Heartland

Ii can only think of a torture chamber as a penalty for the killer.

So many lives wasted, so many families ruined.

He deserves to die slow and painfully.-

He might well "deserve" such a fate, but his victims will still be just as dead and the grief of their families no less.

He could get about 25 years according to an article in the Finnish papers. The Scandinavian justice system would make even the Howard League recoil.

With this guy the important thing has to be to prevent him using what he's done as the platform to air his political views, which it seems was the motivation behind this. Perhaps also, if Norway is anything like the UK, it's political class can do something about the massive disconnect between itself and the electorate and try and prevent people from drifting to extreme viewpoints.

DeWinter wrote:He could get about 25 years according to an article in the Finnish papers. The Scandinavian justice system would make even the Howard League recoil.

With this guy the important thing has to be to prevent him using what he's done as the platform to air his political views, which it seems was the motivation behind this. Perhaps also, if Norway is anything like the UK, it's political class can do something about the massive disconnect between itself and the electorate and try and prevent people from drifting to extreme viewpoints.

I suspect that there will be more of this sort of thing in the future, actually. As the EU political class shows itself incapable or unwilling when it comes to dealing with the threat posed by an insular, unassimilated and sometimes violent minority (or minority of a minority, if you'd like), some EU citizens will turn toward the far right and/or fascist politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't far-right anti-immigration parties been making electoral gains in recent years? And aren't there now parts of various European cities that are effectively off-limits to the police?

We might not forget we live in the fortress of Europe, i.e. in a place which has to be defended against an overload of (starving) enemies ...

There are people drowning in the Mediterranean every day for the sake of this belief ...

This event is only another blossom from the very same tree, cultivated over centuries ...

And of course with the sam argument: Cruel, but necessary. Congrats.

Of course, I'm sorry for each and every innocent individual sacrificed for the idea of any superior value of territory and power over human live and development.

The guy is just a mental case, just as the dumbheads who burnt the Stave Churches.
The problem is that with so much to learn from the media, people can cause greater havoc these days than in the olden days, when there was no concept of terrorism and amok, and someone who went insane had to use an old-fashioned knife or set something on fire.

But, to say something positive, I am in Norway at the moment, and I am impressed by the calm with which the Norwegians are facing it. They are a very lovable people.

sultan2075 wrote: I suspect that there will be more of this sort of thing in the future, actually. As the EU political class shows itself incapable or unwilling when it comes to dealing with the threat posed by an insular, unassimilated and sometimes violent minority (or minority of a minority, if you'd like), some EU citizens will turn toward the far right and/or fascist politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't far-right anti-immigration parties been making electoral gains in recent years? And aren't there now parts of various European cities that are effectively off-limits to the police?

Should be warming up for Helsinki, but what the heck

If you by "this sort of thing" mean the shooting (as opposed to general hostility against foreigners) I strongly disagree.
Starting with a more restrictive immigration policy etc. after this shooting would be much like the US having started to end sanctions on Iraq in the 90's just because McVeigh didn't like those and copycats could blow up another building if the US government wouldn't end them.

McVeigh is for me the only comparable lunatic, and very much so. A cocktail of a failed person building a fantasy world in which they are the superhero they always wanted to (but never could) be, adding extreme right wing views and some religion (and fertilizer).

It will happen again in the future, but not because of what decisions EU (or US) politicians take or not take. There will always be some McVeigh/Breivik planning/doing something somewhere, regardless of politics. Always watch out for failed, bitter and lonely people with access to guns - *especially* if they never have commited any crime before. I worked with such a guy once, one day he didn't turn up at work. Later it turned out he was arrested because he had sent a letter bomb to the local mayor. This guy was around 40 and never had trouble with justice before. But you just felt he was strange. People around him either shook their heads or laughed at him. Noone ever reported his behaviour or his rants, still noone was really surprised when it turned out what he had done.

To your last points: Yes they have and yes, there are some integration problems in parts of Europe. I don't think there are any parts that are totally off-limits to the police however, but there are certainly parts where they never go with just one patrol car. But I guess that's the case in North and South America too (not to say that would be an excuse).

sultan2075 wrote: I suspect that there will be more of this sort of thing in the future, actually. As the EU political class shows itself incapable or unwilling when it comes to dealing with the threat posed by an insular, unassimilated and sometimes violent minority (or minority of a minority, if you'd like), some EU citizens will turn toward the far right and/or fascist politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't far-right anti-immigration parties been making electoral gains in recent years? And aren't there now parts of various European cities that are effectively off-limits to the police?

Those areas do exist, but they always were pretty unpleasant before the immigration waves of the 60's and 90's. The migrants settled there because it was cheap and no other bugger would live there.

There are grave social problems in other parts of Europe, and a lot of things are going wrong, but it doesn't have anything to do with Norway.

Everyone is just jumping on the bandwagon to utilise this sad event to promote their own political cause. The right wings will say, that's what liberalism makes people do, the lefties will say, it's because society wasn't left enough, people like me might be tempted to say, that's the kind of "peace" religion brings, and the Christians will say it's because... etc. pp.

Sita wrote:There are grave social problems in other parts of Europe, and a lot of things are going wrong, but it doesn't have anything to do with Norway.

Next time I will also try to cut my answer to one line if possible

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/ ... orway.html

loathsome journalism.

Quiff Boy wrote:http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/ ... orway.html

loathsome journalism.

Indeed, but hardly surprising given the source.

Being645 wrote:We might not forget we live in the fortress of Europe, i.e. in a place which has to be defended against an overload of (starving) enemies ...

It was a round world last time I looked...

unfortunately the sickness is everywhere nowadays

markfiend wrote:

Being645 wrote:We might not forget we live in the fortress of Europe, i.e. in a place which has to be defended against an overload of (starving) enemies ...

It was a round world last time I looked...

oh yes, just don't look into the direction of official FRONTEX policies, for example, another deeply rooted resort of flatness and its consequences ... ...

Being645 wrote: just don't look into the direction of official FRONTEX policies, for example, another deeply rooted resort of flatness and its consequences ... ...

I would have thought a better example of Fortress Europe would be the situation with Turkey. Routinely humiliate the country and dangle a promise of membership to the EU that'll never be granted because no-one wants some 70 million Turks to have access to EU labour markets. My solution is to give it the UK's seat, that way the EU only has a net gain of 10 million people.

sultan2075 wrote:As the EU political class shows itself incapable or unwilling when it comes to dealing with the threat posed by an insular, unassimilated and sometimes violent minority (or minority of a minority, if you'd like), some EU citizens will turn toward the far right and/or fascist politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't far-right anti-immigration parties been making electoral gains in recent years? And aren't there now parts of various European cities that are effectively off-limits to the police?

The thing is that just like the Islamists, the far-right are, at core, profoundly anti-democratic.

We cannot afford to compromise with the far-right any more than we can compromise with the Islamists. The final goal of both groups is the end of the Enlightenment.

It's a very sad event and - from what I've get from the media - the country seems to handle this quite remarkable, seeing all this solidarity and a society moving closer together these days - kind of the opposite what that psycho was probably hoping for. Game over mister..

DeWinter wrote:He could get about 25 years according to an article in the Finnish papers. The Scandinavian justice system would make even the Howard League recoil.

Well, not quite. He could get less, or he could never be released.

Wiki wrote:The maximum indeterminate penalty ... is also set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole
...If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment.
If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment.
However, the offender can be paroled or released at any time if it is determined that the offender is no longer a danger to society.

So, since parole isn't likely, give him 21 years. If he's deemed to still be a danger to society, he receives an extra 5 years. Rinse and repeat.


Incidentally, it's great fun watching certain media outlets tripping over themselves to not call it terrorism when it's not a Muslim perpetrator. </s>

Dark wrote:Incidentally, it's great fun watching certain media outlets tripping over themselves to not call it terrorism when it's not a Muslim perpetrator. </s>

I'd noticed that too.

markfiend wrote: We cannot afford to compromise with the far-right any more than we can compromise with the Islamists. The final goal of both groups is the end of the Enlightenment.

Hear Hear!

DocSommer wrote:It's a very sad event and - from what I've get from the media - the country seems to handle this quite remarkable, seeing all this solidarity and a society moving closer together these days - kind of the opposite what that psycho was probably hoping for. Game over mister..

I'm still in Norway, and people are really cool. They don't sit in front of the TV and watch the 100th gory feature, or read endlessly about it on the web. I already before thought Norwegians were pretty cool, but now I respect them even more

Yes the reaction of the Norwegian public (especially compared with the reaction in the USA after 9/11) has been amazing.

markfiend wrote:Yes the reaction of the Norwegian public (especially compared with the reaction in the USA after 9/11) has been amazing.

I think the stoic reaction is the more usual one to events like this. I was proud of the UK's reaction to the train bombings, and remember having to explain to the Finns watching the aftermath on the tv that yes, handing out cups of sugary tea is considered an essential part of the duty of the emergency services..

As for the Islamists..we have compromised with them. There are "moderate" (in other words ones that don't actively call for violence to achieve their aims) Islamic groups in receipt of Government funding, or were until very recently. The logic being I suppose that if young Muslim men are going to be drawn to radical Islam it's better they be drawn to non-violent ones. Also look at how the grooming gangs were kept quiet about by the police for fear of "destabilising community relations", or the goings-on in Tower Hamlets. So using that logic, shouldn't we try and deal with the likes of Griffin before we get a shooter from the, for example, EDL? Of course, we shouldn't deal with either, but the road has already been chosen it seems.=/

Hmmm.

I think we've discussed before the unease that I have with the British left in their willingness to ally themselves with single-issue Islamic groups, so I see your point.

On the other hand there are a lot of genuinely moderate Muslims (as opposed to "moderate" Muslims ) to whom the idea of violent Jihad is anathema.

The problem is that, when dealing with (say) the IRA, there was a specific goal they had in mind (at least ostensibly) -- a united Ireland. This goal could be compromised with, and indeed largely has been, as part of the peace process. On the other hand, the goals of the Islamist extremists (global Islamic theocracy) and the goals of the far right (totalitarianism) simply do not have any meeting-point with the ideals of liberal democracy.