@ M Spector
Whether I agree with him or not is immaterial (and the fact is, he hasn't said what he believes). My point is that attacks like this, based solely on assumptions, are way out of line:
I don't believe such a distinction is reasonable. Right-wing hate media do not exist in a vacuum; they exist solely because of the patronage of people like Tim Johnston.
How about we keep our arguments on the ideas, rather than trying to vilify people?
Babble is a progressive space where its visitors are not supposed to have to argue against right wing hate assholes. If no one patronized those kinds of sites they would disappear. People who regularly go to hate filled sites are part of the problem not brave souls.
I read both those before you posted all those links to nasty sites. Actually those are the kinds of sites I go to for facts and analysis. As for whether some of the sites you listed are illegal I suspect that might be under Canadian Human Rights legislation. Inciting hatred against a specific groups is a crime in this country. I have no intention of reading that kind of vile shit anymore than I would read a porn site to determine if they had crossed the line into illegality.When was the last time you heard of someone being convicted of a anti-Islam hate crime? I am aware it happens: Muslim Victim of Post-9/11 Hate Crime Calls on Texas to Spare Life of His Assailant http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/muslim_victim_of_post_9_11 Does Islamophobia Increase Hate Crimes for Others? http://motherjones.com/riff/2011/01/abdul-jabbar-islamophobia-increasing Irrational hatred against Muslims is much more common and more tolerated than irrational hatred against Gays, Blacks, Jews and most other identifiable groups... All those vile Muslim hating websites, cable news pundits and radio shock jocks contibute to the current climate which led to this atrocity. IMO The Oslo killer's actions prove Neocon Extremism is a very real and dangerous threat.
Babble is a progressive space where its visitors are not supposed to have to argue against right wing hate assholes. If no one patronized those kinds of sites they would disappear. People who regularly go to hate filled sites are part of the problem not brave souls.
Sounds like censorship... I like debating people who disagree with me. I especially like pinning them with some point of undeniable logic. I admit I've had my butt kicked on my than one occasion. I would find find everyone having the same opinion boring...
double post
Sounds like censorship... I like debating people who disagree with me. I especially like pinning them with some point of undeniable logic. I admit I've had my butt kicked on my than one occasion. I would find find everyone having the same opinion boring...
I like the babble policy myself.
babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.
Babble is a progressive space where its visitors are not supposed to have to argue against right wing hate assholes. If no one patronized those kinds of sites they would disappear. People who regularly go to hate filled sites are part of the problem not brave souls.
In the first place NS, you know those sites aren;t going to disappear and that not all people who go there agree with them.
Secondly, we don't all agree here, and there is no one single party line, so when it comes to talking with people from the right wing (whatever that means, and which actually isn't the threat that a lot of people here seem to think it is) so long as they are polite I don't know what the problem is.
Really, I think people runnihg away from different opinions as if they will cause them to be turned to stone is a far greater problem.
When was the last time you heard of someone being convicted of a anti-Islam hate crime? I am aware it happens: Muslim Victim of Post-9/11 Hate Crime Calls on Texas to Spare Life of His Assailant http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/muslim_victim_of_post_9_11 Does Islamophobia Increase Hate Crimes for Others? http://motherjones.com/riff/2011/01/abdul-jabbar-islamophobia-increasing Irrational hatred against Muslims is much more common and more tolerated than irrational hatred against Gays, Blacks, Jews and most other identifiable groups... All those vile Muslim hating websites, cable news pundits and radio shock jocks contibute to the current climate which led to this atrocity. IMO The Oslo killer's actions prove Neocon Extremism is a very real and dangerous threat.
Strange I try to talk about Canadian laws and you refer to America. The problem in America today is you have no anti hate speech laws and it allows the Glen Beck's and other shock jocks to actively promote hatred against Moslems and left wing people. They encourage people like the person who saw the target on an elected officials head and decided that would be a good thing to do in real life. Hatred breeds violence and American media is filled with the worst kinds of hate speech and your society shows it.
In the first place NS, you know those sites aren;t going to disappear and that not all people who go there agree with them.
You are no physic and your attempts to channel my thoughts fail dismally.
OFFS....
Well then, whether you know it or not Mr. Pedant, those sites are not going to disappear anytime soon.
*grin*
I think one thing to look at is this:
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric agaisnt abortion providers, and abortion providers start getting shot.
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against government, and the Murrah building in Oklahoma is bombed.
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric-- to the point of putting "cross hairs" on a political oponent, and we have the Gifford's shooting.
The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against socialists, and socialists are hunted and murdered.
Do you have an ounce of self-awareness at all?
How about this:
The left ratchets up the rhetoric against Capitalism: "anti-globalists" go on the rampage.
The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against Israel: Jews get attacked and, like Ilan Halimi, even killed.
The Left ratchets up the rhetoric on the environment: the Unabomber starts blowing stuff up.
The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against "Islamophobes": Kurt Westergaard gets attacked by an axe-wielding nutter.
It's a stupid game you're playing and, not only that, what you're effectively saying is that nobody can criticise anything ever, just in case some psychopath decided to take someone out.
Is that the position you want to advocate?
Firstly, this is a personal attack. Secondly, this is a left-wing board. You continually post views that are contrary to this board's mandate. If you continue to ignore babble policy, you will be banned.
BTW, I have no problem with religious fundamentalists up to a point. I support their right to express their extreme viewpoints. I don't even mind being told I'm going straight to hell, as long as they are polite about it. My problem is when people cross a line and put their violent hostile thoughts and ideologies into action. I even would have supported the right of the Oslo kiler to express his extreme hatred in public, where it can be debated and diseminated.
Do you recognize a distinction between tolerance and cowardice?
I think so.
I tolerate verbal potty. A coward would try to censor it.
... Secondly, this is a left-wing board. You continually post views that are contrary to this board's mandate. If you continue to ignore babble policy, you will be banned.
Seriously? I came here hoping I could help kick some right wing butt.
When was the last time you heard of someone being convicted of a anti-Islam hate crime? I am aware it happens: Muslim Victim of Post-9/11 Hate Crime Calls on Texas to Spare Life of His Assailant http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/19/muslim_victim_of_post_9_11 Does Islamophobia Increase Hate Crimes for Others? http://motherjones.com/riff/2011/01/abdul-jabbar-islamophobia-increasing Irrational hatred against Muslims is much more common and more tolerated than irrational hatred against Gays, Blacks, Jews and most other identifiable groups... All those vile Muslim hating websites, cable news pundits and radio shock jocks contibute to the current climate which led to this atrocity. IMO The Oslo killer's actions prove Neocon Extremism is a very real and dangerous threat.
Strange I try to talk about Canadian laws and you refer to America. The problem in America today is you have no anti hate speech laws and it allows the Glen Beck's and other shock jocks to actively promote hatred against Moslems and left wing people. They encourage people like the person who saw the target on an elected officials head and decided that would be a good thing to do in real life. Hatred breeds violence and American media is filled with the worst kinds of hate speech and your society shows it.
Fair enough... I consider the US ground zero. Millions of Canadians tune into that crap. Neocon extremism stretches far and wide as events in Oslo prove.
The Oslo massacre is the "Pearl Harbor like event" which can crush the neocons. We would be wise not to let all those deaths be in vain. We must turn this atrocity into an opportunity for positive change.
I doubt we can out shout hatred spewing neocons, but we can reach more people.
BTW, I'm Canadian, but as my name implies, I see the earth as one.
Congratulations, earth_as_one. You have just managed to boost the Google ranking of all those scummy websites in a single post.
ETA: Someone has mercifully deleted earth_as_one's long list of hyperlinks to the aforementioned websites. Thank you.
True, but I doubt people seeking this kind of rubbish on the internet will trouble finding it. IMO, that's a contributing factor to this atrocity.
That's pretty rich, coming from the person who balked at the very idea of mentioning Breivik's name!
Do you imagine his name isn't also plastered all over the internet already where anyone can find it?
People seeking this rubbish will now have even less trouble finding it on the internet thanks to your careless linking. YOU are in fact contributing to this atrocity by your action!
ETA: Someone has mercifully deleted earth_as_one's long list of hyperlinks to the aforementioned websites. Thank you.
I also feel the overwhelming majority of neocons aren't violent.
[img]http://i6.tinypic.com/2z3q7f4.gif[/img]
Yeah, that would explain why neocons play such a huge role in the opposition to wars of aggression around the world and police violence against racial minorities and dissidents at home.
So you don't think "neocons in general" agree with "popular cable news and radio shock jock neocons"? You don't think those same media voices are enabled, supported, abetted, and protected by "neocons in general"? You don't think promotion of irrational fear and hatred of Muslims is one of the central themes of modern neoconservative ideology "in general"?
I don't believe such a distinction is reasonable. Right-wing hate media do not exist in a vacuum; they exist solely because of the patronage of people like Tim Johnston.
I believe that too many people were get their opinions from popular cable news and radio shock jocks. People are better off when they have their own opinons. As far as I'm aware, no popular cable news or radio shock jock neocons advocated attacking political leaders and their families. But they did contribute to the Oslo killer's irrational hatred of Muslims which was the motivation to slaughter innocent people in Oslo. In order for someone to be guilty of a crime, they must have intent or be criminally negiligent/irresponsible.
I also feel the overwhelming majority of neocons aren't violent. I am against punishing an identifiable group collectively because of the actions of an individual. I support the right of free of speech and expression with appropriate safety and security limitations. I don't support advocating violence or deliberately making false claims which lead to dangerous situations.
If so, I want you to take some of the ideas from this thread and bring them in your own words to other public forums, OP Ed feedbacks, letters to the editor, our politicians...
I get the feeling that you'd rather nitpick minutia.
I meant violent as in willing to commit violent crimes personally. I support prosecuting people who advocate or commit war crimes. What are the chances of prosecuting the people responsible for the the crimes you reference?
Realistically I support using the phrase neocon extremist to link the Oslo killer with every neocon shock jock and news pundit who has expressed an irrational Muslim hating ideology. Ideally I'd like to get them all yanked off the air by raising awareness of their contribution to the Oslo slaughter.
Is anyone willing to contribute to my effort?
You are setting an implausibly high standard for complicity in Breivik's crimes. You think every neocon is morally in the clear unless they (a) actually assisted Breivik in committing the crimes, or (b) were personally willing to commit those same crimes themselves.
The fact that millions applaud these crimes and believe, as Breivik does, that they were "necessary" doesn't seem to register with you when assigning "responsibility" for his actions. I'm not talking about criminal-conviction-type responsibility, but moral responsibility. You would do well to reflect on the difference.
As far as I'm aware, no popular cable news or radio shock jock neocons advocated attacking political leaders and their families. But they did contribute to the Oslo killer's irrational hatred of Muslims which was the motivation to slaughter innocent people in Oslo. In order for someone to be guilty of a crime, they must have intent or be criminally negiligent/irresponsible.
Depends on what you call advocating. Here is an interview with Rep. Giffords almost a year before she was shot rightly saying the shit coming out of the the right like Palin will have consequences. Lock and load and crosshairs on your opponents Districts in a country where people go to political rallies packing heat is an example the type of rhetoric that is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyEUeaS0wD8
Here is a good piece on the head shock jocks violent rheteric including calling for a military coup in America.
http://limbaughbook.blogspot.com/2011/01/today-is-rush-limbaughs-60th-bi...
here are some quote that sound to me like advocating violence.
Here are a number of clear examples from the time of the Clinton and Bush administrations, clearly predating the supposed "provocations" that right-wing conservative spokesmen are pointing to as the justification for their violent rhetoric.
1. Disturbing "Jokes" About Killing Liberals
Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus--living fossils--so we we'll never forget what these people stood for."
Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Tim McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building"
2. Implied Threats:
Bill O'Reilly: "Americans who work against our military once the [Iraq] war is underway will be considered Enemies of the State by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted.
3. Overt Threats of Violence against Liberals:
Glen Beck: "Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could."
Eric Erickson (Redstate.com): "At what point do [people] get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?"
Michael Savage: "I say round liberals up and hang em' high. When I hear someone's in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-25."
4. Specific Incitements to Violence against Law Enforcement Officers
Dick Morris: "Those crazies in Montana who say 'we're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over.' Well, they're beginning to have a case."
G . Gorden Liddy (broadcasting advice on how to kill law enforcement officers): "...head-shots, they are wearing body armor, head shots... or shoot for the groin."
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2011/01/the_slippery_s...
"Is that the position you want to advocate?"
No, it would appear that's the position you want me to advocate. What is it with you right wingers and your attachment to the straw man arguement?
"Is that the position you want to advocate?"
No, it would appear that's the position you want me to advocate. What is it with you right wingers and your attachment to the straw man arguement?
Straw men are their intellectual equals so they feel comfortable.
"Is that the position you want to advocate?"
No, it would appear that's the position you want me to advocate. What is it with you right wingers and your attachment to the straw man arguement?
It isn't a straw man argument. You want to create a causal link between "rhetoric" and violence, and I was pointing out that it cuts both ways. You can spew hate towards conservatives and NeoCons if you like, as some have done, but nobody will be holding you responsible if some loon shoots up a Conservative Party conference. Rhetoric, in the modern political arena, is simply an argument that is intended to be one-sided without giving the other side a chance to reply; it's a hit-and-run tactic and not very brave at all.
On the other hand there are issues that people feel very passionately about, and they should feel free to be passionate about them without having to worry about some psycho crossing the line.
@M.Spector
"We know what he believes and thinks."
No you don't. Unless you want to lump all people you don't like into one big box labelled "NeoCon" or whatever. But then who is vilifying entire groups of people? I'll desist from making any personal attacks on you in case I get banned but it's hard to defend oneself without doing so. Suffice it to say that lumping people together and making assumptions about them is exactly what this thread correctly identifies as the problem.
As far as I'm aware, no popular cable news or radio shock jock neocons advocated attacking political leaders and their families. But they did contribute to the Oslo killer's irrational hatred of Muslims which was the motivation to slaughter innocent people in Oslo. In order for someone to be guilty of a crime, they must have intent or be criminally negiligent/irresponsible.
Depends on what you call advocating. Here is an interview with Rep. Giffords almost a year before she was shot rightly saying the shit coming out of the the right like Palin will have consequences. Lock and load and crosshairs on your opponents Districts in a country where people go to political rallies packing heat is an example the type of rhetoric that is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyEUeaS0wD8
Here is a good piece on the head shock jocks violent rheteric including calling for a military coup in America.
http://limbaughbook.blogspot.com/2011/01/today-is-rush-limbaughs-60th-bi...
here are some quote that sound to me like advocating violence.
Here are a number of clear examples from the time of the Clinton and Bush administrations, clearly predating the supposed "provocations" that right-wing conservative spokesmen are pointing to as the justification for their violent rhetoric.
1. Disturbing "Jokes" About Killing Liberals
Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus--living fossils--so we we'll never forget what these people stood for."
Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Tim McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building"
2. Implied Threats:
Bill O'Reilly: "Americans who work against our military once the [Iraq] war is underway will be considered Enemies of the State by me. Just fair warning to you, Barbara Streisand, and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted.
3. Overt Threats of Violence against Liberals:
Glen Beck: "Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could."
Eric Erickson (Redstate.com): "At what point do [people] get off the couch, march down to their state legislator's house, pull him outside and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?"
Michael Savage: "I say round liberals up and hang em' high. When I hear someone's in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-25."
4. Specific Incitements to Violence against Law Enforcement Officers
Dick Morris: "Those crazies in Montana who say 'we're going to kill ATF agents because the UN's going to take over.' Well, they're beginning to have a case."
G . Gorden Liddy (broadcasting advice on how to kill law enforcement officers): "...head-shots, they are wearing body armor, head shots... or shoot for the groin."
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2011/01/the_slippery_s...
I never realized these people actually said these things. These statements are clearly incitement to violence. If anyone acted on that incitement, they could could charged. Do you know if any of these people every advocated killing political leaders who support multiculturalism? That would be huge! I'm pretty sure some sort of direct link between a statement by a neocon and this Oslo massacre would be the forum debater's equivalent of WMDs.
I was in Oslo a few months ago and I really liked the people I met there. Everyone responsible for this atrocity from the killer, to his confidentes to every neoconservative pundit and shock jock who advocated violence against should be held accountable.
How about you attempt to substantiate the connections you're claiming ?
There IS no causal connection. Did you ask Tommy Paine to substantiate his connections?
The point is, nobody is blaming Al Gore for the Unabomber, and nor should they.
No one is blaming Al Gore for the Unabomber because there is absolutely no connection between them. Ted Kaczynski never quoted Al Gore as Breivek has quoted so many leading neo-con radicals and bigots.
NDPPI would also expect that if the JDL were aware that one of their members was planning to commit a violent crime, they would report that person to the authorities ASAP.
I have a nice parcel of well-irrigated land in Florida you might be interested in purchasing.
Why not start with their leader? Google Kahane or Kach or Meir Weinstein or the links already posted here on Babble, perhaps before they're removed as apparently it is verboten to source primary materials in support of attempts to expose these things anymore.
"Of one thing only can we be sure: we shall remain stupid." Voltaire
I never realized these people actually said these things. These statements are clearly incitement to violence. If anyone acted on that incitement, they could could charged. Do you know if any of these people every advocated killing political leaders who support multiculturalism? That would be huge! I'm pretty sure some sort of direct link between a statement by a neocon and this Oslo massacre would be the forum debater's equivalent of WMDs.
I was in Oslo a few months ago and I really liked the people I met there. Everyone responsible for this atrocity from the killer, to his confidentes to every neoconservative pundit and shock jock who advocated violence against should be held accountable.
The violent and venomous rhetoric is by no means restricted to the on-air people. Millions of people who never go on the radio or TV express these same malignant thoughts every day in their personal conversations with each other. That's why the neocon talking heads are so popular in the USA - they reflect and reinforce the hateful attitudes of their followers right back at them.
Again, I recommend you reflect on the difference between legal and moral responsibility for the Oslo atrocity.
The Ideological Roots of the Oslo Atrocity - by Stefan Steinberg
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/oslo-j30.shtml
"...Since the attacks carried out in Oslo last Friday, there has been a concerted campaign by the bourgeois establishment in Europe to deny that the murderous rampage conducted by Anders Behring Breivik was motivated by anti-Islamist prejudices with DEEP ROOTS IN MAINSTREAM POLITICS.."
I never realized these people actually said these things. These statements are clearly incitement to violence. If anyone acted on that incitement, they could could charged. Do you know if any of these people every advocated killing political leaders who support multiculturalism? That would be huge! I'm pretty sure some sort of direct link between a statement by a neocon and this Oslo massacre would be the forum debater's equivalent of WMDs.
I was in Oslo a few months ago and I really liked the people I met there. Everyone responsible for this atrocity from the killer, to his confidentes to every neoconservative pundit and shock jock who advocated violence against should be held accountable.
No, they should not say those things, even in jest. They are out of order. But if we are interested in such things, there are the many death threats made against Sarah Palin - one of which was published in the liberal Slate magazine - and the MSNBC host Ed Schultz who suggested ripping out Dick Cheney's heart and "kicking it around". Montel Williams suggested Michelle Bachman kill herself. All incitement to violence and talk of killing political opponents is wrong, no matter what the source. The fact that American political banter has such a nature should not influence people in other countries anyway.
One poster above completely denies that the Unabomber was a devotee of Al Gore - of course he was. It doesn't make Al Gore a writer of hate-speech.
The fact is, and you implicitly acknowledge it yourself, none of the writers and personalities cited by Anders Breivik recommended murder of members of the youth wing of a Northern European social-democratic party. His targets were derived from his own deranged mind, and to try to connect the act to writers who may or may not have made violent speech towards entirely different people, is clutching at straws. If, on the other hand, a shock-jock or other pundit is identified as having made threats towards the Norwegian Labour Party, and that person is connected to Breivik, I agree that there may be cause to hold him/her partly responsible.
"It isn't a straw man argument."
Well, point of fact it was. You grossly mischaracterized my position to one that you would feel more comfortable arguing with.
Be that as it may.
The rhetoric from the right seeks to dehumanize, it seeks to illegitimize the rights of others one way or another, by calling them crazy, (looney left, feminazi) or saying they spead disease (Lou Dobbs insisting, even after being shown factually incorrect that Mexican illegals are bringing a plague of leprosy to America) and, all the above observations that earth as one pointed out and that I won't retrace.
But most of all, is the trumping up, the pure invention of existential threats that sends whack jobs off the deep end. You can't get in engineering school, not because you are a "c" student at best and an under achiever-- it's because of 'reverse descrimination' and all those young women who are ruining your life. So, best get a gun and shoot them.
While I don't doubt that anyone can find some left wing blogger or on line bloviators who use such rhetoric, they are few and far between.
What if, for example, Judy Rebick went on "Power and Politics" and said that, oh, I don't know.... that Dominique Stauss Khan should be hung? Would she be invited back? Doubtfull. Would the main stream media errupt with objections over such strong language? You betcha.
But right wing ass hat Tom Flanagan can make death threats against Jullian Assange and it's great entertainment. So much so, he's invited back by Evan Solomon every week. To talk about how socialists in Canada constitute an existential threat to the survival of our country.
The MSM media is controlled by the same elite that controls international finance. America is heading into a very dangerous period. When I see people like the Koch brothers promoting tea bag events and telling people to take guns to town hall meetings it is fascism on the rise not a libertarian movement.
When workers in Wisconsin stood up for their rights the Koch supported groups bussed in groups of "brown shirts."
You may think both sides are equal but that is a lie. The right are oppressors and the left are trying to get food for their tables and decent houses.
There is only one question that is important in this global onslaught against the people, Which Side Are You On?
T. Johnston your posts clearly say you are on the wrong fucking side.
The Ideological Roots of the Oslo Atrocity - by Stefan Steinberg
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/oslo-j30.shtml
"...Since the attacks carried out in Oslo last Friday, there has been a concerted campaign by the bourgeois establishment in Europe to deny that the murderous rampage conducted by Anders Behring Breivik was motivated by anti-Islamist prejudices with DEEP ROOTS IN MAINSTREAM POLITICS.."
I agree
The MSM has ignored and minimized the problem and the world's attention span has moved on. Move along, move along... nothing to see here...
That`s a problem... :(
Describing him as religious is inaccurate and right wing is imprecise. He had an extremely intolerant and hostile neoconservative viewpoint based on these and similar neoconservative sources:
People
Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Aluma Dankowitz, Bat Ye'or, Pamela Geller, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes...
Websites:
AmericanThinker.com, jihadwatch.org, memri.org, faithfreedom.org, theReligionOfPeace.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com...
The most accurate description would be neoconservative extremist. Or if I was playing neoconservative name games, I'd describe him as a Neoconservative Fundementalist in an attempt to portray all neoconservatives as fundamentlly Oslo killers.
I can't claim to know much about these people or websites beyond that they are all neoconservative and are referenced by neoconservatives on many internet forums. I've read enough from what neoconservatives have quoted and referenced from these sources to know they promote an extremely intolerant anti-Muslim ideology which drove the Oslo killer to commit the Oslo massacre. Some sources may have and/or continue to incite violence.
Here is what I believe happened and someone please correct me if I'm wrong...
A Norwegian obsessed with an extreme neocon ideology came to the conclusion that Muslim immigration is a mortal threat to western culture. He concluded that Muslims will continue to immigrate and breed until they outnumber Norwegians. Once Muslims outnumber the Norwegians, they will use democratic means to impose Sharia law on the good citizens of Norway, eventually causing Norwegians to become enslaved into Dhimmitude. He concludes the west must protect itself from this Muslim cultural threat through forced assimilation, banning Muslim immigration and cultural isolation. The real enemy he concluded aren't Muslims who can't help being what they are. The real threat is Norwegian political leaders who embrace multiculturalism and are blind to the threat posed by Western Islamization.
In order to save Norway from cultural extinction, he planned to kill as many Norwegian politicians and members of their families as possible. He became a farmer in order to legally get his hands on fertilizers which could be used to make explosives. He trained to use firearms and became an expert marksmen. Just over a week ago he put his plan into action. He parked a car bomb outside the Prime Minister's office. Dressed as a police officer, he caught a ferry to an island where political leaders and their families vacationed. The diversionary car bomb blew up killing dozens of people and injuring scores of others, as he began slaughtering trapped men, women and children who had no means to leave the island. Some people survived by pretending to be dead. He spared a child's life when he begged that he was too young to die. The killing spree lasted at least 90 minutes before the police realized what was happening and got to the island. He was captured unharmed and sits in isolation awaiting trial. He killed about 80 people in all, mostly young people in their late teens and early twenties. His atrocity appears to be the result of years of careful planning and thought.
He wrote a manifest clearly explaining how he came to irrationally hate Muslims and why he committed this atrocity. He posted the manifest online and emailed it to about 1800 facebook friends and associates. The manifest also includes a call to arms for other right thinking defenders of Western Culture, bomb making recipes, strategies and tactics for carrying out similar missions. The manifest has gone viral on the internet. Copy cat violence is a virtual certainty.
His manifest references names of people and websites that "inspired" him to hate and kill. Most neocons are moderates or liberal lefties ;) compared to this monster.
Peace and Love to everyone!
No exceptions.. 
Is Oslo just the opening act?
NDPPNDPPI would also expect that if the JDL were aware that one of their members was planning to commit a violent crime, they would report that person to the authorities ASAP.
I have a nice parcel of well-irrigated land in Florida you might be interested in purchasing.
Why not start with their leader? Google Kahane or Kach or Meir Weinstein or the links already posted here on Babble, perhaps before they're removed as apparently it is verboten to source primary materials in support of attempts to expose these things anymore.
"Of one thing only can we be sure: we shall remain stupid." Voltaire
Peter Kent's Facebook Friend
http://rabble.ca/comment/1211724
JDL-EDL-Breivik (vid)
http://rabble.ca/comment/1211047
'A Letter To Stewart Bell'
http://rabble.ca/comment/1210665
'Whose Side is the CBC On?' by Ezra Levant
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/07/29/whose-side-is-the-cbc-on
"The CBC has identified a new terrorist group in Canada - and I think they're a Facebook friend of mine..."
another 'Facebook Friend'. Levant rides to the rescue of their common agenda
This is really ugly stuff folks and the Canadian tentacles which lead straight into the Harper government are spreading wider - the JDL instigated banning of George Galloway and more recently the JDL organized anti-Muslim demo at the TDSB is just the beginning of their growing hate campaign. How long before we have our own Breivik incident? Or worse - Canadian consent for another Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia military campaign or increasing support for Zionist crimes in Palestine?
Oh come on you guys. At least Tim Johnston was honest enough to admit his position (a brave act, IMO) , and he hasn't even said WHAT he believes and supports, and you're already fitting him for horns and a pitchfork.
I don't know why people are alarmed about missing babblers when there is an active contingent making sure nothing interferes with the nice smooth walls of the echo chamber they imagine this place to be.
As a onetime member of the 'mainstream' media I wouldn't get too self righteous about 'echo chambers'.
For example, why is it that certain rightwingers continue to be employed as pundits on suppsedly mainstream stations, -even when they repeatedly call for the deaths of 'liberals, socialists, Muslims, athiests,Feminazis, etc', and incite the violent overthrow of the supposed 'nanny' state. While liberal-left voices are regularly ignored, muted or treated as dangerously radical in the MSM? (and news stories supporting their views regularly downplayd or suppressed)
I'd also like to know why you think it's valid to compare political violence on the left with the right? It seems to me that the vast majority of 'extra-judicial' assassinations and murders are committed by 'crazies' inspired by rightwing ideology, not left. Some not so far from supposedly mainstream views heard regularly on every MS station -ie, that Musims are untrustworthy and the Quran teaches violence, while Christians are only defending 'our values' and the Bible preaches peace, etc etc.
Here are some recent examples, posted by the otherwise cynical Liberal hack, Warren Kinsella in the otherwise conservative Ottawa Sun:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/07/29/right-wing-spin-compounds-norway-tra...
Any MSM comments page is a forum to debate right wing assholes. Echo chamber my ass. This is a place for discussing left wing ideas with other lefties. Give your head a shake if you think that Stockholm, myself, Unionist, M. Spector or countless others are an echo chamber patting each other on the back.
Try sticking to the reality of this place and leave the crap like echo chamber aside. We have plenty to discuss as too where the left needs to go without having to discuss the basics with people who think socialists are evil.
Eric,
Have I ever said there is no bias or double standard in the media? I think if you go back to the first thread on this issue I pointed out anti-Mulsim bias in the Montreal Gazette even after it was discovered Brevik was a right-wing Christian.
I am talking about demonizing people and going after them personally because of what some THINK they are, rather than discussing the ideas - And I am also contrasting that with recent complaints about "missing babblers"
And while we are on the subject of leaping to conclusions and guilt by association, why are you trying to discredit me personally for the bias in the media?
Sorry, but I have no problem discussing the issues with anyone. Hasn't made my head explode or my eyes melt out of their sockets yet, and I doubt it ever will. And if people are being targetted and driven out because of that, or others leaving because they can't stand to read the opinions of others (so long as they are deemed within the rules), that is unfortunate.
It's also not a very good way to come to grips with a lot of these issues either, IMO.
(edit)
And why do I compare violent acts top each other? Because sometimes that left/right distinction isn't all that clear, or relevant, since the blood is equally red in all cases.
I have no problem with discussing issues and keeping the focus from a left-wing perspective, NS (realizing of course that not all people think that is exactly the same thing).
What I think is unfair and counter-productive is making it about the person, and I made a pretty specific reference above.
The Norway Shooter's Zionist Streak - by Michelle Goldberg
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/25/norway-shooter-anders-b...
"Anders Breivik's embrace of Israel is the latest shift among reactionaries in Europe - with fascism and Zionism going hand in hand, fueled by Islamophobia.." And Canada too it would appear...
CBC Apology to JDL-Canada (and vid)
http://rabble.ca/comment/1211364
CBC forced to apologize to JDL-Canada after calling it a banned terrorist organization in Canada. They should be. But aren't.
"According to the FBI, the JDL was responsible for at least 37 terrorist acts in the United States in the period from 1968-1983, while the International Terrorism, Attributes of Terrorist Events (ITERATE) database developed on behalf of the United States Central Intelligence Agency by Edward F Mickolus recorded 50 such incidents from 1968-1987, making the JDL second only to the Puerto Rican FALN as the major domestic terrorist group.
Nonetheless, the JDL is a legally incorporated political action group and has officially disavowed responsibility for any violent actions carried out by its members. Bombings accounted for 78 percent of all JDL terrorist activities, shootings accounted for 10 percent, while arson attacks, vandalism, kidnapping, threats and verbal harassment accounted for the rest...
On 25 February 1994, a Kach Party member and former JDL activist, Dr Baruch Goldstein, opened fire on Palestinian Arabs in the mosque built over the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, killing at least 29 and wounding scores more before he himself was killed. This incident led to anti-Israel riots throughout the occupied territories and stymied the peace negotiations underway between the PLO and Israel. On 13 March, 1994, the Israeli government banned both the Kach and Kahane Chai groups in an effort to stem the furore caused by the masscre in Hebron..."
Historical Dictionary of Terrorism
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/000248.html
"Rabbi Kahane's blood is crying out to us' declared Meir Weinstein, the director of the JDL in Canada. 'Today the Arabs are poised to annihilate us and we are obligated to keep Rabbi Kahane's message alive by preserving Israel as a Jewish state. If the Arabs won't ackknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, then they will have to go,' he said, as he called for the re-location of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
'What we need now, more than ever, are those who have a Jewish head attached to a Jewish fist, as Rabbi Kahane always said,' he said. Following the yahrzeit, Mr Weinstein led a group of Kahane supporters at a special rally at Ground Zero, where he called Rabbi Kahane the first victim of Al Qaeda terrorism on US soil.
He decried the proposed building of a mosque at Ground Zero saying that 'the ideology that will be taught in this mosque is the same ideology that is responsible for the murder of Rabbi Kahane.' Weinstein said that the mosque would represent Islamic dominance as does the mosque that, stands on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and said to them:
'It is yet another attempt to make all non-Muslims subservient to them.' Rally participants held aloft signs saying, 'From The River To the Sea, the Land of Israel Must Be Free!' and 'Arabs Out Now - It Doesn't Matter How!'"
http://www.globalyeshiva.com/profiles/blogs/rabbi-meir-kahanes-legacy
The point 6079, is that you apppeared to be treating T. Johnson's neo-con spin as fair commentary, as if the left must be as guilty of this as the right unless we concede that theres no connection between this crime and the ideologies which inspired it.
(Which reminds me: Kinsella himself says something similar in my last link: "To be fair, the left is as guilty of this sort of ugly moral lapse as the right. Both sides do it." Trust a Liberal hack to spin it to their own advantage)
Now, I don't entirely disagree that there are militant leftists and hotheads, who sometimes say misanthropic things in public and break windows for no good reason, but what I have noticed most strongly is how almost ALL neo-cons posting about this seem most concerned about distancing their own own anti-Islamic and pro-vigilante views with that cowardly child-killers open expression of it --FAR more than expressing any real regret or heartfelt sympathy for the victims. I can guarantee that almost any incitement to violence on the left OTOH will be met by other leftists condemning it. I would be much more impressed if even SOME neo-cons and paleo-cons starting watching their own over-heated rhetoric and started calling out others who don't. That to me would demonstrate some genuine distancing, and shared understanding that in OUR supposedly free society we still have a right to disagree -without being threatened by death. If not, we could very well start seeing more of this kind of thing here.
Re the "echo chamber" here, if you look at our profiles you can see with your own eyes how often leftists and left leaners here disagree, and how Babble's own moderating decisions are questioned when one or the other is seen as favoured.
"It isn't a straw man argument."
Well, point of fact it was. You grossly mischaracterized my position to one that you would feel more comfortable arguing with.
With respect, I didn't and I did not intend to. I didn't characterise your position in any way, merely extended the logic to encompass other potential/possible causal connections that are equally in/valid.
Be that as it may.
The rhetoric from the right seeks to dehumanize, it seeks to illegitimize the rights of others one way or another, by calling them crazy, (looney left, feminazi) or saying they spead disease (Lou Dobbs insisting, even after being shown factually incorrect that Mexican illegals are bringing a plague of leprosy to America) and, all the above observations that earth as one pointed out and that I won't retrace.
I think you will find that all sides demonise the other in more or less equal measure, and you can't seriously be complaining about the term "feminazi" when every conservative has probably been called a Nazi at some point in her life! Anyone who calls for anyone to be killed, or seeks to dehumanise them by making up mad accusations simply doesn't have an argument, and has comprehensively failed in the area of civilised debate.
But, that happily put aside, you seem to be calling for a more humane and civilised kind of political discource, where we do not demonise our opponents, but take them at their word and use rational, non-emotional argument to get all of our ideas across, in which case - amen to that! And I've very happy to take you at your word that that is what you recommend, and to wholeheartedly and earnestly agree with you 100%.
I wouldn't put all this down as the result of the neo-con/liberal alliance with Zionists. Neo-cons in particular, are first and foremost about destroying all organized resistence to their organized theft of the commons. Some highprofile neo-liberals might maintain some naive belief that it'll all work out in everyones favour when we all 'maximize' our personal earning potential... The real money and brains behind this operation will oneday drop Israel like a used cigarette butt too, when they no longer serve their ultimate purposes. They do it to everyone but their own eventually.
@ Eric
Actually, if you look back I disagreed with him and earth_is_one about the responsibility of right-wing media and organizations.
Perhaps I just said it in such even tones that some people did not notice.
(note to self: Say "fuck" more often if I want to make sure people are paying attention).
And Eric, I know there are disagreements in here, and I am not actually making an accusation against the moderators. But I have noticed that some people really have a problem with even reading opinions that are different than their own, and seem to take it as a personal affront, and seem shocked that others do not feel the same way. Me, I think that is a good recipe for misunderstanding and not learning anything.
Not that I want to throw the doors open to Free Dominion, but I do think some are a bit overzealous and personal about it.
@ Eric
Actually, if you look back I disagreed with him and earth_is_one about the responsibility of right-wing media and organizations.
Perhaps I just said it in such even tones that some people did not notice.
(note to self: Say "fuck" more often if I want to make sure people are paying attention).
And Eric, I know there are disagreements in here, and I am not actually making an accusation against the moderators. But I have noticed that some people really have a problem with even reading opinions that are different than their own, and seem to take it as a personal affront, and seem shocked that others do not feel the same way. Me, I think that is a good recipe for misunderstanding and not learning anything.
Not that I want to throw the doors open to Free Dominion, but I do think some are a bit overzealous and personal about it.
Yeah, there are a few here who seem to think we can't all be trusted to judge for ourselves. In fact I'm going to raise that small point too in my next post.
One poster above completely denies that the Unabomber was a devotee of Al Gore - of course he was. It doesn't make Al Gore a writer of hate-speech.
You are making things up and not sustantiating any of your claims.
.... that said, I think I see a yellow card in someone's future.
There are rules here, after all, and I have no problem with that.
(Sorry, edited because I realized I probably shouldn't have said that).
The Return of the Neocons’ Prodigal Son
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/26/the-return-of-the-neocons-...
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/July/25%20o/Oslo%20...
But you can't judge these claims for yourself anymore on this website. I guess you'll have to trust the word of some random person on the internet you don't know.
I read both those before you posted all those links to nasty sites. Actually those are the kinds of sites I go to for facts and analysis. As for whether some of the sites you listed are illegal I suspect that might be under Canadian Human Rights legislation. Inciting hatred against a specific groups is a crime in this country. I have no intention of reading that kind of vile shit anymore than I would read a porn site to determine if they had crossed the line into illegality.
I don't enjoy reading those bileous Freak Dominion blowhards and hatemongers either, but on this occasion I think earth-is-ones posting the links here was appropriate and justified. It goes right to the heart of the ongoing public debate. On all the MS sites I've read on this there has been a concerted counter-offensive by neocons to distance themselves and their ideology from this cowardly crime. But I see no liklyhood that their kind of anti-leftist and anti-Islamic reaction is going to cease anytime soon, even in the socalled 'mainstream' media. Therefore I think progressives posting on an Alternative site like Babble should be able to post links like that -as LONG as its clear they are making them to challenge the assumptions and arguments made. It's not like any genuine progressive is going to be won over by their bs excuses, dodges and countercharges.
![http://i6.tinypic.com/2z3q7f4.gif[/img]](http://i6.tinypic.com/2z3q7f4.gif[/img]){kind=link}