There has been a bombing and terrorist attack in Oslo, Norway.
Anyone want to make book on what the religion was of the people who did it? Or that when it’s revealed, the chin pullers in the media will tie themselves into knots trying to figure out why they’d do such a thing, and that it must be just a sad coincidence?
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s more from ABC News. We can be sure that these tragic events had nothing to do with this:
Earlier this month, a Norwegian prosecutor filed terrorism charges against an Iraqi-born cleric who had allegedly threatened the lives of Norwegian politicians. Mullah Krekar, the founder of the Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam, said in a news conference in 2010 that if he was deported from Norway he would be killed and, therefore, Norwegian politicians deserved the same fate, according to an AP report. The Norwegian government had considered deporting Krekar because he was seen as a national security threat.
I mean, that would just be crazy talk.
[Update at noon]
Twenty to twenty-five dead at a youth camp.
Barbarians. Actually, that’s an insult to barbarians.
If the Vikings never left Scandinavia, this never would have happened.
There’s something wrong with you if you want to kill such inoffensive people.
Its just the vibrancy in Norway.
Looks like the ‘Helpers of the Global Jihad’ are claiming responsibility for the attack. I just went over into a break room to watch MSNBC (it’s locked on that channel) and Andrea Mitchell is too busy railing on the Republicans about the debt deal than to bother talking about the terrorist attack. Me thinks if it was some evil white guy that was responsible we’d see a different tune.
Damn Lutherans, always getting so worked up over those Ole and Lena jokes.
Probably just someone upset about Republican intransigence about tax increases in the debt ceiling debate….
What – nobody’s blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea
baggersParty yet?Norway has a significant problem with their Muslim population.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145161
Googleish
“Witnesses who have managed to escape from the island, says to NRK reporters on the spot that the perpetrator had a Norwegian look. He should be between 185 to 190 cm tall and have blond hair.”
If that’s the case, either it’s a bizarre coincidence that these two events would occur simultaneously, or he’s a convert.
Or he discovered hair coloring. It’s also reported that the shooter is connected to the bomber.
Or, much like Timothy McVeigh, this has nothing to do with Islam.
At this point nobody, including the Norwegians, have a particularly clear picture of exactly what’s going on.
It was a typo right Chris? Should have been “Helpers of the Gobal Jøhad”.
Or, much like Timothy McVeigh, this has nothing to do with Islam.
Actually we don’t know that what Timothy McVeigh did had nothing to do with Islam (or at least the Middle East) because the FBI didn’t investigate it properly.
So you’re saying it’s purely coincidence that someone shot up an island full of kids at the same time as the Islamists set off a bomb? That’s not a new “or” — I presented it as one of the possibilities, albeit a highly unlikely one.
So when is the left going to dedicate a park and put up a statue of Timothy McVeigh? With the left one counter example is enough to discredit a world full of any other. As long as we also ignore the documented fact that Timothy McVeigh did have Islamic connections.
Timothy McVeigh, the gift that keeps on giving to the irrational left.
Actually we don’t know that what Timothy McVeigh did had nothing to do with Islam (or at least the Middle East) because the FBI didn’t investigate it properly.
AWESOME DUDE! That’s set me up for the weekend!
Yep, the police are linking him to both attacks.
“Or, much like Timothy McVeigh, this has nothing to do with Islam.”
This was fifteen years ago. You really ought to update your Islam defense quote. How about the Embassy bombings, wait. Or the USS Cole, no, that’s not it. Mumbai, no. Chechnya, multiple time, oops. Bali, ouch. 9/11!!! Oh darn. Well, I’m sure if you search hard enough, you’ll find one.
AWESOME DUDE! That’s set me up for the weekend!
What kind of weekend are you going to have that a simple statement of fact “set you up for it”?
“What kind of weekend are you going to have that a simple statement of fact “set you up for it”?”
I’m guessing masturbation and alcohol will be involved.
Unlike (I suspect) anyone else on this thread, I have lived in Norway.
“Wodun” made a comment about Norway’s population of Muslims. Yes, there is a community there, was sizable even in the mid-1980’s when we were there.
As for the comments profiling the shooter at the youth camp: there are plenty of Muslims who look just like any other Westerner. Islam is a faith, not an ethnicity. The leading Al Qaeda creep in Yemen was born in Las Cruces, NM, and is a convert.
But if the jihadi element think they can intimidate that country, boy are they in for a shock. The Norwegians were not even intimidated by the Gestapo.
I don’t know what happened. But there is this:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/norway-camp-shooter-identified—-authorities-say-he-was-working-alone-and-attacks-were-not-islamic.html
And there is also this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/norwegian-terrorist-is-an-anti-islam-nationalist-2011-7
In online debates marks Anders Behring Breivik as well read, and one with strong opinions about Norwegian politics. He promotes a very conservative opinions, which he also called nationalist. He expresses himself strongly opposed to multiculturalism – that cultural differences can live together in a community.
Breivik has had many posts on the site Document.no, an Islam-critical site that publishes news and commentary.
In one of the posts he states that politics today no longer revolves around socialism against capitalism, but that the fight is between nationalism and internationalism. He expressed clear support for the nationalist mindset.
Anders Breivik Behring has also commented on the Swedish news articles, where he makes it clear that he believes the media have failed by not being “NOK” Islam-critical.
So you’re saying it’s purely coincidence that someone shot up an island full of kids at the same time as the Islamists set off a bomb?
Why the certainty that Islamists set off a bomb?
The Norwegian government says the attacks are linked. The person they have in custody is reportedly a self-described nationalist who has posted anti-Islamic comments.
Assuming that’s the case, was it just coincidence that this happened about the same time as the bombing, or was he involved in the bombing as well? And if the latter, why did a jihadist organization claim responsibility — opportunism for street cred? And of course, what did he think would be accomplished by shooting a bunch of kids?
This is getting to be very weird.
So only one Islamist terror attack instead of two.
I’m amazed by this thread. Bill and Rand: read the first link I provided.
No, wait, I guess I need to spell this out: the theory is that there was only guy, a right-wing anti-Islamist, who was responsible for both the bombing and the shooting. His motive was to attack the Labor party (the camp was run by the Labor party, for young political enthusiasts, I suppose).
why did a jihadist organization claim responsibility
Is it conceivable that a jihadist organization might lie?
what did he think would be accomplished by shooting a bunch of kids?
What does any terrorist think will be accomplished by killing a bunch of innocents?
This is getting to be very weird.
It’s no weirder than any other mass murder, unless you start from a presumption of Islamic responsibility for all terror attacks.
a right-wing anti-Islamist
Would you care to unravel that?
Thank you Curt. I should have said “anti-Muslim” ( although naturally he would also be against Islamists, he doesn’t seem to differentiate.) Like you, he is against multiculturalism.
What does any terrorist think will be accomplished by killing a bunch of innocents?
It varies. There are records. Some rather graphic.
Care to offer some opinions?
Like you, he is against multiculturalism.
More specifically, I am against multi-culti drones. Thank you for distinguishing yourself.
Is it conceivable that a jihadist organization might lie?
What a stupid question. Of course it is. Didn’t you read the next sentence in which I put forth that possibility?
It’s no weirder than any other mass murder, unless you start from a presumption of Islamic responsibility for all terror attacks.
It’s not a presumption, but it’s usually (as I noted) a good bet.
I’ll make this bold claim. If he is responsible for both, the press will trumpet this as a sign of the right wing extremism (cue the SPLC)we can expect here and after each of the next ten or one hundred Islamist attacks, this will be trotted out as a defense (enjoy Chris, you’re good for another 15).
The latest I see up in the news is this:
“Norwegian TV2 reports that Breivik belongs to “ring-wing circles” in Oslo. Swedish news site Expressen adds that he has been known to write to right-wing forums in Norway, is a self-described nationalist and has also written a number of posts critical of Islam.”
A few months ago, when Gabby Giffords and the other people were shot in Tucson, conservatives were outraged when it was blamed on SP’s infamous ‘targeting’ website. Well, how does your normal law-abiding Muslim American respond to the knee-jerk reactions to this new horror, that we’ve seen on this thread?
Bill, defense against what? Against jumping to conclusions?
Why do they need to respond at all? How could they possibly be affected in any way? Normal law-abiding Muslim Americans have nothing to fear. Period.
“knee-jerk?” Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (Helpers of Global Jihad) takes credit for the attack and then issues a retraction hours later. Who took credit for the Giffords shooting?
It is pretty natural and rational to suspect the involvement of radical Islamists in an event like this considering nearly all of the similar events like this over the last 11 years or so have had one thing in common. There was even recent threats directed against the country.
This time it turned out not to be the case.
The actions of this person were totally inexcusable. Violence as political statement is never acceptable, especially in societies where political change can happen at the ballot box.
“Well, how does your normal law-abiding Muslim American respond to the knee-jerk reactions to this new horror, that we’ve seen on this thread?”
Well in the case of Giffords, no one suspected Islamists and the people who blamed SP didn’t do so out of any established pattern of similar events over the last decade.
The other major difference is that after it was demonstrated that Islamic terrorists were not to blame that people accordingly placed blame where it lies. Where as with SP the people who accused her of the Giffords shooting still blame her.
Violence as political statement is never acceptable, especially in societies where political change can happen at the ballot box.
Well, Lincoln may have disagreed.
“Well, Lincoln may have disagreed.”
Somehow I doubt Lincoln would have agreed to car bombs and the mass murder of children at summer camp.
I comprehend your point, even though I disagree with it.
Somehow I doubt Lincoln would have agreed to car bombs and the mass murder of children at summer camp.
Certainly not. Such measures would have only slowed down the carnage machines he unleashed on the South from 1863 on.
Sometimes violence is not only acceptable, it is necessary, even vital, even in places where political change can occur at the ballot box.
John Brown is called “the father of American terrorism.” Lincoln called John Brown insane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)#Senate_investigation
Also, very briefly, it seems to odd to speak of political change at the ballot box in the 1860s America when so many Americans were disenfranchised. If all adult Americans had had the vote, your point about Lincoln would be more relevant to Norway.
John Brown is called “the father of American terrorism.” Lincoln called John Brown insane
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Are you saying that because Lincoln thought Brown insane that Lincoln didn’t believe in violence to effect political change?
I think Wodun answered you quite well. I also think Lincoln would have preferred to have been peacetime president. I mentioned Brown only to illustrate that Lincoln preferred non-violence even when the motive was abolitionism. I see no point in arguing about issues such as who started the civil war, the obligations of the US president in wartime, the manner in which the civil war was fought, etc.
For 99% of people there will be some circumstance when violence is accepted. What those circumstances are is where people get into disagreements.
I am not really sure what a right wing political philosophy is in Norway in relation to the right wing in the states but what happened today is exponentially worse than bombing abortion clinics and the murder of Dr Tiller.
I’ve never even heard of an event like this in Europe that wasn’t connected to some sort of separatist movement or Islamic radicals. I am sure someone will correct my ignorance.