That the Norway gunman's plan was pretty damn perfect for achieving his aims, without;
A) De-valuing the terrible loss of life.
B) Sounding like a complete ****
C) Coming across as a phsyco nutcase.
Logistically it was phenomenal though, top level phsyco work that you'd only expect to see in a Hollywood script... unbelievable.
0h dear.... 😐
it's a bit like congratulating the Nazi's for their efficiency.
Hadn't thought of it like that. Was just discussing it with some colleagues.
EDITED
I'd say (without the hand-wringing of which I'll be accused) that this is in pretty poor taste and that you're not seeking to pass commentary on the gunman at all.
It's a shame the news gave publicity to his "cause". The next psycho nutter thinks "This is the way to make my cause known" and we get another one.
Darcy... I don't think it is. Everytime this topic has come up in real life the conversation has come around to this.
Others have commented that the plan may not have worked if Norway had the same gun laws as the US.
[Yes let's hope they enforce a media blackout on the court hearing so he does not get his moment in the lime light
Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech - even nutters. People have died in wars for that very right.
It's the ultimate liberal dilemna !
And are you really expecting the press to behave morally and ethically ??
I would guess that sticking words like 'shockingly' and 'evil' on the front should do the trick.
Shockingly well planned and evil genius, for example sound OK. Well planned and genius would make you look like a nutter.
the nazis were efficient, saying that doesnt mean you're approving of what they were efficient at.
agreed on the hollywood script, i work with 'psycho killers' and none of them were as methodical, calculated and effective as he was. the 'psycho' part usually means that plans aren't too well formed compared to the slick planning of fictional characters in films and books.
If prompting a long overdue public backlash against the far right was one of his aims, I'd say he's succeeded.
It's a tragedy that 93 people had to die first.
I don't see how censorship would serve any purpose, the 98% of us who aren't nutjobs will feel utterly apalled by what's happened.
They should forfeit their right to freedom of speech if they kill people to achieve their platform.Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech - even nutters. People have died in wars for that very right.
If prompting a long overdue public backlash against the far right was one of his aims, I'd say he's succeeded
I'm not sure he will be linked with any particular political movement or religion to any extent. It would appear he was a lone nutter, not a member of a terrorist organisation.
They should forfeit their right to freedom of speech if they kill people to achieve their platform
They do, prisoners don't have freedom of speech.
Is it not more to do with whether the court hearing is held behind 'closed doors' rahter than freedom of speech per se.
Open door gives him a platform to justify his actions to the world.
Yes i was talking about the television coverage of today's court hearing
If his aim was to kill people then clearly he did a good job - but if his aim for to highlight a particular socio-political-religous belief the I can't see how it has done his [b][i]cause[/i][/b] any good at all? In fact quite the opposite - now anyone even with the slightest leanings towards that belief will be more likely to be labelled as a psycho/nutter/terrorist.
Others have commented that the plan may not have worked if Norway had the same gun laws as the US.
Of course not, because the US have never had any crazy nutters run around shooting people or blowing things up.
Open door gives him a platform to justify his actions to the world.
I still don't see why hearings should be censored. As I said before, the vast majority of people would find any rationale behind the killing of 93 people offensive.
[i]I don't see how censorship would serve any purpose[/i]
I didn't say it would serve his particular cause, or that it should be censored.
But by showing his organisation/website's logo and name they show that publicity can be gained in this way.
They should just say "he was acting to publicise his organisation/cause", or something and not what the cause was.
[i] the vast majority of people[/i]
It only takes one other nutjob.
So where's this thread leading...?
I'm guessing the short answer to the original question is 'no, you can't'...
Do we risk looking at this with a British perspective??
Norway [i]was[/i] a very different country with a very different outlook - albeit, my views were based on a summer living in southern Norway 20 years ago.
At that time Norway was not a culturallly diverse place. All blue eyed blondes, very few immigrants, very strongly patriotic and largely mildly right wing Christian democrats. Norwegian flags in every garden, but a quiet, assured national patriotism, unlike the over-zealous US expression.
The ultimate Aryan stereotype?
However, I found I was welcomed every where I went, and the older generation were especially warm, assuring me that British were there friends because we looked after their king during the war.
I wouldn't have wanted to have been outside of that cosy acceptance. There seemed to be real hostility towartds the Swedes, who culturally didn't seem to fit with the conservative, religious outlook of the more buttoned up Norwegians. Indeed when a busload of Swedish kids were killed in a horrendous tunnel fire, many Norwegians seemed to think it was fair enough as the Swedes had such loose morals...
... takes all sorts etc.
Post certainly isn't appologism for the gunman - just a (admittedly dated) reflection on how the national outlook might be a little different