BF2S Forums 77 Dead in Norway shooting.

Macbeth wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

You seem excited.

It's boring here at work and I've done all the reading I care to for the moment about sound cards and the like.

Look up the life story of Baibars. It's interesting.

or Salladin.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-25 05:16:39)

Kmar wrote:

And he has committed mass murder in the name of ridding Norway of Muslims, a religious group.

"We will be the plum tree for Christianity"

He himself has said that he wanted anti-Muslim crusade.

Yes Hitler did attack a religion, but that was because he was looking for a scapegoat. Hitler had alternator motives, which primarily did not involve the Jews.

and pinning Norway's problems ( as he sees them)  on Muslims is not scapegoating? Don't see much of a difference actually.

I think his motivation against Muslims is not religious, but the fact that Islam is in your face, with the burkas, and the Mosques and whatever demands Islam is making in other countries to accommodate them. That is not religiously motivated. He does not care what Muslims believe, he just doesn't want Norway to be so visibly Islamic I would guess

Kmar wrote:

Yes Hitler did attack a religion, but that was because he was looking for a scapegoat. Hitler had alternator motives, which primarily did not involve the Jews.

Well I thought he was convinced they were the cause anyway. Hence the whole extermination plan and all.

Shocking wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

It's boring here at work and I've done all the reading I care to for the moment about sound cards and the like.

Look up the life story of Baibars. It's interesting.

or Salladin.

Salladin is too mainstream. Timur is more interesting. You probably never heard of him.

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

It goes beyond them shouting allah akbar though, they have financial backing and support from Islamic leaders. Get back with me when the Pope, or even a priest signs on to what this Norwegian did.

Yup they do. As I said their society is still largely dominated by religion, so I see it as being inevitable that it will be used in their fight. It just so happens to be that there are many more people who think like Breivik in the ME than there are in the west. His ideas are eerily similar to that of islamic terrorists.

I wish I could agree with you but I can't, this guy does not give a fuck what others do, he just wants Norway for the Norwegians. AQ wants to influence the world and any resistance will be met with terrorism.

lowing wrote:

I wish I could agree with you but I can't, this guy does not give a fuck what others do, he just wants Norway for the Norwegians. AQ wants to influence the world and any resistance will be met with terrorism.

They want the destruction of the west yeah, it's a step further from Breivik. Initially Osama bin Laden fought the soviets in the late 70s begin 80s because he wanted the muslim countries to be for the muslims, later on he radicalised more and saw us as being the cause of their problems. As Breivik states that you cannot win unless you attack the root of the cause (the multiculturalist alliance; i.e. socialists and non-ethnocentric people), that is how Osama thought about the relation of the muslim countries to the west.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Yup they do. As I said their society is still largely dominated by religion, so I see it as being inevitable that it will be used in their fight. It just so happens to be that there are many more people who think like Breivik in the ME than there are in the west. His ideas are eerily similar to that of islamic terrorists.

The mainstream Islamic leaders all condemn AQ because they are extremists.

It is akin to arguing the Westbro Baptist Church speak for all of Christianity.

Who do you consider mainstream Islamic leadership? Only those that agree with you? Fact is there is a shit load of Islamic leaders that support the jihad.

This is true.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-25 05:30:01)

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

The mainstream Islamic leaders all condemn AQ because they are extremists.

It is akin to arguing the Westbro Baptist Church speak for all of Christianity.

Who do you consider mainstream Islamic leadership? Only those that agree with you? Fact is there is a shit load of Islamic leaders that support the jihad.

And there are a shitload who do not. Many more I would suggest.

wouldn't know the numbers but there is enough supporters of jihad within the Islamic leadership that  I wouldn't feel safe calling opposing views to that "mainstream".

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

I wish I could agree with you but I can't, this guy does not give a fuck what others do, he just wants Norway for the Norwegians. AQ wants to influence the world and any resistance will be met with terrorism.

They want the destruction of the west yeah, it's a step further from Breivik. Initially Osama bin Laden fought the soviets in the late 70s begin 80s because he wanted the muslim countries to be for the muslims, later on he radicalised more and saw us as being the cause of their problems. As Breivik states that you cannot win unless you attack the root of the cause (the multiculturalist alliance; i.e. socialists and non-ethnocentric people), that is how Osama thought about the relation of the muslim countries to the west.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

The mainstream Islamic leaders all condemn AQ because they are extremists.

It is akin to arguing the Westbro Baptist Church speak for all of Christianity.

Who do you consider mainstream Islamic leadership? Only those that agree with you? Fact is there is a shit load of Islamic leaders that support the jihad.

This is true.

More than the destruction of the west, is a little further than a mere step from Breivik.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

And there are a shitload who do not. Many more I would suggest.

wouldn't know the numbers but there is enough supporters of jihad within the Islamic leadership that  I wouldn't feel safe calling opposing views to that "mainstream".

So where does it become "mainstream"? Because if it were as I see it - a majority or close to - then we'd not be seeing sporadic instances of terror. We'd see full-blown wars, all over the place.

Pretty much.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

And there are a shitload who do not. Many more I would suggest.

wouldn't know the numbers but there is enough supporters of jihad within the Islamic leadership that  I wouldn't feel safe calling opposing views to that "mainstream".

So where does it become "mainstream"? Because if it were as I see it - a majority or close to - then we'd not be seeing sporadic instances of terror. We'd see full-blown wars, all over the place.

You have not had sporadic instances of terrorism from Islamic terrorists, you have had a steady stream of attacks worldwide over the past few decades.

Well I don't think you can deny the fact that he makes A LOT of references to Christianity. He's a lot more deep than most of us in that respect. As I said, it hasn't gotten to the point where we're at the known ME terrorists and their Jihad but the point I'm bringing across is that he's really not very different from the 'Islamic' terrorists. Not at all.

As you said with Islamic terrorism, if they state the Islam in their own motivation you'll take their words for it, I expect you'd do the same with people who intertwine Christianity in their motivation, no?

Christian terrorism exists as well by the way, in India for example there are active terrorist groups that describe themselves as Christian. I'm quite sure there will be some people who will endorse what Breivik did and his motivations. Ofcourse he won't get approval from the pope, but I doubt that's necessary. Islam doesn't even have one single authority figure.

Anyway I think it's useless to draw a line somewhere between 'political' motivation or 'religious'. It's apparant that it's always both.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-25 06:10:05)