On the thread about airport security, the attack on Norway barged into the discussion. At first (like many elsewhere), Steve's thoughts appeared to suggest he thought it likely to be jihadist. Of course, he wasn't to know that it wasn't (or that the source of claims that an Islamist group claimed responsibility was pretty dubious - but from a media-lauded 'security expert').

Still, I was taken a little aback by this:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Neal Anderth wrote:[The official said the attack "is probably more Norway's Oklahoma City than it is Norway's World Trade Center."

Maybe. Our government has misinformed us how many times? Every terror attack here is a "lone wolf" until it turns out he was emailing Anwar al Awlaki.

Hmm. It does appear that the perpetrator did have links to groups like the EDF and other far right anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim groups. His manifesto cites and praises many people who some consider to be 'hatemongers' on the right.

I'm not ready to concede for at least a week.

How refreshingly open-minded of you. If it were a Pakistani immigrant who'd been arrested and someone had taken the exact same position, I'm sure you'd appreciate their circumspection and in no way suggest that they were trying to deflect blame...

It is crazy that one man could shoot so many. Sad indeed. Obviously, he knew the island would not have armed guards, police, etc.

Apparently there was a policeman there, who was among the first to be shot. Why did you assume your point was 'obvious'?

The worst part, other than the deaths themselves, may be the punishment. I read he can get no more than 21 years. That's sick.

As far as I can tell, this is also incorrect. The standard maximum determinate sentence in Norway is indeed 21 years. However an indeterminate sentence can be applied which includes a test of whether the prisoner is a danger or not, and can potentially mean that every 5 years (after an initial period of up to 14-21 years) his custody is reaffirmed, leading to life. I'm not sure if anyone has had to serve this, but I think we are dealing with an exceptional case here.

Alternatively, if it's determined that he is insane, he may be committed.

Interestingly, Glen Beck just compared the AUF (the youth arm of the Norwegian Labour Party which organised the camp) to the Hitler Youth. When Steve above mentioned the lack of protection, I did wonder what the perception would have been in the USA to a political youth organisation that was armed when it met for camps. Seems even if they are unarmed there will be some idiot.

Victim-blaming is becoming an Olympic Sport, it seems.

For what it's worth, my daughter is at an overnight camp affiliated with Reform Judaism. They hire a security team, as do most Jewish camps. Invariably the security team members are from Israel. The reality is that most young Israelis know a lot more about security, having served in the army. I think it is a nice gig for them in that they leave the middle east for the summer and get to meet Americans and work on their English. As a parent, I'm ecstatic that there is greater safety for my child, and all the better if she learns some Hebrew.

This is a tragedy. I'm sure there will be odd comments from the right and the left. But the vast majority of people throughout the political spectrum feel for those who have lost loved one. Let's not tarnish the vast majority of humanity who hold all sorts of political views for the comments of just a few.

danivon wrote:Interestingly, Glen Beck just compared the AUF (the youth arm of the Norwegian Labour Party which organised the camp) to the Hitler Youth. When Steve above mentioned the lack of protection, I did wonder what the perception would have been in the USA to a political youth organisation that was armed when it met for camps. Seems even if they are unarmed there will be some idiot.

Victim-blaming is becoming an Olympic Sport, it seems.

You have lost a few screws here.

I didn't suggest the youth be armed. Think about it. Isolated island. Political meeting of sorts (even if they're young). It took police 80 minutes to respond. If I were responsible for organizing a camp of that size, I would at least consider whether security was needed or not--you have to. You are responsible for the safety of everyone at the camp.

I'm not blaming the victim and I think you really went a bridge too far.

danivon wrote:How refreshingly open-minded of you. If it were a Pakistani immigrant who'd been arrested and someone had taken the exact same position, I'm sure you'd appreciate their circumspection and in no way suggest that they were trying to deflect blame...

How consistently stale of you to completely misrepresent me.

What I was saying is that in many instances--Hasan, the NYC car attempt, and more--the US government put out false info in the beginning. I was not willing to accept the first press releases as "the final word." Nothing more, nothing less.

It is crazy that one man could shoot so many. Sad indeed. Obviously, he knew the island would not have armed guards, police, etc.

Apparently there was a policeman there, who was among the first to be shot. Why did you assume your point was 'obvious'?

It's obvious because of the time he took to plan it. It's obvious that the security was insufficient.

Was the policeman even armed? It's common for Norwegian officers not to be, so since you know so much, was he armed?

At least I can see why you are acting as nastily as you are. It's the connection to the UK:

As more details emerged of Breivik's possible affiliations with British extremists, the authorities were investigating whether he had travelled to London to plot his rightwing "crusade".

European security sources confirmed they were investigating claims that Breivik and other far-right individuals attended the inaugural meeting of the far-right Knights Templar group in London in 2002. They said there had been increased internet chatter from individuals claiming they belonged to the Knights Templar, an organisation referred to by Breivik in a 1,500-page manifesto published online hours before he began his killing spree.

Perhaps it took police 80 minutes to respond because of the chaos in Oslo.

I guess security was fairly low because they were on an island in a country with no real history of political violence. The camp ran every year, so I doubt that consideration of safety and security was a new concept.

I think Beck went too far, having listened to the 7 minute segment. After the Hitler Youth thing he goes on to suggest that it is basically a result of allowing Muslims democratic rights and that European politics is a choice between fascism and communism.

By the way, are you still not ready to concede that this was down to Islam?

On the connection to the UK, I have no hesitation to say that the EDL are abhorrent and a blight on our nation. I hope that this destroys the paltry reputation they have and that the poison they and others spread doesn't inspire a similar act by anyone else. Of course, we had Copeland a few years ago, setting off nail bombs.

Have you ever had your image put up on a fascist website as an 'enemy'? I have. Do you know people whose names, addresses, phone numbers and pictures are on 'Redwatch'? I do.

Perhaps I am sensitive to this not because I want to deflect from the UK aspect, but because I know it too well.

But don't assume that this is a European problem that can't affect the USA. The EDL have links to America. McVeigh's atrocity was not from a massively different place. Wasn't there some guy recently who was going to shoot up Tide?

Doctor Fate wrote:
You have lost a few screws here.

I didn't suggest the youth be armed. Think about it. Isolated island. Political meeting of sorts (even if they're young). It took police 80 minutes to respond. If I were responsible for organizing a camp of that size, I would at least consider whether security was needed or not--you have to. You are responsible for the safety of everyone at the camp.

Thing is the most that usually happens (at least over here) is drunken brawls with the locals at such political youth meetings. That is until now. There was really no reason for some sort of increased security.

And I still don't see why the need to mention it. The salient point is that someone committed mass murder, not that the camp organisers failed to prepare for the unexpected. Beck was blaming the victims. Steve, hasn't done so but comes close.

danivon wrote:And I still don't see why the need to mention it. The salient point is that someone committed mass murder, not that the camp organisers failed to prepare for the unexpected. Beck was blaming the victims. Steve, hasn't done so but comes close.

Right. It's blaming the victims to point out that organizers of an event have to consider security.

Is it blaming the victims to point out the police response, in spite of the official claims, was woefully slow?

Blaming the victim is, for example, "I'm not saying she deserved to be raped, but the way she was dressed, living in that area, knowing how vulnerable she was after too much to drink, what did she expect?"

Please point to anything I said that blamed, or came close to blaming, the young victims who got blown away by this madman.

If you can't, I'll just say you come close to being honest. Fill in the blank.

Btw, the media meme is that Breivik is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. So, let's talk about jumping to conclusions. What church does he attend? What's his religious educational background? How involved in Christian causes is he?

It would be easy to target me as a Christian fundamentalist. One could look at my Outlook calendar and my checkbook. What evidence is there that he is a Christian? Why do you suppose the media keep mentioning that he is, yet fail to do any investigative work to demonstrate it?

Again, with Hasan, we knew within a week that he had a long history of militantly Muslim actions and statements. We knew he emailed Al-Awlaki. What are Breivik's Christian bona fides?

I was going to mention this on the other thread. I agree with you to a point. He self-describes as more of a 'cultural' Christian than a devout one.

So to call him a fundamentalist is clearly wrong. I know that your bar is set very high, so being baptised into the Church of Norway and perhaps venturing into a church a few times will not qualify him.

Still, he does claim to have acted to protect European culture and to be 'the savior of Christianity'. Of the motivations he cites, I feel his religion is less important than those that are based on hatred of the 'other'.

On the rest, I'm not sure that you understand my point. I'm sure that lack of security and a slow response (no helicopter near Oslo, apparently) meant he could kill more in Utøya, but these will come out in time. Highlighting these, while bemoaning the 21 year maximum sentence, and just after suggesting that the attacks were by a Muslim looks like you are avoiding an uncomfortable truth:

Some of his rhetoric and stated reasoning would not look too far out of place in any Western hardline conservative/reactionary movement. A lot is more extreme, of course, but his fear and hatred of Islam and his likening of the moderate left wing to Marxists who are out to destroy the West and his nation in particular is worryingly familiar.

danivon wrote:On the rest, I'm not sure that you understand my point. I'm sure that lack of security and a slow response (no helicopter near Oslo, apparently) meant he could kill more in Utøya, but these will come out in time. Highlighting these, while bemoaning the 21 year maximum sentence, and just after suggesting that the attacks were by a Muslim looks like you are avoiding an uncomfortable truth:

Some of his rhetoric and stated reasoning would not look too far out of place in any Western hardline conservative/reactionary movement. A lot is more extreme, of course, but his fear and hatred of Islam and his likening of the moderate left wing to Marxists who are out to destroy the West and his nation in particular is worryingly familiar.

I understand your point perfectly. Thus, I said, "If you can't, I'll just say you come close to being honest. Fill in the blank."

Since you can't grasp that, I'll say it--you are being cowardly and dishonest, by branding me as similar to a crazy murderer. In fact, your comparison is contemptible. And, if you can't see that and won't retract it, I'll have to conclude that comparison is a reflection of you as a person.

Steve, which comment in particular by Danivon are you reacting to?

I have not branded you anything, Steve. I have branded Beck.