Yeah, I think that's what you call a non-denial denial. You've never done anything.
For God's sake, what do you need? An [i][b]affidavit[/b][/i]??? I have never done anything! Nothing!! Never lifted a finger! I will [b]NOT[/b] edit this post after the fact! I swear on the Koran, the Bible, the Tibetan Book of the Dead! I am lethargic!
Happy? Or does it trouble you when you are right?
Yeah, I think that's what you call a non-denial denial. You've never done anything.
Also:
concise
Pronunciation:/kənˈsʌɪs/
adjective
Derivatives
concisely- adverb
conciseness- noun
concision- noun
Origin:
late 16th century: from French concis or Latin concisus, past participle of concidere 'cut up, cut down', from con- 'completely' + caedere 'to cut'
You never bring up anything you've done. It never comes up in your posts.
It doesnt take much to figure out you're a yappy observer, not a participant
[url=http://www.opednews.com/articles/Islamophobia-Rears-its-Ugl-by-Press-Rel... Rears its Ugly Head Again, but Norway Attacks Might not be Foreign Terrorism, Expert Cautions[/url]
Once again, as the dust settles and the blood dries in Norway, stereotypes and archetypes raise their ugly heads as the media, various pundits and every anti-Islamic bigot out there began assuming that radical Islam had struck again, this time in Norway.
Finally, back on topic.
Hopefully this guy didnt have an organization backing him up. If he did, we never woulda found out who we was, and it would have been pinned on Muslims, a la the Reichstag fire.
Also, I just looked at Cheri's Facebook page and she NEVER MENTIONED even used the words "Islam", "Islamic", "Muslim" or anything indicating any religion whatsoever. She used the term "fundamentalist extremism", which could apply to people of any religion or no religion and all sorts of ideologies, whether secular or religious. You seem to be the one who reads "extremism" and hears "Islam".
Try reading. Polunatic2 cited this way upthread:
[url=http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150720511920230&id=73... DiNovo [/url]"An Islamisist group has claimed responsibility."
Friends of hers immediately start challenging her - saying, are you sure? Don't jump to conclusions? etc. Try reading, please.
Yes, she claimed that an Islamic group had claimed responsibility. Maybe because they DID.
Ah, I see. So what exactly did you mean by this:
Also, I just looked at Cheri's Facebook page and she NEVER MENTIONED even used the words "Islam", "Islamic", "Muslim" or anything indicating any religion whatsoever.
I assume you just made a mistake?
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/22/oslo-bomb-suspicion-islamist... bomb: Suspicion falls on Islamist militants[/url]
Oslo police have confirmed the source of the blast that damaged the prime minister's offices in Oslo was a bomb. The question now is who is likely to be behind it.
The most obvious conclusion would be a jihadist group.
It has been known for some time that al-Qaida and other related "franchises" – including the most active groups in Yemen – have been trying to develop operations. Which leads to a second question: why Norway?
The answer is threefold: In the first instance, with increased levels of security and surveillance in the UK and the US as well as other European capitals, Norway might have been seen as a softer target despite the recent breaking up of an al-Qaida cell in Norway.
See the link to read more about why evil Islamists would want to wipe out Norway.
How about some idiots we can agree on?
National Post Idiot-tory-al Board:
"Canada Should Stand With Norway" [duhhhhhh. yuh think?]
"Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg addressed his nation in the hours after the tragedy, and said that Norway would not be swayed from its democratic ideals, nor naive about the danger posed by terrorism. These are wise words. Some of the great cities of the world — New York, Moscow, London — have known Oslo’s agony, but Mr. Stoltenberg is correct that it can happen anywhere, as it has previously in places as unlikely as Madrid and Bali, Indonesia
[as opposed to say... Oklahoma City, or Tuscon where Gabrielle Giffords was shot?]
Our country is not too small or remote to escape such murderous acts"
Indeed
I don't think anyone has yet varified whether or not the man in question is Islamic or not. I have heard that he is a right-wing extremist so I assume that he may possess some form of an extremist religious view, probably of christianity.
It is a pointless debate to challange the media's immediate suspision of an extremist group related to a twisted form of Islam. Norway has been working tirelessly as of late to stop these threats as it has been verbally targeted before and a group did, for a short moment, claim that they were responsible. Furthermore Norway has not experienced a 9/11 attack or an Olof Palme styled murder and thus does not focus on security as other countries do. Norway perceives itself to be so safe that it publishes the tax records of others and most can be found in a phone book.
My personal guess was that it was an attack on ideology; an attack on the ruling labour party (which is the biggest in Norway) and an attack on a defenceless group of labour youth. I hope that a heinous act like this does not occur in Canada.
He obviously had something in for the ruling socialist party... anybody know their stand on immigration and immigrant issues?
he may possess some form of an extremist religious view, probably of christianity.
I'd guess he more than likely is into the same kind of theology as Himmler: Norse gods.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/23/norway-attacks
"Norway's national police chief, Sveinung Sponheim, told the national broadcaster NRK that the suspected gunman's internet postings "suggest he has some political traits directed towards the right, and anti-Muslim views, but whether that was a motivation for the actual act remains to be seen".
Andersen said the suspect posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies. He did not describe the websites in any more details.
A police official said the suspect appears to have acted alone in both attacks, and that "it seems like this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all." "
This is all very upsetting. In fact, I didn't read all the way to the bottom of the article, my mind straying to what the first responders must have gone through, searching the island and finding body after body.
And, yeah, I'm angry, too, on a number of aspects of this. But at this time I couldn't voice my anger without jumping to conclusions and speculating on what is still very sketchy information.
From Cheri DiNovo's page - responding to her unfounded speculation about "fundamentalist extremism" and "Islamisist [sic] group":
But Cheri is not alone and not to blame, almost my entire office said the same thing today and that was before their were any reports at all, I was very proud of the one woman there who said it was too early for anyone to know. We have been conditioned by those who profit from our fear.
It doesn't matter if there are bigots in your office. They are not elected officials of a major political party, nor are they representing a party that prides itself on being socially responsible and anti-racist.They can speculate all they want, based on the cheap prejudices that are bandied about in the media.
MPP's need to rise above all that and offer thoughtful and responsible commentary -- not pop-off about Muslims fundamentalist Extremists because some anonymous internet entity (that could be run by absolutely anyone -- even the real perpetrator or his allies seeking to discredit honest Muslims) called "Helpers of Jihad" makes a twitter posting on the internet claiming responsibility.
Nothing more heard from DiNovo so far.
Such a tragedy. I couldn't believe it when I woke up this morning and heard the body count so high. :(
Re: Tommy's Guardian article, I find it interesting that the police officer has decided that this guy is not linked to "international terrorism" because he's not a Muslim extremist. Because he's a Christian extremist, he's a lone shooter, it's "the work of a madman". Despite the fact that he has been posting to "Christian fundamentalist extremist" websites.
Now, if it had been a Muslim acting alone, and it was discovered he posted to Muslim fundamentalist extremist websites, would it still be considered "the work of a madman", or would it be considered to be "linked to international terrorism"?
Do they imagine that Christian fundamentalists don't have networks? Christian fundamentalist extremists don't export their violence around the world, or carry out violent attacks, or violent, state-sanctioned wars? It's only "terrorism" when a Muslim kills people?
So, you obviously don't give a damn about 80 teenage socialists in Norway being murdered -
nasty personal attack.
Its pretty clear that Unionists never organized anything. No petitions, no rallies, no campaigns, no nuthin. Certainly no dental clinics.
His contribution to the global struggle has consisted of boring the bejezus out of people at meetings and then not volunteering for any of the work. So he's never had to worry about concision or persuation, so why worry about him?
nasty personal attack
I guess you don't have anything to contribute regarding the"nasty personal attack" that left over 80 people dead in Norway?
Do they imagine that Christian fundamentalists don't have networks?
In the context of attacks against civilians by lone actors or small groups of actors, do those Christian fundamentalist networks conduct ongoing training, or provide ongoing and coordinated planning and financial assistance, to kill those civilians?
I asked once already at #43.... why the assumption that there is any religious motive at all? Seems to me this was a political killing.
When I read the first reference to Christians I just assumed it was a backhanded slam at the assumptions people leap to about Muslims. In the absence of any evidence (which I haven't seen, anyway) I didn''t realize peopole were serious.
I guess you don't have anything to contribute regarding the"nasty personal attack" that left over 80 people dead in Norway?
Strange how many people have selective empathy. Yours appears to only include white Norwegians youth but not brown Libyan youth murdered by NATO terrorism.
Social democrats like DiNovo say Islamic terrorism is the problem, I say imperialism produces nasty blowbacks that kill innocent people. Their social democratic government's state terrorism as a NATO invader and bomber was likely the trigger for their children being massacred. The children in no way deserved to be punished for the lack of morals of their parents.
The death of children is an ongoing tragedy in this nasty world we live in. Canada has likely killed more Libyan children than this bomber killed and all I hear from you is Ready Aye Ready.
Do they imagine that Christian fundamentalists don't have networks?
In the context of attacks against civilians by lone actors or small groups of actors, do those Christian fundamentalist networks conduct ongoing training, or provide ongoing and coordinated planning and financial assistance, to kill those civilians?
yes
Oh man, where to start?
Howeird Beale, making insulting assumptions about posters is against babble policy, as is any form of ad hominem attack.
Stockholm, don't accuse people of not caring about this tragedy because they don't stick to the points you think they should. See previous point.
Unionist, surely you can find a better descriptor for Cheri DiNovo than "piece of shit". I don't want to see that particular phrase applied to any individual. Please stick to her political position as stated.
Do they imagine that Christian fundamentalists don't have networks?
In the context of attacks against civilians by lone actors or small groups of actors, do those Christian fundamentalist networks conduct ongoing training, or provide ongoing and coordinated planning and financial assistance, to kill those civilians?
yes
And the evidence is...what?
I asked once already at #43.... why the assumption that there is any religious motive at all? Seems to me this was a political killing.
When I read the first reference to Christians I just assumed it was a backhanded slam at the assumptions people leap to about Muslims. In the absence of any evidence (which I haven't seen, anyway) I didn''t realize peopole were serious.
Ah... never mind. CBC finally made a reference to it this morning. None of the sources I could find last night mentioned that there is a "suggestion" on his facebook page that he might have been Christian and anti-Islamic.
THough the question is is this an actual organization, or (more likely) one very disturbed individual ?
Unionist, surely you can find a better descriptor for Cheri DiNovo than "piece of shit". I don't want to see that particular phrase applied to any individual. Please stick to her political position as stated.
I accept your advice. Until DiNovo recants her vote and speech in favour of condemning the Israeli Apartheid Week activists in Ontario - which in fact made the Legislative Assembly vote unanimous (Andrea was not present, she later distanced the ONDP from DiNovo's shameless action) - I will henceforth refer to DiNovo as a "fascist". I hope accuracy is acceptable here?
Michelle, were the Columbine or the Fort Hood mass shootings terrorism or simply the work of deranged individual minds? Probably the latter.
Is serial suicide bombing terrorism or simply the work of independent people who are deranged? What about the ongoing killings by Zionists prior to the establishment of Israel or the bombings and other killings by the IRA?
In my mind, terrorism isn't an isolated act. Rather, terrorism is a series of acts of violence against civilians to advance a political or religious agenda intended to instill fear ("terror") in the minds of civilians of more and more attacks.
In the context of Oslo, I think it's too early to draw a conclusion either way. If this is the end of it, then the Oslo attack is probably just the act of a deranged individual. If we see subsequent violent acts by people who have a similar belief system as the Oslo attacker, then it would be appropriate to call it terrorism.
@ Sven
Look at the militia movement in the U.S. I believe there is more than a little Christian fundamentalism wrapped up in their beliefs,
What that has to do with this case I don't know. THe fact that we have one person going on a killing spree does not make a movemen at all. Given what was probably the real cause - hatred - he might as well have done it in the name of Odin, or his dog.
(edit)
Alsthough avoidhellwinparadise was quick to post on youtube that the killings are evidence that Jesus is Muslim, not Christian. So I guess everyone's doing it.
What that has to do with this case I don't know. THe fact that we have one person going on a killing spree does not make a movemen at all. Given what was probably the real cause - hatred - he might as well have done it in the name of Odin, or his dog.
I fully agree. This mania about looking for "political" motives in the act of an obviously deranged individual leads nowhere except to conspiracy theories, divisiveness, xenophobia, and hatred.
Let me share a few examples. Lee Harvey Oswald. Sirhan Sirhan. James Earl Ray. Squeaky Fromme (wannabe). Mark David Chapman. Timothy McVeigh. Kimveer Gill. Valery Fabrikant. Etc. etc.
All these are products of deranged imperialist and racist societies which dehumanize and assault and marginalize and kill people daily, while suppressing popular dissent and struggle. To look at their individual motives is the most diversionary and irrelevant exercise - at best - and at worst, is to stoke the flames of hatred, as in the case of a Cheri DiNovo or all the more obvious examples of xenophobia - or, just have a look at this thread and see the horrendous speculation about Muslims and Christians and that worst of all beasts, "fundamentalists" (a meaningless term of hatred, like "terrorist").
@ Sven
Look at the militia movement in the U.S. I believe there is more than a little Christian fundamentalism wrapped up in their beliefs,
Undoubtedly. But, are those militia groups killing random civilians in ongoing and coordinated mass attacks? If not, I wouldn't classify them as terrorists, even though they represent odious political views.
Do they imagine that Christian fundamentalists don't have networks?
In the context of attacks against civilians by lone actors or small groups of actors, do those Christian fundamentalist networks conduct ongoing training, or provide ongoing and coordinated planning and financial assistance, to kill those civilians?
yes
And the evidence is...what?
The evidence is everywhere. Try and educate yourself please. Do a quick google search of anti-abortion groups and you will find that there are many that do all of the above.
Uhh, I beg to differ Sven
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/02/737764/-Scott-Roeders-Network-o...
All these are products of deranged imperialist and racist societies which dehumanize and assault and marginalize and kill people daily, while suppressing popular dissent and struggle.
Couldnt agree more Unionist. Just look at this guy:
"Mass starvation ran rampant throughout Ukraine, and reports of cannibalism soared. Chikatilo's mother, Anna, told him that his older brother Stepan had been kidnapped and cannibalized by starving neighbors"
And speaking of how someone like the Oslo murderer is generated, have their been any reports of his family background? A Nazi grandpa perhaps?
@ Sven
Look at the militia movement in the U.S. I believe there is more than a little Christian fundamentalism wrapped up in their beliefs,
Undoubtedly. But, are those militia groups killing random civilians in ongoing and coordinated mass attacks? If not, I wouldn't classify them as terrorists, even though they represent odious political views.
No, but both exist, and I think it does have an effect in the way Unionist implies - when you have a deranged person surrounded by messages of hatred.
Bot on this question, I actually agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever of an organized religious group being directly involved.
Not to distract too much, but in other news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/mark-stroman-execution-texas_n_...
Of course grand inquisitor Unionist once again flagrantly violates Babble policy with complete impunity. He's got it bad for DiNovo, but the fact remains that yesterday it was widely reported that a group calling itself Helpers of the Global Jihad had claimed responsibility for yesterday's bomb in Oslo. And yes it appears that today Helpers of the Global Jihad have retracted their claims. I was watching coverage on CBC and Evan Solomon was also reporting that the NY Times had broken that story.
Gee all the MSM are pushing the same malicious garbage. That proves what?
What pisses me off more is how everybody, even BBC and Al Jazeera, keep saying "golly, this is unprecedented in Norway, they're so peaceful, blah, blah..."
oh yeah?
"Musicians and fans of the Norwegian black metal scene took part in over 50 arsons of Christian churches in Norway from 1992 to 1996."
I'm not sure I understand where you're going with your comments in post #79, unionist.
You speak of a "mania about looking for "political" motives in the act of an obviously deranged individual". It seems to me as though you're positing "derangement" and "political motivation" as two mutually exclusive forces (for lack of a better word). I don't see how "derangement" in any way dislodges any political motivations which might or might not animate to some degree an individual's murderous acts.
You then go on to say:
Let me share a few examples. Lee Harvey Oswald. Sirhan Sirhan. James Earl Ray. Squeaky Fromme (wannabe). Mark David Chapman. Timothy McVeigh. Kimveer Gill. Valery Fabrikant. Etc. etc.All these are products of deranged imperialist and racist societies which dehumanize and assault and marginalize and kill people daily, while suppressing popular dissent and struggle.
Again, not understanding where you're going here. Are you suggesting that the Concordia academic community, to take one example from your list, is responsible for Fabrikant's murderous spree? If only they had not "suppressed" his "dissent", the shooting wouldn't have occurred? (By the way, the Superior Court rendered a decision in March of this year in Fabrikant's civil suit against his former engineering professor colleagues, dismissing his claim.)
@ Sven
Look at the militia movement in the U.S. I believe there is more than a little Christian fundamentalism wrapped up in their beliefs,
Undoubtedly. But, are those militia groups killing random civilians in ongoing and coordinated mass attacks? If not, I wouldn't classify them as terrorists, even though they represent odious political views.
Ever been to Oklahoma City?
The peaceful reputation is probably from the peace prize and the olso accords.
The main stream media has since corrected itself. Perhaps relating this somehow to the prevention of the slaughter of Benghazi and how one organization might not be fulfilling the UN's mandate should be saved for another thread on that specific topic.
Anyways, getting back on topic at hand-
@ Stockholm
Yes, but from what I understand there was no religious motive, overt or covert, for McVeigh, Nichols and Fortier. It;s one thing for a deranged or obsessed person to take a religion, patriotism, or xenophobia and absorb it into that obsession. It is quite another for it to be the foundation for a rationally-designed plot.
James Kopp, the Army of God, and other anti-abortion murderers? That is a direct connection between religion and violence. This, not so much, as far as we know.
Such a tragedy. I couldn't believe it when I woke up this morning and heard the body count so high. :(
Re: Tommy's Guardian article, I find it interesting that the police officer has decided that this guy is not linked to "international terrorism" because he's not a Muslim extremist. Because he's a Christian extremist, he's a lone shooter, it's "the work of a madman". Despite the fact that he has been posting to "Christian fundamentalist extremist" websites.
Now, if it had been a Muslim acting alone, and it was discovered he posted to Muslim fundamentalist extremist websites, would it still be considered "the work of a madman", or would it be considered to be "linked to international terrorism"?
Do they imagine that Christian fundamentalists don't have networks? Christian fundamentalist extremists don't export their violence around the world, or carry out violent attacks, or violent, state-sanctioned wars? It's only "terrorism" when a Muslim kills people?
Only post worth reading in this thread.
(Except this one, of course!)
Here is Harper's new lap dog taking this tragedy to push an anti-democratic, police state model of security. Crusty Clark of course agreed whole heartily.
Imagine a Norwegian national attacks his fellow country man and that is proof we need deep security integration with the US. CBC reported this on its news cast as well.
It seems imperialists will use any excuse to turn us into a police state.
VANCOUVER — Canada's ambassador to the U.S. and the outgoing chairperson of the National Governors Association say new-age threats and the terrorist attacks in Norway demonstrate the need for increased vigilance at the border and for perimeter security.
Gary Doer, Canadian ambassador to the United States, and Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire provided provincial and territorial premiers with an update Friday on Canada-U.S. relations, including the Beyond the Border initiative that would establish a sweeping North American security and trade perimeter.
http://www.canada.com/news/Oslo+attacks+renew+border+concerns+premiers+m...
@ Stockholm
Yes, but from what I understand there was no religious motive, overt or covert, for McVeigh, Nichols and Fortier. It;s one thing for a deranged or obsessed person to take a religion, patriotism, or xenophobia and absorb it into that obsession. It is quite another for it to be the foundation for a rationally-designed plot.
By the same token, it seems like anytime there is a terrorist attack committed by someone who happens to be Muslim - its always described as a religiously motivated attack. In reality if you look at various attacks over the last few years - they were mostly people who happened to be Muslim (in many cases not even particularly religious) who acted alone and were either disaffected youth going on a Columbine style massacre or were people who wanted to make a POLITICAL statement against the policies of certain government etc...
But you can be that anytime there is a mass murder and the perpetrator is Muslim - it will ALWAYS be depicted as being part of some larger "war on terrorism" and there will be talk about links to al-qaeda (even when there are none) and it will be referred to as religiously motivated. In contrast when mass murder is committed by rightwing Christians - the tendency is to dismiss it as the work of a lunatic actiing aloine and no one even thinks to view as an indictment of Christianity as a religion or to see it as being part of a larger context.
There are all kinds of extreme rightwing hate groups out there. They have spawned everything from the militia movement who were behind Oklahoma City to the Jewish extremists who killed Yitzhak Rabin, to various gangs of neo-nazi skinheads who maraud around the former East Germany attacking Turkish immigrants and gay people. These groups are allied with one another - and are more organized than people realize.
The Lord's Resistance Army has been terrorizing Africans for more than 20 years. Their version of Christianity makes the Inquisition look like a lingerie party. They rape, murder, kidnap children to use as sex slaves and child soldiers, etc. There is no horror you can imagine (and many many that you cannot) that this terrorist group hasn't visited upon innocent civilians.
All in the name of Christ, no less.
@ Stockholm
That doesn't make it right, or accurate in the U.S., Northern Ireland, or the Middle East
The first step in understanding what is going on in all these incidents is separating the causes from the misconceptions, not playing tit for tat.
Are we interested in the truth, or building up a web of nonsense just to prove a point about anti-Islam propaganda?
the "suspect"
Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian petty bourgeois. He went to business school in Norway and runs a small business. He was evidently not short of money, as he bought a farm, on which his small business was run, which had previously been used by elements in the criminal underwold as a marijuana plantation. The plantation was also connected to a famous bank robbery (NOKAS robbery). Probably in preparation for yesterday's events Breivik bought six tonnes of artificial fertiliser, which is commonly used for home-made bombs, on May 4th, using his farming business as cover.He is also a right-wing extremist. He was an active member of the racist Fremskrittspartiet, which is currently running at 20% or so in the polls, and their youth organisation, supposedly for 10 years, until 2007. He's an opponent of multi-culturalism and viciously anti-Muslim. He has apparently suggested recreating the US Tea Party in Europe and expressed support for the English Defence League. He wrote things like:
"All hate ideologies ought to be treated the same:
"Islamism has killed 300 million
"Communism has killed 100 million
"Nazism has killed 6-20 million"He calls former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundlant a "fatherland killer", for having put forward the idea that anyone who lives in Norway is a Norwegian. He also constantly refer to how "Marxists" supposedly have infiltrated everywhere, including culture, schools and the media.
There can be no doubt that this was a political act. The targets were not haphazard, as is usually the case in attacks by mad people. They were carefully selected for political reasons. It seems likely that the main target was The Labour Norwegian Prime Minister Jan Stoltenberg. Hundreds of young people were awaiting a speech the prime minister was to give there today.
The international media is unanimous in regarding these atrocities as the act of a "mad gunman". In this way they try to draw attention away from the political content of these events. A madman is not responsible for his actions, which are of a purely random and accidental character. But there was nothing either random or accidental about this.
In contrast if this neo-Nazis had self identified as an anarchist that would be the only focus of the reporting.
To be clear while anarchists break windows and destroy capitalist property none in the modern age seem to be into random attacks on civilians.
I agree - this guy is not "crazy" (unless you take the view that ANYONE who kills is crazy) - he is a rightwing extremist with strong political views. Instead of trying to dismiss him as a nut - we should wake up to the threat that these rightwing xenophobic extremists pose to society. They should be taken very seriously.
I expect the "western" media coverage to provide great details about the killings, gory photos, re-enactments, and so on with little or no coverage of the political motivation for the crime.
I expect western media to treat this crime as an opportunity to provide an instruction manual for similar crimes in the future. For that reason I will be ignoring most of the "objective" media coverage.
