I think I will quote you when I get into this sort of discussion next timeWhich is weird, because even I think that the RAF were king-sized prats.![]()
You'd be surprised how many apologists for the Red Army Faction you could find even among the moderate German left.
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.
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.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.
The left craft triumphant mythologies around psychotic killers; the right merely invites them into political power.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 usual leftcomm prudishness, always refusing to dirty their delicate hands by the blood of class enemyWhich is weird, because even I think that the RAF were king-sized prats.
You're getting good at this!The usual leftcomm prudishness, always refusing to dirty their delicate hands by the blood of class enemy![]()
There is value in killing people simply because you don't like them?
My guess here is that Norwegian balls are precisely about not doing that.Indeed, Norway should grow some balls and hang him.
That may all be true.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.
I'd like to qualify the "we".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.
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).stuff
True. But also the reverse is true as soon as actual policy is concerned.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.
He'll change his mind. Virtually all political terrorist do after 20 years in prison.So he just said that he'd do this again, given the chance.
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!).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 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.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).
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.My guess here is that Norwegian balls are precisely about not doing that.
I salute them for their balls.
What would that prove?
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.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.
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.