BF2S Forums 77 Dead in Norway shooting.

Ty wrote:

Oh for fuck's...

They found that Breivik had a collection of violent video games. Here we go again.

The fact that this is still worth mentioning is ridiculous.

The games I've seen mentioned in his diary that he's played over the last 14 months are World of Warcraft and Dragon Age 2



Also on the prison system here.... Norway do have a sort of lifetime sentence, just not in name. Like jens said, he can be kept longer if he is deemed unfit to return to society.... This delay of his release can in practise continue for the rest of his life.

And not all prisons are like in that vid of that fucked up island resort. Althou pretty much all prisons I've ever heard of in Norway are better then some of the places I have lived while studying... They even get free food

Last edited by Hallvard (2011-07-24 03:00:52)

AussieReaper wrote:

Hallvard wrote:

Ty wrote:

Oh for fuck's...

They found that Breivik had a collection of violent video games. Here we go again.

The fact that this is still worth mentioning is ridiculous.

The games I've seen mentioned in his diary that he's played over the last 14 months are World of Warcraft and Dragon Age 2



Also on the prison system here.... Norway do have a sort of lifetime sentence, just not in name. Like jens said, he can be kept longer if he is deemed unfit to return to society.... This delay of his release can in practise continue for the rest of his life.

And not all prisons are like in that vid of that fucked up island resort. Althou pretty much all prisons I've ever heard of in Norway are better then some of the places I have lived while studying... They even get free food

If you like getting pounded in the ass and eating dick sandwiches, I'm sure prison is just lovely in Norway.

It isn't shawshank redemption, I doubt rape goes on in much in European prisons.

I've been reading his "manifesto" and it seems well researched at first but once you take a look at some of the sources...

Listed sources for a section titled "General characteristics of European Islamic Negationism" wrote:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism
2. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_berlin
5. See: The Eurabia Code
6. Alex Alexiev, "Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States", Testimony before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 26 June 2003.

His knowledge of Arab-Islamic history is really light. Either that he's chosen to disregard it and lie for his agenda.

From a section titled "The First Major Wave of Jihad: the Arabs, 622-750 AD". The section right after it is titled "The Second Major Wave of Jihad: the Turks, 1071-1683 AD"

This first wave of jihad engulfed much of the Byzantine, Visigothic, Frankish, and Persian Empires and left the newborn Islamic Empire controlling territory from Southern France, south through Spain, east across North Africa to India, and north to Russia. Early in the second millennium AD, the Mongol invasion from the east greatly weakened the Islamic Empire and ended Arab predominance therein.

The Mongols didn't end Muslim expansion. They also don't fit into the time frame he put them in. Muslim expansion into Europe was stopped by internal war within the Umayyad caliphate as well as a powerful Frankish and Greek Empires. The Mongols had nothing to do with halting the Muslims armies advance into Europe. The Mongols first started warfare with the remnants of the Umayyad caliphate in the early 13th century when Genghis Khan conquered Iran. By this time though the Umayyad Caliphate was gone by about 400 years. It was replaced by the Abbasid caliphate which imploded into the Fatimid Caliphate and a bunch of other kingdoms spread across the ME. The Mongols did destroy the last caliphate that could claim direct descent from Mohammad in the mid 13th century when they invaded Baghdad. But by that time though, the Abbasid caliphate was reduced to only holding Baghdad and some land around it in modern day Iraq.

tl;dr The Mongols didn't weaken shit. French, Germans, Greeks, and Arabs stopped Muslim expansion.

The guy is obviously not dumb. It wouldn't surprise me if he has a genius level IQ. I'm just disappointed he put more planning into the attack than he did researching the thing he is so much against.




I think I may need a hobby...

Macbeth wrote:

2. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Now where have I seen that before?

Hmmm....

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

2. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Now where have I seen that before?

Hmmm....

Spark wrote:

Classic symptoms of nationalism. Intelligent man gains selective vision and is perfectly happy to utilize logical fallacies to make a point.

Hmmm....

Macbeth wrote:

I've been reading his "manifesto" and it seems well researched at first but once you take a look at some of the sources...

Listed sources for a section titled "General characteristics of European Islamic Negationism" wrote:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism
2. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_berlin
5. See: The Eurabia Code
6. Alex Alexiev, "Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States", Testimony before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 26 June 2003.

His knowledge of Arab-Islamic history is really light. Either that he's chosen to disregard it and lie for his agenda.

From a section titled "The First Major Wave of Jihad: the Arabs, 622-750 AD". The section right after it is titled "The Second Major Wave of Jihad: the Turks, 1071-1683 AD"

This first wave of jihad engulfed much of the Byzantine, Visigothic, Frankish, and Persian Empires and left the newborn Islamic Empire controlling territory from Southern France, south through Spain, east across North Africa to India, and north to Russia. Early in the second millennium AD, the Mongol invasion from the east greatly weakened the Islamic Empire and ended Arab predominance therein.

The Mongols didn't end Muslim expansion. They also don't fit into the time frame he put them in. Muslim expansion into Europe was stopped by internal war within the Umayyad caliphate as well as a powerful Frankish and Greek Empires. The Mongols had nothing to do with halting the Muslims armies advance into Europe. The Mongols first started warfare with the remnants of the Umayyad caliphate in the early 13th century when Genghis Khan conquered Iran. By this time though the Umayyad Caliphate was gone by about 400 years. It was replaced by the Abbasid caliphate which imploded into the Fatimid Caliphate and a bunch of other kingdoms spread across the ME. The Mongols did destroy the last caliphate that could claim direct descent from Mohammad in the mid 13th century when they invaded Baghdad. But by that time though, the Abbasid caliphate was reduced to only holding Baghdad and some land around it in modern day Iraq.

tl;dr The Mongols didn't weaken shit. French, Germans, Greeks, and Arabs stopped Muslim expansion.

The guy is obviously not dumb. It wouldn't surprise me if he has a genius level IQ. I'm just disappointed he put more planning into the attack than he did researching the thing he is so much against.




I think I may need a hobby...

History is a hobby.
I read it yesterday when Uzi posted it. It sounds like you're squabbling over a misinterpretation of what he meant.

googledocs, I read it just like a web page.

Kmar wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I've been reading his "manifesto" and it seems well researched at first but once you take a look at some of the sources...

Listed sources for a section titled "General characteristics of European Islamic Negationism" wrote:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism
2. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%931878)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_berlin
5. See: The Eurabia Code
6. Alex Alexiev, "Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the United States", Testimony before the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, 26 June 2003.

His knowledge of Arab-Islamic history is really light. Either that he's chosen to disregard it and lie for his agenda.

From a section titled "The First Major Wave of Jihad: the Arabs, 622-750 AD". The section right after it is titled "The Second Major Wave of Jihad: the Turks, 1071-1683 AD"

This first wave of jihad engulfed much of the Byzantine, Visigothic, Frankish, and Persian Empires and left the newborn Islamic Empire controlling territory from Southern France, south through Spain, east across North Africa to India, and north to Russia. Early in the second millennium AD, the Mongol invasion from the east greatly weakened the Islamic Empire and ended Arab predominance therein.

The Mongols didn't end Muslim expansion. They also don't fit into the time frame he put them in. Muslim expansion into Europe was stopped by internal war within the Umayyad caliphate as well as a powerful Frankish and Greek Empires. The Mongols had nothing to do with halting the Muslims armies advance into Europe. The Mongols first started warfare with the remnants of the Umayyad caliphate in the early 13th century when Genghis Khan conquered Iran. By this time though the Umayyad Caliphate was gone by about 400 years. It was replaced by the Abbasid caliphate which imploded into the Fatimid Caliphate and a bunch of other kingdoms spread across the ME. The Mongols did destroy the last caliphate that could claim direct descent from Mohammad in the mid 13th century when they invaded Baghdad. But by that time though, the Abbasid caliphate was reduced to only holding Baghdad and some land around it in modern day Iraq.

tl;dr The Mongols didn't weaken shit. French, Germans, Greeks, and Arabs stopped Muslim expansion.

The guy is obviously not dumb. It wouldn't surprise me if he has a genius level IQ. I'm just disappointed he put more planning into the attack than he did researching the thing he is so much against.




I think I may need a hobby...

History is a hobby.
I read it yesterday when Uzi posted it. It sounds like you're squabbling over a misinterpretation of what he meant.
http://i.imgur.com/p3q2G.jpg

Well, maybe he should have put the part I quoted into the section from 1071 onward instead of the section that ends in 750 in order to prevent confusion. /walks away angrily.

Why are you guys even entertaining this murderer by giving his bullshit manifesto any attention? Whatever he thinks does not justify or rationalize his actions. Just like manson, his getting interviewed by the media, giving him a forum and a spotlight is more attention he deserves.

Lock this guy up on his resort prison, let him ride horses and fish for 21 years doin' hard time the Norway way.

jord wrote:

Kmar wrote:

So only one thing remains; I need to find my weapons connection within 4 days…! I failed miserably yesterday; I went to two brothels and a couple of clubs. The people I approached got really nervous and thought I was either a cop or completely nuts, lol. I have had to refine my approach pitch. It started off really bad. Whatever you do when trying to establish a gun connection, never be too direct;

Hello there;  I want to buy an AK-47, 4 frag grenades, 1 glock and AP bullets. (Guy will run for the hills before you have completed the last sentence:-)

parts https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id … &pli=1

all http://is.gd/b4BaZC

I'm about half way through, he really was very dedicated...

Jaekus wrote:

It fits the psycopath model perfectly.

I just bought Modern Warfare 2, the game. It is probably the best military simulator out there and it’s one of the hottest games this year. I played MW1 as well but I didn’t really like it as I’m generally more the fantasy RPG kind of person – Dragon Age Origins etc .and not so much into first person shooters.

I want to see the media nutjobs start whining about him turning out as he did because of shooter games....

13rin wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

13rin wrote:

Holy Shit!!!!

This guy under their law will be out in 21 years!

It'll be made lengthened if he is deemed unfit to return to society after 21 years.

So sentencing guidelines are flexible there?

Indeed. We will never let anyone go if it is clear that he/she will be a danger to society upon release. Likewise, if we think the person is ready before time, we can let him go early if it's a regular 21-year sentence. The one this guy will get, however, is the harshest we have (minimum 21 years), which means he'll be in prison for 21 years no matter what, and then we'll reevaluate the situation when we near the end.

There's no re-evaluating to be had if one kills 90+ people. I don't care if he turns into a saint, that man should never be allowed freedom.

Let alone life.