The attacks in Norway

[DeletedUser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7JlEfyNtKg

 

[DeletedUser]

Well no surprise to me, he's a Christian Fundamentalist and wrote a manifesto against Muslims. Which goes to prove, "any" religious fundamentalist is a threat to life.

 

[DeletedUser]

This guys a complete idiot, too. They can try him on multiple accounts, plagarism too. He copied and pasted DIRECTLY from Ted Kaczynski's manifesto, and changed a few words.

And how exactly is it cheaper to keep someone like this alive, rather than put him to death? Give me a dollar for the bullets and a standard issue military rifle and I'd do the service for free. This man's responsible for 100 deaths (In norway, judging by the population, it's impact is equal to 5,000 American deaths...). His life ain't worth the cost to keep him alive and the extra security around him to me. Better yet, starve him to death in solitary confinement, that's even cheaper and more worth it for him.

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, David. It's not a good idea to perform ratio comparisons. After all, U.S. troops killed 100,000 non-combatant men, women and children in Iraq. That's equal, in ratio, to 1 million non-combatant U.S. citizens. That's 33 times (x33) more non-combatants than were killed in 9/11.

See how that opens up a rather nasty can of worms that is, for the most part, not related to this person's actions?

 

[DeletedUser]

And do we have any individuals that we can hold accountable for those war-crimes? How are those war-crimes related to the slaughter of civilians by another civilian? In this case there is a proven guilty party, and there was no war fought except his own against society. A lone man killed these people with extreme premeditation. Why should he be given the pleasure to live and eventually have a chance at freedom?

 

[DeletedUser]

I see, so because we don't know exactly which military personnel killed which civilians in Iraq, it's okay?

You're basically saying, "if you can get away with it, you're not guilty."

 

[DeletedUser]

This is what Glenn Beck said (about the killing of 86 youth on the Island of Utoya). the camp "sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics?"
(The age of "The kids" where between 16-22, average 19)
The right wing sure know how to repay all that support US got from the rest of the world, including Norway, after 9-11!!!
And of course they have their own "Mein kampf-camps" for the young kids;
http://gawker.com/5812044/tea-party-summer-camp-the-experience-of-a-lifetime
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...o-learn-about-defending-economic-liberty.html

 

[DeletedUser15057]

Yeah I just saw the comments Beck made on the local news.
I am surprised he didn't come right out and advocate giving Breivik a medal for doing 'gods' work on the evil left.

Extremists come in all forms I guess, even under the guise of Freedom of Speech.

As I understand it, political camps for youth in Norway are common place.

 

[DeletedUser]

And how exactly is it cheaper to keep someone like this alive, rather than put him to death?

There are old people in care homes, disabled kids in orphanages, cancer patients and even unemployed people on welfare who it would be cheaper not to keep alive. How do economics even enter a debate about justice?
Sure, lynch mobs or vigilantes are cheaper and quicker than jails, trials, custody, legal representation and such, but as a society we have moved away from that sort of thing.

Give me a dollar for the bullets and a standard issue military rifle and I'd do the service for free.

In the context of this thread I find that a rather disturbing utterance.
I could imagine it as Breivik's answer to "How are we going to stop this wave of foreigners from over-running our country and turning it Moslem?"

Better yet, starve him to death in solitary confinement, that's even cheaper and more worth it for him.

If medieval dungeons were so great 'tis a wonder they ever went out of fashion, sire.

 

[DeletedUser14006]

Sure, lynch mobs or vigilantes are cheaper and quicker than jails, trials, custody, legal representation and such, but as a society we have moved away from that sort of thing.

In clear cut cases here with 100% certainty and even an admission to what he has done then the costs associated with legal representation and trials should be scrapped, just hand out the sentence.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Well no because even though it sounds a good way of dealing with terrorist and the like you start getting no better than the likes of Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin. You may argue that you'll only use it in extreme circumstances such as this but where do you draw the line?
As Eli said above we've moved away from that sort of thing and personally I agree. As for him getting out...well people who commit those sort of crimes don't get out Ian Brady and Rose West are evidence of that

 

[DeletedUser]

I see, so because we don't know exactly which military personnel killed which civilians in Iraq, it's okay?

You're basically saying, "if you can get away with it, you're not guilty."

Nowhere in my argument did I say that or anything illuding to it. What I was "basically saying" was that we have a criminal in custody who is responsible for the deaths of 90 people, and the evidence to prove it, and he's going to be dangerous no matter what. This isn't even a military issue, so why in the hell are you trying to bring in those statistics?

There are old people in care homes, disabled kids in orphanages, cancer patients and even unemployed people on welfare who it would be cheaper not to keep alive. How do economics even enter a debate about justice?
Sure, lynch mobs or vigilantes are cheaper and quicker than jails, trials, custody, legal representation and such, but as a society we have moved away from that sort of thing.

Old people in care homes who shot 90 teenagers and bombed a building killing people inside?
Disabled kids in orphanages who shot 90 teenagers and bombed a building killing people inside?
Cancer patients and even unemployed people on welfare who shot 90 teenagers and bombed a building killing people inside?

Justice isn't letting this guy have a chance to get away with what he's done. Maybe we should give him a 21 year sentence and a certificate of mental incompetence instead, while he acts like a little angel in jail so he can get off when the time's up?

In the context of this thread I find that a rather disturbing utterance.
I could imagine it as Breivik's answer to "How are we going to stop this wave of foreigners from over-running our country and turning it Moslem?"

OH YOU GOT ME! I'm Breivik and I want to kill all the Moslems and jews and brown peoples and kittens! Oh golly gee whilickers!
You're really playing that card?

If medieval dungeons were so great 'tis a wonder they ever went out of fashion, sire.

It is because Jesus invented guns, hangman's nooses, and guillotines, my leige.

Well no because even though it sounds a good way of dealing with terrorist and the like you start getting no better than the likes of Saddam Hussein and Josef Stalin. You may argue that you'll only use it in extreme circumstances such as this but where do you draw the line?
As Eli said above we've moved away from that sort of thing and personally I agree. As for him getting out...well people who commit those sort of crimes don't get out Ian Brady and Rose West are evidence of that

Probably the biggest argument I've seen against the death penalty is "Oh, we're above that. Stalin and the nazis did the same thing." Dealing with a mass-murdering psychopath isn't letting him sit in a cushy jail cell, and it sure as hell ain't what those freaks did. Stalin and Saddam murdered people just because they disagreed with them, NOT BECAUSE THEY KILLED 90 INNOCENT PEOPLE. There's a huge line between murdering for revenge, murdering for agenda, and putting down a threat to society. Letting a sick twisted man like Breivik stay dangerous isn't progress.

The Lockerbie bomber got out.

 

[DeletedUser]

Now Davids making up things... Woohoo.

We can't decide what this infidel is going to punished. It's the system of Justice within Norway that decides it. We can just say this, say that, but no one has considered the Judges and the such's job of actually persecuting this man. It's not a surprise to me that they put it at Maximum Penalty already, but to kill this man would make the Court sink to his level.

 

[DeletedUser]

Now Davids making up things... Woohoo.

Who are you and how exactly am I making things up, buddy-boy?

but to kill this man would make the Court sink to his level.

90 teens > One Neonazi mass murderer.


A wonderful place that naughty little boy will be staying! http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/14/norway-prison-erwin-james

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, it costs a helluva lot more to put them to death...

One bullet costs about 4-5 Skr, cirka 60-70 cents. Way lot cheeper than to keep him alive for multiple life sentences.

But, put him in prison with the general lot, they will take care of it for free. May take a day or two?

When it comes to horrible crimes like this, it doesn't matter where the person comes from. If he's a muslim, a Norwegian, nazi or communist. Stupidity has no political colour, religion or skin colour, it's just blind and utter stupidity.

Just my two red cents...

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem with your reasoning "Gisburne", is that you assume that Norwegian prisons is as big hellholes as american prisons where everybody turns their backs to massive abuses making every guard in american prisons a criminal themselves.
The Scandinavian see prisons as a place to rehabilitate criminals in to being functional members of society again (well aware of that that is not always possible) not as a torture chamber for "societies" revenge.
He can very well spend the rest of his time in prison. 15 years from now when he's up for parole after "good behavior", they can still keep him incarcerated on the notion that he would be "a danger to society".

 

[DeletedUser]

The problem with your reasoning "Gisburne", is that you assume that Norwegian prisons is as big hellholes as american prisons where everybody turns their backs to massive abuses making every guard in american prisons a criminal themselves.
The Scandinavian see prisons as a place to rehabilitate criminals in to being functional members of society again (well aware of that that is not always possible) not as a torture chamber for "societies" revenge.
He can very well spend the rest of his time in prison. 15 years from now when he's up for parole after "good behavior", they can still keep him incarcerated on the notion that he would be "a danger to society".

I know very well how prisons in Sweden work, as I have 18 years of experience as a prison guard at Kumla State Prison, a maximum security prison. I'm forbidden to speak about what goes on in there, as the secrecy document I signed prevents me from that. But, I can assure you, that the inmates don't tolerate certain things, and neither does the guards.

I have no experience of the rest of the Scandinavian prisons, apart from what I've heard about the prisons in Finland. The toughest prisons in Scandinavia, but I could be wrong on that...

"The problem" is, that a person like this Norwegian nutter, would probably do time at a place for criminaly insane, instead of a normal prison. If it had happened in Sweden that is, don't know how the Norwegians do it.

I just don't see why money should be spent on keeping such a loonatic alive...

 

[DeletedUser]

Old people in care homes who shot 90 teenagers and bombed a building killing people inside? [...etc]

You missed my point. What I'm saying is that as a society we have to do what's RIGHT, however we define that, not what's cheapest.
Even if judicial execution was totally free, it would not justify killing one more person would it? If you re-read my post you might see the point I was making.

OH YOU GOT ME! I'm Breivik and I want to kill all the Moslems and jews and brown peoples and kittens! Oh golly gee whilickers!
You're really playing that card?

I don't see my posts as elements in a card (or any other) game. I'm not trying to score points off people, but to encourage them to think through what they're saying, as in my experience they frequently don't.
Breivik will never walk this earth as a free man again, and that is absolutely right. However, thinking of him as a problem that you could solve with a bullet is to an extent to tread in his own footsteps. Most jihadists and terrorists consider that the deaths they cause serve some higher notion of justice, so calling for someone to be killed in the name of justice has a lot of bad precedents.
Just by living a first-world lifestyle, in some sense we deprive others of life and live.lihood, even if we never meet them or turn away from the idea. They die for our oil, food and raw materials. We don't go around spraying bullets at them but nor do we put their lives above our conveniences. The Red Brigade and similar movements in the 70's targeted politicians and business leaders precisely because they considered them responsible for many, many deaths and they thus felt justified in killing them.
That's why justice needs to be civic, measured, even protracted. An individual's sense of outrage is no substitute because as individuals we are in a sense, unregulated. So we have arrest, arraignment, defence lawyers, juries, appeals, detention and incarceration, psychological assessments, suspect's rights etc. etc. It certainly isn't cheap, but that is the cost of doing it right.

 

[DeletedUser]

You missed my point. What I'm saying is that as a society we have to do what's RIGHT, however we define that, not what's cheapest.
Even if judicial execution was totally free, it would not justify killing one more person would it? If you re-read my post you might see the point I was making.

I didn't say we should kill him just because it's cheaper, it's just one reason to put him down over giving him a maximum sentence in a peaceful and comfortable Norwegian prison. He left too many dead bodies in his wake and put too many in the hospital and ruined too many families to deserve to walk the earth. No justice will come to him in that prison in the form of a vengeful inmate.
Nobody you mentioned whom welfare and benefits keep healthy ever killed so many people. That's why I took argument.

I don't see my posts as elements in a card (or any other) game. I'm not trying to score points off people, but to encourage them to think through what they're saying, as in my experience they frequently don't.

I know what I'm saying, and I know Breivik is guilty of mass-murder. By his own hand, no less. I never said he shouldn't be tried in court and just shot and killed outright, but it should be the penalty for his mass homicide. Not 21 years in prison with an expensive trial every 5 years after the original sentence to keep him in.

Breivik will never walk this earth as a free man again, and that is absolutely right. However, thinking of him as a problem that you could solve with a bullet is to an extent to tread in his own footsteps. Most jihadists and terrorists consider that the deaths they cause serve some higher notion of justice, so calling for someone to be killed in the name of justice has a lot of bad precedents.

You do make a good point there, but the thing is, I'm against the death penalty unless the criminal has murdered more than 5 innocent people. Breivik has killed many, many times more than that, by his own hand no less, up close and personally murdering youths. We have him in custody and the evidence.

Just by living a first-world lifestyle, in some sense we deprive others of life and live.lihood, even if we never meet them or turn away from the idea. They die for our oil, food and raw materials. We don't go around spraying bullets at them but nor do we put their lives above our conveniences. The Red Brigade and similar movements in the 70's targeted politicians and business leaders precisely because they considered them responsible for many, many deaths and they thus felt justified in killing them.

Yes, but these politicians didn't take the action to slaughter others with their own hands like Breivik. Breivik was his own leader, and he alone chose to kill these people. There was nobody in the sky telling him "shoot these people, shoot those people," he did it with a rifle, pistol, a bombing, and his own self. His actions show he has no humanity.

That's why justice needs to be civic, measured, even protracted. An individual's sense of outrage is no substitute because as individuals we are in a sense, unregulated. So we have arrest, arraignment, defence lawyers, juries, appeals, detention and incarceration, psychological assessments, suspect's rights etc. etc. It certainly isn't cheap, but that is the cost of doing it right.

While I do cede you are right in what is right here, no punishment besides death is fitting for Breivik, and his only possible punishment is life in prison at an unnecessary expense to the people of Norway. It's not about it being cheaper. It's about the price Norway has already paid for his actions. 76 human lives. Why pay money to keep him alive? He'll probably even start writing more manifestos and encourage more hate and violence.

 

[DeletedUser]

I see a hell of a lot of idiotic crap being posted here.

I am a Norwegian.
I live in Oslo.

Ask me anything relevant and I shall reply.