and literally. I doubt there were any weapons on the whole damn island. Breivik chose it for his crime spree in part because Norwegian Leftists' kids are intellectually and physically defenseless.

Geert Wilders has shown that the best response to PC /multiculti tyranny is disobedience. If it's illegal to write or speak against Islamization, do a camapign of speaking and writing. If conversion from Islam to Christianity is "apostasy" and inspires death-threats, then be sure to get baptized by the Pope

And receive Communion at an Easter Vigil ceremony that's broadcast live on six continents.

You noted that “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” That's true. But it's not yet impossible to make peaceful revolution. I repeat: Wilders won. Steyn won. Magdi Allam and Pope B16 won a round, too. I hope I can always say "I'm with them", win or lose --- but I wouldn't waste one whispy breath "understanding" or "contextualizing" a defective loser like Breivik.

BTW, nice talking with you, icanhasbailout. This was a worthwhile discussion.

[icanhasbailout]

I have enjoyed our conversation as well, thank you too.

I remain of the opinion that violence can’t be taken off the table. I point to Tibet as an example - totally nonviolent, and it did absolutely nothing for them. Their culture and people have been systematically eradicated and replaced by a foreign culture and people. Somewhere between here and there, a people has a right to violently oppose a program intended to eradicate them. But I can respect your point of view and do agree that peaceful means, where they exist, should be the first choice method of resistance.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks again, icanhasbailout (cool name, by the way).

To clear up one point, I was not arguing that "all violence" should be taken off the table. That would be pacifism, which is not a sound position in my view. I support the well-defined use of force in a just war against aggressors. The poinbt would be to destroy the enemy's military assets to the point where they are forced to stop aggressing.

The argument I've been making, is that it is essential to focus on military targets, and wrong to kill unarmed noncombatants.

[icanhasbailout]

Walk through this with me, maybe there's a flaw in my thinking here.

Let me pose a hypothetical scenario.

Let's say you were faced with an enemy who has declared existential war against you, and had pursued that war to the limit of its ability. The enemy's stated ultimate goal is to exterminate you - he believes he has divine right to pursue this course and will not be swayed from it at any time under any circumstances. This enemy also believes that any means are justified if it leads to furtherance of this goal.

What course of action is necessary to survive when faced with such an enemy?

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's why I don't talk about "civilians," but about "non-combatants." The Jihad forces we face today, are non-state actors who deploy non-uniformed combatants without a recognized chain of command, without any list of demands or bargaining points, without an identified command cadre you could wipe out to definitively "finish them off" or who could even surender and call off the dogs.

So it's impossible to talk about "civilian immunity" --- I recognize that. But you still have to focus on their military assets. You have to draw a line against simply carrying out civilian massacres, and at the same time use lethal force to stop them from training, arming, transporting, and deploying their thugs.

Anytime you draw a line, there are always going to be borderline cases where, despite the ambiguity about "are these combatants or what?", you've got to strike. I know that.

But anytime you draw a line, there are also cases which fall far to one side, or far to another. (In other wors, very often you CAN distinguish between a military assets and a middle school.) The big error would be failing to draw a line at all: going into intentionally indiscrimiante killing. That --- directly intended, premeditated indiscriminate killing with malice aforethought --- is not an act of war. It's murder. It's what jihadis do.

Here'a another FR thread --- provocatively titled "Why is it so hard to find a suicide bomber these days?" (Link) --- whcih , among other things, suggests that we actually HAVE made progress over the last 10 years in making the jihadis much less able to carry out their terror program.

Give it a look-see and, if you have time, let me know what you think.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hmm, this might be more to the point:

The Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars -- by Yaacov Lozowick

Lozowick focuses on Israel's military conduct. They have, he says, done a good job of defending their right to exist, using lethal force with supreme skill when necessary, but --- even in extremely difficult circumstances --- not permitting unrestrained acts against Palestinian/ Muslim populations per se.

Gotta go now. G'night!

[Anti-Bubba182]

Why is there an asylum center in Norway?