Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT Self defense part deux.
0 views
Skip to first unread message
theget
Apr 16, 2012, 5:43:12 PM4/16/12
to
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/world/europe/norway-breivik-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
""I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty, and I claim I was
doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik told a court in
Oslo."
This part makes me curious... "His defense will try to prove he was
sane at the time of the killings, his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said
Monday."
He has to prove his sanity? Is there a presumption of insanity in
Norway?
""I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty, and I claim I was
doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik told a court in
Oslo."
This part makes me curious... "His defense will try to prove he was
sane at the time of the killings, his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said
Monday."
He has to prove his sanity? Is there a presumption of insanity in
Norway?
David Johnston
Apr 16, 2012, 9:37:27 PM4/16/12
to
The second disagreed. Given that he proudly claims credit for his
mass murders, the only question before the court is "Is he crazy or just
evil". But this desire of his to prove his sanity has less to do with
the court, since he's going away either way, but with his desire to
convince the Norwegian public that his behaviour was perfectly rational
and a model to be emulated.
theget
Apr 17, 2012, 11:32:07 AM4/17/12
to
> >http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/world/europe/norway-breivik-trial/index...
second group and discard the opinion of the first set? Not really
having to prove that he's sane?
“Never go to sea with two chronometers."
Maybe the court will order up a new set of reports and take the
majoritarian view.
I know nothing about how the Norwegian courts work, so I wonder who
the finder of fact is. Jury? Judge? Judges? From reading this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_appeal_%28Norway%29 I think he
may get a jury trial.
> But this desire of his to prove his sanity has less to do with
> the court, since he's going away either way, but with his desire to
> convince the Norwegian public that his behaviour was perfectly rational
> and a model to be emulated.
Desire to convince the Norwegian public....?!?!? That's just crazy
talk!
Oh.
>
> > ""I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty, and I claim I was
> > doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik told a court in
> > Oslo."
>
> > This part makes me curious... "His defense will try to prove he was
> > sane at the time of the killings, his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said
> > Monday."
>
> > He has to prove his sanity? Is there a presumption of insanity in
> > Norway?
>
> The first set of shrinks delivered a report that said "Yup, he's nuts."
> The second disagreed. Given that he proudly claims credit for his
> mass murders, the only question before the court is "Is he crazy or just
> evil".
So it's really more a matter of getting the court to agree with the
> > ""I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty, and I claim I was
> > doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik told a court in
> > Oslo."
>
> > This part makes me curious... "His defense will try to prove he was
> > sane at the time of the killings, his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said
> > Monday."
>
> > He has to prove his sanity? Is there a presumption of insanity in
> > Norway?
>
> The first set of shrinks delivered a report that said "Yup, he's nuts."
> The second disagreed. Given that he proudly claims credit for his
> mass murders, the only question before the court is "Is he crazy or just
> evil".
second group and discard the opinion of the first set? Not really
having to prove that he's sane?
“Never go to sea with two chronometers."
Maybe the court will order up a new set of reports and take the
majoritarian view.
I know nothing about how the Norwegian courts work, so I wonder who
the finder of fact is. Jury? Judge? Judges? From reading this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_appeal_%28Norway%29 I think he
may get a jury trial.
> But this desire of his to prove his sanity has less to do with
> the court, since he's going away either way, but with his desire to
> convince the Norwegian public that his behaviour was perfectly rational
> and a model to be emulated.
talk!
Oh.
theget
Apr 17, 2012, 12:19:20 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
"He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
damage that might be caused by his act.""
But I guess that the court would first have to accept his premise,
that Norway faces a danger from "multiculturalism", which is I think
Breivik's code word for racism, since he also said: "He identified as
his enemy the "cultural Marxists" who he said had destroyed Norway by
using it as "a dumping ground for the surplus births of the third
world". Claiming Norwegians would be a minority in their own capital
"within five years", he blamed liberal politicians for bringing about
Norway's demise with "feminism, quotas … transforming the church,
schools"."
Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
OTOH, he said: "Breivik said: "They expect us to applaud our ethnic
and cultural doom..." So he distinguishes between culture and
ethnicity, but is concerned about both. He sounds like a race warrior.
And wait, there actually is something called "Cultural Marxism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
"He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
damage that might be caused by his act.""
But I guess that the court would first have to accept his premise,
that Norway faces a danger from "multiculturalism", which is I think
Breivik's code word for racism, since he also said: "He identified as
his enemy the "cultural Marxists" who he said had destroyed Norway by
using it as "a dumping ground for the surplus births of the third
world". Claiming Norwegians would be a minority in their own capital
"within five years", he blamed liberal politicians for bringing about
Norway's demise with "feminism, quotas … transforming the church,
schools"."
Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
OTOH, he said: "Breivik said: "They expect us to applaud our ethnic
and cultural doom..." So he distinguishes between culture and
ethnicity, but is concerned about both. He sounds like a race warrior.
And wait, there actually is something called "Cultural Marxism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
David Johnston
Apr 17, 2012, 2:26:32 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
>
> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>
> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
> damage that might be caused by his act.""
Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
>
> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>
> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
> damage that might be caused by his act.""
unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
avoided or escaped by the killer.
>
> But I guess that the court would first have to accept his premise,
> that Norway faces a danger from "multiculturalism", which is I think
> Breivik's code word for racism,
> Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
> But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
> same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
> called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
theget
Apr 17, 2012, 6:54:11 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 17, 2:26 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-cl...
> On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>
>
> > Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>
> > "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
> > reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
> > code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
> > committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
> > otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
> > regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
> > damage that might be caused by his act.""
>
> Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
> unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
> avoided or escaped by the killer.
Ok, true.
> > Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>
> > "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
> > reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
> > code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
> > committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
> > otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
> > regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
> > damage that might be caused by his act.""
>
> Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
> unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
> avoided or escaped by the killer.
However, I tend to think that if we take the law as writ then Breivik
may be shot on sight.
> > But I guess that the court would first have to accept his premise,
> > that Norway faces a danger from "multiculturalism", which is I think
> > Breivik's code word for racism,
>
> For the acceptance of other races in large numbers.
>
> > Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
> > But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
> > same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
> > called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
>
> The vast majority of Muslims are non-European in ancestry.
Sahara and Sub Saharan Africa, Western, Central and Eastern Asian and
the Sub Asian Continent and Oceania and yes, Europe. It seems hard to
me to characterize people from all those places as being members of a
race.
It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
David Johnston
Apr 17, 2012, 8:00:14 PM4/17/12
to
On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:26 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-cl...
>>
>>> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>>
>>> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
>>> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
>>> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
>>> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
>>> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
>>> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
>>> damage that might be caused by his act.""
>>
>> Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
>> unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
>> avoided or escaped by the killer.
>
> Ok, true.
>
> However, I tend to think that if we take the law as writ then Breivik
> may be shot on sight.
Only if he poses an otherwise unavoidable danger. So if you saw Breivik
> On Apr 17, 2:26 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-cl...
>>
>>> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>>
>>> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
>>> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
>>> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
>>> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
>>> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
>>> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
>>> damage that might be caused by his act.""
>>
>> Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
>> unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
>> avoided or escaped by the killer.
>
> Ok, true.
>
> However, I tend to think that if we take the law as writ then Breivik
> may be shot on sight.
with a gun...
>>> Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
>>> But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
>>> same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
>>> called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
>>
>> The vast majority of Muslims are non-European in ancestry.
>
> They may be, but there are Muslims who are from both North of the
> Sahara and Sub Saharan Africa, Western, Central and Eastern Asian and
> the Sub Asian Continent and Oceania and yes, Europe. It seems hard to
> me to characterize people from all those places as being members of a
> race.
>
> It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
> against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
"muslim" to be a race.
>
theget
Apr 18, 2012, 11:47:40 AM4/18/12
to
race and hates that race, then it's racism?
Driven by the mindset of the hater and not the facts of the situation?
Otherwise, I'm pretty sure I don't understand what you mean.
David Johnston
Apr 18, 2012, 12:19:50 PM4/18/12
to
On 4/18/2012 9:47 AM, theget wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:00 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>>> against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>> The belief that anti-muslim hatred is driven by racism does not require
>> "muslim" to be a race.
>
>
> Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
> race and hates that race, then it's racism?
No. That's not what I mean. Since the vast majority of Muslims are not
> On Apr 17, 8:00 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>>> against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>> The belief that anti-muslim hatred is driven by racism does not require
>> "muslim" to be a race.
>
>
> Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
> race and hates that race, then it's racism?
of European descent, it is possible to believe that hatred of Muslims is
driven by racism even while being aware that "Muslim" is not a race.
David Johnston
Apr 18, 2012, 4:38:10 PM4/18/12
to
On 4/17/2012 9:32 AM, theget wrote:
> I know nothing about how the Norwegian courts work, so I wonder who
> the finder of fact is. Jury? Judge? Judges? From reading this,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_appeal_%28Norway%29 I think he
> may get a jury trial.
No, he gets a panel of five judges.
> I know nothing about how the Norwegian courts work, so I wonder who
> the finder of fact is. Jury? Judge? Judges? From reading this,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_appeal_%28Norway%29 I think he
> may get a jury trial.
David Johnston
Apr 18, 2012, 5:52:41 PM4/18/12
to
theget
Apr 18, 2012, 6:42:10 PM4/18/12
to
What about hatred of Christians? Is it possible to believe that
hatred of Christians is driven by racism even though "Christian" is
not a race?
What about Hindus? I know of no Hindus who are not Indian. If someone
hates Hindus is it driven by racism? Is it possible to hate Hindus
without being racist?
David Johnston
Apr 18, 2012, 11:01:22 PM4/18/12
to
On 4/18/2012 4:42 PM, theget wrote:
> On Apr 18, 12:19 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 9:47 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 8:00 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>>>>> against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>>>> The belief that anti-muslim hatred is driven by racism does not require
>>>> "muslim" to be a race.
>>
>>> Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
>>> race and hates that race, then it's racism?
>>
>> No. That's not what I mean. Since the vast majority of Muslims are not
>> of European descent, it is possible to believe that hatred of Muslims is
>> driven by racism even while being aware that "Muslim" is not a race.
>
> Racism against...?
Non whites. Do I need to type slower?
> On Apr 18, 12:19 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 9:47 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 17, 8:00 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>>>>> against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>>>> The belief that anti-muslim hatred is driven by racism does not require
>>>> "muslim" to be a race.
>>
>>> Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
>>> race and hates that race, then it's racism?
>>
>> No. That's not what I mean. Since the vast majority of Muslims are not
>> of European descent, it is possible to believe that hatred of Muslims is
>> driven by racism even while being aware that "Muslim" is not a race.
>
> Racism against...?
>
> What about hatred of Christians? Is it possible to believe that
> not a race?
Of course it's possible.
>
> What about Hindus? I know of no Hindus who are not Indian. If someone
> hates Hindus is it driven by racism?
Is it possible to hate Hindus
> without being racist?
>
Hunter
Apr 20, 2012, 5:10:29 AM4/20/12
to
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:26:32 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
>On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
>>
>> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>>
>> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
>> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
>> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
>> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
>> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
>> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
>> damage that might be caused by his act.""
>
>Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
>unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
>avoided or escaped by the killer.
-----
Hardly the same thing. Your life has to be actually in danger for it
to apply. You have to be plastically attacked. It just gives you the
"right" not to retreat.
Braviek is just corrupting Norwegian law that is supposed to apply to
individuals. I am sure he is using Islamofacist terrorism as a
justification of self defense, but if we are to take the analogy with
Florida's (and 20 other state's) Stand your Ground provision of self
defense to its logical conclusion then not only would you have the
right to not retreat and kill your attacker if he is putting you in
grave bodily harm or your life but then when you are finished killing
him you could go kill your attacker's family even if they had nothing
to do with it. George Zimmerman would not only kill Trayvon Martin but
then go after Trayvon's dad, mother, any relatives to them.
And religions
True, in fact the majority of Muslims aren't Middle Eastern, but East
Asian.. However there are many more white Muslims than you think. The
Bosnians and the Chechen being the most obvious.
At any rate Muslims come in all races just like Christians, just like
Jews. I understand what you are getting at and I am sure Breivik
doesn't like all the blacks and Asians in his country no matter what
their religion is but, but I don't think he will welcome white Muslims
from Bosnia with open arms either. After all in the 1990s the white
Christian Serbs tried to kill as many white Muslim Bosnians as
possible so it is no guarantee he would like Bosnian Muslims just
because they are white. Islam from his POV is alien to Norway.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
wrote:
>On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
>>
>> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>>
>> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
>> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
>> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
>> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
>> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
>> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
>> damage that might be caused by his act.""
>
>Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
>unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
>avoided or escaped by the killer.
Hardly the same thing. Your life has to be actually in danger for it
to apply. You have to be plastically attacked. It just gives you the
"right" not to retreat.
Braviek is just corrupting Norwegian law that is supposed to apply to
individuals. I am sure he is using Islamofacist terrorism as a
justification of self defense, but if we are to take the analogy with
Florida's (and 20 other state's) Stand your Ground provision of self
defense to its logical conclusion then not only would you have the
right to not retreat and kill your attacker if he is putting you in
grave bodily harm or your life but then when you are finished killing
him you could go kill your attacker's family even if they had nothing
to do with it. George Zimmerman would not only kill Trayvon Martin but
then go after Trayvon's dad, mother, any relatives to them.
>>
>> But I guess that the court would first have to accept his premise,
>> that Norway faces a danger from "multiculturalism", which is I think
>> Breivik's code word for racism,
>
>For the acceptance of other races in large numbers.
------
>> But I guess that the court would first have to accept his premise,
>> that Norway faces a danger from "multiculturalism", which is I think
>> Breivik's code word for racism,
>
>For the acceptance of other races in large numbers.
And religions
>
>> Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
>> But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
>> same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
>> called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
>
>The vast majority of Muslims are non-European in ancestry.
-----
>> Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
>> But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
>> same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
>> called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
>
>The vast majority of Muslims are non-European in ancestry.
True, in fact the majority of Muslims aren't Middle Eastern, but East
Asian.. However there are many more white Muslims than you think. The
Bosnians and the Chechen being the most obvious.
At any rate Muslims come in all races just like Christians, just like
Jews. I understand what you are getting at and I am sure Breivik
doesn't like all the blacks and Asians in his country no matter what
their religion is but, but I don't think he will welcome white Muslims
from Bosnia with open arms either. After all in the 1990s the white
Christian Serbs tried to kill as many white Muslim Bosnians as
possible so it is no guarantee he would like Bosnian Muslims just
because they are white. Islam from his POV is alien to Norway.
------>Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Hunter
Apr 20, 2012, 7:07:50 AM4/20/12
to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:37:27 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
----
Exactly. It is short of like the Unibomber case. Ted Kaczynski thought
he was doing the perfectly rational thing too and actually fought his
lawyers even firing them when they tried to mount a insanity defense.
He wanted the world to see his point of view not be dismissed as a
nut. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia so he is mentally
ill but the criteria in US Courts is did the perpetrator know right
from wrong, not just purely mentally ill or not and the burden is on
the defense to prove it.
In Norway and the other Scandinavian countries and I think Holland as
well. If all the doctors agreed he was nuts then there wouldn't have
been a trial, at least not a criminal one. He would've been sent to
the insane asylum whether or not he knew "right or wrong".
BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it. They
even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
world his noble act from their POV? Have they figured out finally how
bad it makes their side look?
wrote:
Exactly. It is short of like the Unibomber case. Ted Kaczynski thought
he was doing the perfectly rational thing too and actually fought his
lawyers even firing them when they tried to mount a insanity defense.
He wanted the world to see his point of view not be dismissed as a
nut. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia so he is mentally
ill but the criteria in US Courts is did the perpetrator know right
from wrong, not just purely mentally ill or not and the burden is on
the defense to prove it.
In Norway and the other Scandinavian countries and I think Holland as
well. If all the doctors agreed he was nuts then there wouldn't have
been a trial, at least not a criminal one. He would've been sent to
the insane asylum whether or not he knew "right or wrong".
BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it. They
even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
world his noble act from their POV? Have they figured out finally how
bad it makes their side look?
David Johnston
Apr 20, 2012, 11:08:24 AM4/20/12
to
On 4/20/2012 3:10 AM, Hunter (Hunter) wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:26:32 -0600, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
>>>
>>> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>>>
>>> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
>>> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
>>> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
>>> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
>>> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
>>> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
>>> damage that might be caused by his act.""
>>
>> Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
>> unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
>> avoided or escaped by the killer.
> -----
> Hardly the same thing. Your life has to be actually in danger for it
> to apply. You have to be plastically attacked. It just gives you the
> "right" not to retreat.
Well yeah. The Norwegian also requires lives to be directly at risk if
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:26:32 -0600, David Johnston<Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2012 10:19 AM, theget wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 5:43 pm, theget<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's some of what Breivik said in court.
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/17/anders-behring-breivik-claims-victims-not-innocent?newsfeed=true
>>>
>>> Looks like Norway may have an even weirder law than Florida.
>>>
>>> "He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally
>>> reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal
>>> code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has
>>> committed in order to save someone's person or property from an
>>> otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in
>>> regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the
>>> damage that might be caused by his act.""
>>
>> Defense of self or others. Not that odd. The Florida law is just
>> unusual in that it covers confrontations which could have been easily
>> avoided or escaped by the killer.
> -----
> Hardly the same thing. Your life has to be actually in danger for it
> to apply. You have to be plastically attacked. It just gives you the
> "right" not to retreat.
you are going to start killing people. Just because he's offering a
justification defense doesn't mean that it has any grounding in the law.
>>
>>> Part of that seems to me to be about racism and not multiculturalism.
>>> But maybe in Norway those two concepts are becoming conflated, in the
>>> same way that when people in the US criticize Islam they are sometimes
>>> called racists, even though there is no Muslim race.
>>
>> The vast majority of Muslims are non-European in ancestry.
> -----
> True, in fact the majority of Muslims aren't Middle Eastern, but East
> Asian.. However there are many more white Muslims than you think. The
> Bosnians and the Chechen being the most obvious.
minority of the whole.
>
> At any rate Muslims come in all races just like Christians, just like
> Jews. I understand what you are getting at and I am sure Breivik
> doesn't like all the blacks and Asians in his country no matter what
> their religion is but, but I don't think he will welcome white Muslims
> from Bosnia with open arms either. After all in the 1990s the white
> Christian Serbs tried to kill as many white Muslim Bosnians as
> possible so it is no guarantee he would like Bosnian Muslims just
> because they are white. Islam from his POV is alien to Norway.
Hunter
Apr 20, 2012, 6:11:31 PM4/20/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:47:40 -0700 (PDT), theget
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Apr 17, 8:00=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>> > It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>> > against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>> The belief that anti-muslim hatred is driven by racism does not require
>> "muslim" to be a race.
>
>
>Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
>race and hates that race, then it's racism?
-----
From his POV? Yes.
Yes. Even if he misunderstands the meaning or race and applies it
incorrectly, based on that belief as incorrect as it is he is a
racist.
(snip)
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Apr 17, 8:00=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>> > It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>> > against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>> The belief that anti-muslim hatred is driven by racism does not require
>> "muslim" to be a race.
>
>
>Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
>race and hates that race, then it's racism?
From his POV? Yes.
>
>Driven by the mindset of the hater and not the facts of the situation?
-----
>Driven by the mindset of the hater and not the facts of the situation?
Yes. Even if he misunderstands the meaning or race and applies it
incorrectly, based on that belief as incorrect as it is he is a
racist.
(snip)
theget
Apr 20, 2012, 11:58:15 PM4/20/12
to
can his his distaste for Muslims be called racism?
theget
Apr 20, 2012, 11:53:50 PM4/20/12
to
On Apr 20, 7:07 am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it.
Here? Posting here? I did only a quick search and found a thread "How
> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it.
do you spell Tim McVeigh in Norwegian?" A quick look didn't reveal
anyone supporting Breivik.
> They
Who?
> even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
> declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
> world his noble act from their POV?
Cite? Are you thinking of another usenet group?
> Have they figured out finally how bad it makes their side look?
ability to make that judgement.
David Johnston
Apr 21, 2012, 1:27:58 AM4/21/12
to
David Johnston
Apr 21, 2012, 1:29:52 AM4/21/12
to
On 4/20/2012 9:53 PM, theget wrote:
> On Apr 20, 7:07 am, Hunter<buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>
>
>> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
>> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
>> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it.
>
> Here? Posting here? I did only a quick search and found a thread "How
> do you spell Tim McVeigh in Norwegian?" A quick look didn't reveal
> anyone supporting Breivik.
>
>
>> They
>
> Who?
>
>> even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
>> declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
>> world his noble act from their POV?
>
> Sorry, but I don't recall anyone here posting something like this.
> Cite? Are you thinking of another usenet group?
There was a guy on rec.arts.tv who expressed a lot of support for Breivik.
> On Apr 20, 7:07 am, Hunter<buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>
>
>> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
>> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
>> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it.
>
> Here? Posting here? I did only a quick search and found a thread "How
> do you spell Tim McVeigh in Norwegian?" A quick look didn't reveal
> anyone supporting Breivik.
>
>
>> They
>
> Who?
>
>> even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
>> declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
>> world his noble act from their POV?
>
> Sorry, but I don't recall anyone here posting something like this.
> Cite? Are you thinking of another usenet group?
Hunter
Apr 21, 2012, 4:01:13 AM4/21/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:19:50 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
-----
I can see that and agree. The test will be how he feels about Bosnians
and Chechnyens, both White Muslim peoples. What was his position on
what the Christian Serbs doing to the Bosnian Muslims during the war
in the former Yugoslavia? How about what the Russians did in the first
and second Chechnya war in the 1990s and early 2000's? His answer
would be revealing.
I can see that and agree. The test will be how he feels about Bosnians
and Chechnyens, both White Muslim peoples. What was his position on
what the Christian Serbs doing to the Bosnian Muslims during the war
in the former Yugoslavia? How about what the Russians did in the first
and second Chechnya war in the 1990s and early 2000's? His answer
would be revealing.
Hunter
Apr 21, 2012, 7:02:20 AM4/21/12
to
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:42:10 -0700 (PDT), theget
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Apr 18, 12:19=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 9:47 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 17, 8:00 pm, David Johnston<Da...@block.net> =A0wrote:
At least those who aren't white who are Muslims.
Yes if one believes a characteristic of the race is to be Christian
and he has a problem with Christianity like they commit terrorist acts
and seek to change the nature of his country. If he notices that a lot
of them are a certain color he could develop racist feelings and begin
to assume anyone of that color is automatically Christian. A lot of
Christians from Arab countries who obviously "look" Arab are
automatically assumed to be Muslim and so catch a lot of flack for it.
Yes. You may have a problem with the religion itself and all those who
practices it but has nothing to do with the biological make up of that
person. Say a Indian Hindu person happens to have brown or black skin
Next to him is another Indian who is just as dark as the other guy but
he is Christian. If Breivik likes the Christian but hates the Hindu
then obviously he is not a racist but he is intolerant of other's
religious beliefs.
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Apr 18, 12:19=A0pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2012 9:47 AM, theget wrote:
>>
>> >> On 4/17/2012 4:54 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>> >>> It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>> >>> against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>> >> The belief that anti-muslim hatred is driven by racism does not requir=
>>
>> >>> It's not clear to me that believing there is a Muslim race and being
>> >>> against this wholly imaginary construct makes one a racist.
>>
>e
>> >> "muslim" to be a race.
>>
>> > Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
>> > race and hates that race, then it's racism?
>>
>> No. =A0That's not what I mean. =A0Since the vast majority of Muslims are =
>> >> "muslim" to be a race.
>>
>> > Do you mean if the hater hates because he thinks Muslims constitute a
>> > race and hates that race, then it's racism?
>>
>not
>> of European descent, it is possible to believe that hatred of Muslims is
>> driven by racism even while being aware that "Muslim" is not a race.
>
>Racism against...?
-----
>> of European descent, it is possible to believe that hatred of Muslims is
>> driven by racism even while being aware that "Muslim" is not a race.
>
>Racism against...?
At least those who aren't white who are Muslims.
>
>What about hatred of Christians? Is it possible to believe that
>hatred of Christians is driven by racism even though "Christian" is
>not a race?
-----
>What about hatred of Christians? Is it possible to believe that
>hatred of Christians is driven by racism even though "Christian" is
>not a race?
Yes if one believes a characteristic of the race is to be Christian
and he has a problem with Christianity like they commit terrorist acts
and seek to change the nature of his country. If he notices that a lot
of them are a certain color he could develop racist feelings and begin
to assume anyone of that color is automatically Christian. A lot of
Christians from Arab countries who obviously "look" Arab are
automatically assumed to be Muslim and so catch a lot of flack for it.
>
>What about Hindus? I know of no Hindus who are not Indian. If someone
>hates Hindus is it driven by racism? Is it possible to hate Hindus
>without being racist?
------
>What about Hindus? I know of no Hindus who are not Indian. If someone
>hates Hindus is it driven by racism? Is it possible to hate Hindus
>without being racist?
Yes. You may have a problem with the religion itself and all those who
practices it but has nothing to do with the biological make up of that
person. Say a Indian Hindu person happens to have brown or black skin
Next to him is another Indian who is just as dark as the other guy but
he is Christian. If Breivik likes the Christian but hates the Hindu
then obviously he is not a racist but he is intolerant of other's
religious beliefs.
David Johnston
Apr 21, 2012, 3:40:30 PM4/21/12
to
third-world nation.
theget
Apr 22, 2012, 11:41:04 PM4/22/12
to
I'm responding to this again, because you got me thinking.
> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it. They
> even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
> declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
> world his noble act from their POV? Have they figured out finally how
> bad it makes their side look?
It's not clear. I went surfing a little.
I stopped at the Gates of Vienna. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
which is characterized as a Counter Jihadist site here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterjihad At GoV I found a link to
this site, which suggests that some people would like to distance
themselves from Breivik http://someofmyessays.blogspot.com/2012/04/crash-course-in-counterjihadism-for.html
What's not clear to me is how they see themselves, they seem a little
conflicted.
Of course, some people are quite happy with what he did,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,828384,00.html
Counter Jihad seems an odd thing to me. A big tent for people with a
very wide range of ideas.
The other thing I came across while surfing about this, was some
opinion related to antisemitism in Norway, which has been
characterized as being the most anti-semitic country in Scandinavia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Norway
For a country with such a small population it seems to have a pretty
heady mix.
> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it. They
> even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
> declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
> world his noble act from their POV? Have they figured out finally how
> bad it makes their side look?
I stopped at the Gates of Vienna. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
which is characterized as a Counter Jihadist site here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterjihad At GoV I found a link to
this site, which suggests that some people would like to distance
themselves from Breivik http://someofmyessays.blogspot.com/2012/04/crash-course-in-counterjihadism-for.html
What's not clear to me is how they see themselves, they seem a little
conflicted.
Of course, some people are quite happy with what he did,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,828384,00.html
Counter Jihad seems an odd thing to me. A big tent for people with a
very wide range of ideas.
The other thing I came across while surfing about this, was some
opinion related to antisemitism in Norway, which has been
characterized as being the most anti-semitic country in Scandinavia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Norway
For a country with such a small population it seems to have a pretty
heady mix.
Hunter
Apr 23, 2012, 1:01:23 AM4/23/12
to
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:53:50 -0700 (PDT), theget
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Apr 20, 7:07=A0am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>
>
>> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
>> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
>> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it.
>
>Here? Posting here? I did only a quick search and found a thread "How
>do you spell Tim McVeigh in Norwegian?" A quick look didn't reveal
>anyone supporting Breivik.
-----
You are absolutely right no one was posting in this group supporting
Breivik but they did in rec.arts.tv. My mistake and my deepest
apology.
>
>
>> They
>
>Who?
-----
See above but see the the rec.arts.tv thread, most notably a poster
named RichA
Yes see above. Here are a couple of threads that I saw both by
"RichA":
"Norwegian killer found insane (to keep him quiet"
http://tinyurl.com/7kozgs9
"Socialist Norway of course tries to shut the guy up"
http://tinyurl.com/775j6rj
In "RichA" case he was so wrapped up that it was a socialist camp for
indoctrination" and that the governemt wanted to shut him up becaus
ehe thught secretly the Norwegian public at least understood why he
did what he did.
My overa ll point at the time was that they didn't see how it made
their cause look bad. I guess with there lack of post supporting
Breivik-in rec.arts.tv but not here in alt.tv.law-and-order, is that
realize that breivik is a raving lunatic now that they are "letting
him talk" from their POV.
I think you are right.
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Apr 20, 7:07=A0am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> (Hunter) wrote:
>
>
>
>> BTW, where are the far, far right wing that thought Breivik was some
>> sort of hero? They were posting here at the time of the murders in
>> Norway and were not only excusing it but were congratulating it.
>
>Here? Posting here? I did only a quick search and found a thread "How
>do you spell Tim McVeigh in Norwegian?" A quick look didn't reveal
>anyone supporting Breivik.
You are absolutely right no one was posting in this group supporting
Breivik but they did in rec.arts.tv. My mistake and my deepest
apology.
>
>
>> They
>
>Who?
-----
See above but see the the rec.arts.tv thread, most notably a poster
named RichA
>
>> even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
>> declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
>> world his noble act from their POV?
>
>Sorry, but I don't recall anyone here posting something like this.
>Cite? Are you thinking of another usenet group?
-----
>> even said that the Norwegian courts was muzzling Breivik by trying to
>> declare him insane so there will be no trial so he can explain to the
>> world his noble act from their POV?
>
>Sorry, but I don't recall anyone here posting something like this.
>Cite? Are you thinking of another usenet group?
Yes see above. Here are a couple of threads that I saw both by
"RichA":
"Norwegian killer found insane (to keep him quiet"
http://tinyurl.com/7kozgs9
"Socialist Norway of course tries to shut the guy up"
http://tinyurl.com/775j6rj
In "RichA" case he was so wrapped up that it was a socialist camp for
indoctrination" and that the governemt wanted to shut him up becaus
ehe thught secretly the Norwegian public at least understood why he
did what he did.
My overa ll point at the time was that they didn't see how it made
their cause look bad. I guess with there lack of post supporting
Breivik-in rec.arts.tv but not here in alt.tv.law-and-order, is that
realize that breivik is a raving lunatic now that they are "letting
him talk" from their POV.
>
>> Have they figured out finally how bad it makes their side look?
>
>I doubt that people who might think Breivik a hero would have the
>ability to make that judgement.
----
>> Have they figured out finally how bad it makes their side look?
>
>I doubt that people who might think Breivik a hero would have the
>ability to make that judgement.
I think you are right.
Hunter
Apr 23, 2012, 10:54:04 AM4/23/12
to
In article <jmv2fa$972$3...@dont-email.me>, Da...@block.net says...
-----
I agree. I haven't seen anything yet (or I've forgotten) that is blatantly and
strictly racist as we have about his anti Islam beliefs but his complaint about
"Multiculturalism" is code.
--
I agree. I haven't seen anything yet (or I've forgotten) that is blatantly and
strictly racist as we have about his anti Islam beliefs but his complaint about
"Multiculturalism" is code.
--
Hunter
Apr 23, 2012, 1:11:34 PM4/23/12
to
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 23:29:52 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
-----
Right. RichA.
I mixed up the groups. I'm sorry for doing that.
wrote:
Right. RichA.
I mixed up the groups. I'm sorry for doing that.
theget
Apr 25, 2012, 12:56:10 PM4/25/12
to
On Apr 23, 10:54 am, Hunter <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I agree. I haven't seen anything yet (or I've forgotten) that is blatantly and
> strictly racist as we have about his anti Islam beliefs but his complaint about
> "Multiculturalism" is code.
I haven't bothered to provide a link, but I've read a couple of
> I agree. I haven't seen anything yet (or I've forgotten) that is blatantly and
> strictly racist as we have about his anti Islam beliefs but his complaint about
> "Multiculturalism" is code.
articles now that say that Breivik claims to have not shot at least
one person because, and I'm not exactly clear here, it could be
because they didn't look left wing, or because they did look right
wing.
I'm not quite clear about what it means to look like a lefty or a
righty, and again sorry, no cite, but I think one of the articles said
that Breivik said something like "he looked like me."
Maybe that's not unusual. I'm pretty sure that National Socialists
claimed that you couldn't be a true Aryan if you weren't a National
Socialist and I recently read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Fate
wherein, there is a discussion about Soviet policy regarding non-
Russians' contribution to the sciences in a context related to the
Soviet antisemitism of the 50's.
One of the interesting things about the case is that in theory, if
he's found sane, he might be out in 21 years, although there can be
extensions, whereas if he's found insane he might go away for life,
although with reviews every five years, I think. It makes me wonder,
WWJD? (What Would Jack Do)
David Johnston
Apr 25, 2012, 1:32:53 PM4/25/12
to
evaluating authority decides he's no longer a threat and just like Chuck
Manson, nobody will ever take that risk.
David Johnston
Apr 28, 2012, 3:09:55 PM4/28/12
to
40,000 people got together to sing a song he says he hates for him.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/26/norwegians-sing-to-annoy-mass-killer/
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/26/norwegians-sing-to-annoy-mass-killer/
theget
Apr 28, 2012, 5:37:25 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 3:09 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> 40,000 people got together to sing a song he says he hates for him.
>
> http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/26/norwegians-sing-to-annoy-mass-ki...
> 40,000 people got together to sing a song he says he hates for him.
>
I've been reading here and there about how tolerant Norwegians are.
They feel they have to give Breivik a voice and feel it would be bad
to, I don't recall the exact words, but maybe disrespect him. So
there hasn't been much in the way of name calling or anything like
that. But now they sing a song. To "annoy" him.
To "annoy" him? In the name of Thor, isn't this punishment enough for
what he did? So cruel. So uncaring. Such a lack of manners. This is
no way to treat someone with a mental illness. Like taunting the
prisoners at Bedlam. It's an outrage. A human rights violation.
Alan Pollock
Apr 30, 2012, 6:37:12 AM4/30/12
to
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/world/europe/norway-breivik-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> ""I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty, and I claim I was
> doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik told a court in
> Oslo."
> This part makes me curious... "His defense will try to prove he was
> sane at the time of the killings, his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said
> Monday."
> He has to prove his sanity? Is there a presumption of insanity in
> Norway?
Not called crazy Norwegians for nothing. Nex
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/world/europe/norway-breivik-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> ""I acknowledge the acts but do not plead guilty, and I claim I was
> doing it in self-defense," Anders Behring Breivik told a court in
> Oslo."
> This part makes me curious... "His defense will try to prove he was
> sane at the time of the killings, his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said
> Monday."
> He has to prove his sanity? Is there a presumption of insanity in
> Norway?
theget
May 14, 2012, 7:43:12 PM5/14/12
to
And so far they had been so polite and peaceful.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/324695
"You killed my brother. Go to hell! Go to hell," 20-year old Hayder
Mustafa Qasim yelled as he threw the shoe, which missed Breivik but
hit one of his defense lawyers..."
Or here
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/grieving-relative-hurls-shoe-norwegian-mass-murderer-trial-anders-behring-breivik-interrupted-shouts-killer-article-1.1076965
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/324695
"You killed my brother. Go to hell! Go to hell," 20-year old Hayder
Mustafa Qasim yelled as he threw the shoe, which missed Breivik but
hit one of his defense lawyers..."
Or here
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/grieving-relative-hurls-shoe-norwegian-mass-murderer-trial-anders-behring-breivik-interrupted-shouts-killer-article-1.1076965
0 new messages