Anders Breivik declared sane

[Takhisis]

Well, they were royal .

 

[Leoreth]

Which is weird, because even I think that the RAF were king-sized prats.

I think I will quote you when I get into this sort of discussion next time

I really don't understand it either, because they didn't even have a proper ideological motivation. The more I got to know about them (first generation in particular), the more I was convinced that they were a bunch of angry twentysomethings who went way over board with their desire to vent their grievances. Which probably made them so sympathetic to the then-members of the student revolutions who now set the tone among the moderate left.

 

[luiz]

You'd be surprised how many apologists for the Red Army Faction you could find even among the moderate German left.

I don't want to get into the argument, but I'll say it nonetheless: the moderate right is far less likely to apologize for far-right extremists than the moderate left is to apologize for far left extremists. Nobody on the moderate right (and virtually nobody even on the far right!) defends Breivik, as you said many supposedely moderate leftists apologize for the psychotic RAF. I've heard Brazilian leftists praising the Sendero Luminoso, even worse than the RAF, infamous for shooting whole villages of peasants, women and children included. Praise for Che Guevara is widespread, despite the fact he was also a sociopath who took pleasure in personally executing people, from political enemies to petty thiefs to comrades he considered cowards (and also a massive homophobe who wanted gays in concentration camps).

 

[SecretKnowledge]

And I think if a guy like Breivik was born in Saudi Arabia he would belong to al-Qaeda; if he was born in Germany a few decades ago he could very well have become a member of the RAF. I am convinced his psycopathy drives his politics, not the other way around.

This is an extremely good point. I would characterize the mentality which drives violent political action as being more derived from a combination of fanaticism and belief in the ends justify the means rather psycopathy, though. I agree that the underlying mindset that draws such people to extremist is essentially the same regardless of its particular flavor/variant. The mentality is exploited especially by self-righteous demagogues to gain money, power, fame, and adherents to a particular ideology. A person already inclined to such thought processes will much more readily accept committing violence for ideological tenets than someone who rejects such a course of change, regardless of the precise details of the ideology.

This would possibly even hold true for political extremism of a not overtly violent category. For example, some contemporary political activists (perhaps those like Pamela Geller), had they existed at the time of the Dreyfus Affair, would have been pushing hard the idea that Alfred Dreyfus must have been guilty.

One of the ways in which advocates of political violence gain in strength is when they attempt to make themselves the only viable opposition to a particular opposing political force. This is more of an issue in civil wars or with guerilla conditions.

 

[Takhisis]

This would possibly even hold true for political extremism of a not overtly violent category. For example, some contemporary political activists, had they existed at the time of the Dreyfus Affair, would have been pushing hard the idea that Alfred Dreyfus must have been guilty.

There were a lot of them at the time, they just never coalesced because there wasn't the amount of hyper-communication we have in the present.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't want to get into the argument, but I'll say it nonetheless: the moderate right is far less likely to apologize for far-right extremists than the moderate left is to apologize for far left extremists. Nobody on the moderate right (and virtually nobody even on the far right!) defends Breivik, as you said many supposedely moderate leftists apologize for the psychotic RAF. I've heard Brazilian leftists praising the Sendero Luminoso, even worse than the RAF, infamous for shooting whole villages of peasants, women and children included. Praise for Che Guevara is widespread, despite the fact he was also a sociopath who took pleasure in personally executing people, from political enemies to petty thiefs to comrades he considered cowards (and also a massive homophobe who wanted gays in concentration camps).

The left craft triumphant mythologies around psychotic killers; the right merely invites them into political power.

 

[Takhisis]

The Nazis did both. Talk of a third option.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Which is weird, because even I think that the RAF were king-sized prats.

The usual leftcomm prudishness, always refusing to dirty their delicate hands by the blood of class enemy

 

[ParkCungHee]

This is why it's good to be a pacifist. Nobody yells at pacifists for defending extremist pacifists.

 

[Traitorfish]

The usual leftcomm prudishness, always refusing to dirty their delicate hands by the blood of class enemy

You're getting good at this!

 

[Defiant47]

So he just said that he'd do this again, given the chance. Bullet in the head now plz?

 

[Traitorfish]

What would that prove?

 

[Quackers]

There is value in killing people simply because you don't like them?

It isn't because I "don't like them". It's because Brevik has murdered 77 people.

 

[metatron]

Indeed, Norway should grow some balls and hang him.

My guess here is that Norwegian balls are precisely about not doing that.

I salute them for their balls.

By whom? I consider myself centre-right and I am definitely not planning to shoot 77 teenagers to advance my ideology.

Abusing this horrible crime to attack political opponents who had *nothing* to do with Breivik or his ideological views is just a variant of the "debating strategy" proscribed by the Godwin law.

That may all be true.
But there are a good deal of right wing people who field "his ideological views" merely without the endorsement of violence (or an endorsement of more moderate violence).
They can perfectly well be associated with Breivik.

we must certainly put more effort in fighting right-wing extremism and we should not waste the money into fighting left-wing extremism as well just for the sake of fairness.

I'd like to qualify the "we".
A lot.
But i fundamentally agree.

stuff

You are less than sufficiently informed about a) the factual evidence regarding rightwing and leftwing terrorism in Germany over the course of the last 20 years and b) the utter failure of the CDU to appreciate that evidence and c) their failed, harmful policies as a result of the bias they base on b).

I don't want to get into the argument, but I'll say it nonetheless: the moderate right is far less likely to apologize for far-right extremists than the moderate left is to apologize for far left extremists. Nobody on the moderate right (and virtually nobody even on the far right!) defends Breivik, as you said many supposedely moderate leftists apologize for the psychotic RAF.

True. But also the reverse is true as soon as actual policy is concerned.

Both these trends combined mean little more than one thing: Demonstrating that conservatives want to do rightwing bs but are coy about admitting it.
The left in contrast aspire to relatively moderate politics but glorify their brutal "heroes" of days long gone.

I don't get why they do that though (the conservatives motive i get).

So he just said that he'd do this again, given the chance.

He'll change his mind. Virtually all political terrorist do after 20 years in prison.
When he has done his time Breivik will look... small. He will look like the small pathetic degenerate that he really is.
Killing him would not accomplish that. Killing him would conserve the inflated image of him that he has created with his crimes.

 

[luiz]

You are less than sufficiently informed about a) the factual evidence regarding rightwing and leftwing terrorism in Germany over the course of the last 20 years and b) the utter failure of the CDU to appreciate that evidence and c) their failed, harmful policies as a result of the bias they base on b).

Then enlighten me because I am not sure what you are objecting to (you didn't quote the part of my post you disagreed with!).

True. But also the reverse is true as soon as actual policy is concerned.

Both these trends combined mean little more than one thing: Demonstrating that conservatives want to do rightwing bs but are coy about admitting it.
The left in contrast aspire to relatively moderate politics but glorify their brutal "heroes" of days long gone.

I don't get why they do that though (the conservatives motive i get).

I think it's very unfair to say that right-wing people want to do far-right BS. No moderate right-winger (and even most people on the far-right) have anything but disgust for the likes of Breivik, and I think it's ridiculous to suggest that such contempt is not genuine.

Likewise, the notion that all leftists aspire for moderate positions is wishful thinking. Some leftists are just crazy, as crazy as the far-right. Many insist in positions and doctrines long discredited, and are stuck in debates which were old in 1950. The moderate left aspires for moderate position, as does the moderate right.

Why does the moderate left still glorify their "brutal heroes" (I'd call them thugs, but anyway)? My guess is that many moderate leftists are former radical leftists, or are the children of radical leftists. Many find it hard to admit they were cheering for mass-murderers (from Lenin to Fidel Castro, how many icons of the radical left who actually exercised power lived up to historical scrutiny? Zero) . The moderate right, by contrast, is by and large not made up of individuals who used to be far-right. In fact many have their origins on the left. The few who did come from the far-right were forced by historical conditions to do a mea culpa and admit they were wrong, something many on the far left never had to do.

 

[Arwon]

My guess here is that Norwegian balls are precisely about not doing that.

I salute them for their balls.

Quite. The PM at the first press conference after the attacks:

This is an attack on innocent civilians. On young people at a summer camp. On us.
I have a message for those who attacked us. And for those who are behind them.
It is a message from the whole of Norway:
You will not destroy us.
You will not destroy our democracy or our commitment to bringing about a better world.
We are a small nation, but we are a proud nation.
No one is going to bomb us into silence.
No one is going to shoot us into silence.
No one is ever going to frighten us away from being Norway.

[...]

We must never give up our values.
We must show that our open society can pass this test too.
That the answer to violence is even more democracy.
Even more humanity.
But never naivity.
That is something we owe the victims and their families.

 

[wolfigor]

My guess here is that Norwegian balls are precisely about not doing that.

I salute them for their balls.

You are right: after Utøya it could have been extremely easy for various political groups to (ab)use the event to push for populist reforms and gain political points on top of such tragedy.
Jens Stoltenberg, the prime minister, did not go for such populist move but defended the Norwegian values with remarkable strength... a proud moment for Norway.

The Norwegian system, unlike others, is fully committed to rehabilitation of criminals: you are not punished but helped to go back to an honest life.
In this view relatively short sentences and comfortable prisons are part of the rehabilitation process.
At least it looks like Norway has one of the lowest level of recidivity of crimes (*).

However, what are the chances of somebody like Breivik to sincerely change his mind and go back to a normal life?
Such extreme acts badly fit with the Norwegian system that is built on the base of a very "boring" and honest country.



(*) However the system fails badly to deter from crime.
For specific groups of people crime is a win-win deal: if they don't catch you, you gain.
If they catch you, you stay short time in a very comfortable place without any drawback.
I just wanted to note it down even if it is quite off-topic.

 

[Defiant47]

What would that prove?

It's not about "proving" anything, it's about not wasting any more resources whatsoever on this man, other than a hot piece of lead and a quick trip to the landfill.

 

[Leoreth]

However, what are the chances of somebody like Breivik to sincerely change his mind and go back to a normal life?
Such extreme acts badly fit with the Norwegian system that is built on the base of a very "boring" and honest country.

Yeah, but it seems that you have a procedure for this sort of criminal nonetheless. It may not appease vengeful law-and-order types, but it gets the job done: he is no threat to civilians anymore.

 

[ArneHD]

It's not about "proving" anything, it's about not wasting any more resources whatsoever on this man, other than a hot piece of lead and a quick trip to the landfill.

I disagree, this trial is only about the man himself in a immediate sense. The larger goals is to kill the ideas and environment that enabled the attacks to happen to prevent further attacks from happening. To quote an AUF leader "We will debate his ideas to death". By this I assume that, in an open debate, his arguments and beliefs can be exposed as the paranoid delusions that they are.