[Closed] The trial of Anders Breivik

He is a common criminal

Because killing 77 innocent people in one day is a common crime, yeah right.

Besides, I thought you said he was a nutjob - make your mind up ffs.

Night.

Ernie - so what triggers this secret trial? How do you decide who gets a secret trial? Saying commonsense is a cop out and yo must realise this. Should Fred Wests trial have been held in secret? Brady? Teh unabomber? the World trade centre bombers?

You are effectively deciding their guilt beforehand are you not?

As for the oxygen of publicity - a secret trial would create as muchinterest in the nutjobs like you quote above - then it would be " "conspiracy to silence patriot" to them.

Should Fred Wests trial have been held in secret?

I asked you earlier if you understood the concept of commonsense, I now have my answer - you don't.

Commonsense dictates that it would not have been necessary or in the public good to have had reporting restrictions on Fred West's trial (he never received a trial). He did not commit the murders to receive publicity or inspire others.

Most of all, most of all, you show the world that violence, even of the most abhorrent, low, disgraceful kind, is not the answer.

You demonstrate that you are better than that.

Are you sure you put [b]yourself[/b] in that position when you thought about the situation?

If you did and were able to think of that moral decision having just had your child and others killed in front of you, you are a different make up to me and I imagine many others.

Sounds more like you want to state the "proper" way to behave but not the actual way you would behave. Or am I wrong?

[i]Or am I wrong?[/i]

Yes. Yes you are.

Ernie - I understand that "commonsense" is subjective and variable. I am trying to get you to give some objective standards to this " commonsense" decision to hold trials in secret that you want

What yo consider to be commonsense others do not - thats clear from many debates on here.

Even that a good few folk disagree with you on this shows that there is no such thing as a commonsense line on this that can be shared.

So -= can you actually put some criteria together to say when you would draw this line? Or do you think a subjective decision should be made before any evidence is heard that a trial should be held in secret. Who decides?

@crikey

Fair enough.

I salute your super-human stoicism.

No, really I do. Honest. Oh yes. Indeed.

does Mutley laugh

Er not wanting to butt into 'big hitter' thread domination, but just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law' it means no trial, just instant response, you kill lots of people, you get instantly terminated, no trial (they are an industry in their own right, don't get me started on human rights lawyers).

It should be a universal response, until such times as a suitable cure is found.

Put them down as you would a dog.

In reality in lots of similar circumstances the perpetrator self eliminates, but in this instance his whole strategy was leading to this trial, he surrendered, asked to be taken into custody by the 'Delta Force' but whilst he waited he calmly popped a cap into a couple more... Knowing all along there would be no serious repercussion for him pain wise, which illustrates the point I'm trying to make to the naive lefties..

open court, found guilty , death penalty . good bye , end of

just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law'

Put them down as you would a dog.

You should get the Sun to back your 'Dereks Law' campaign.

Write them a letter and see what they say. They like a good rabble-rousing campaign.

Specially if it has a hint of the lynch mob about it.

derekrides - Member

Er not wanting to butt into 'big hitter' thread domination, but just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law' it means no trial, just instant response, you kill lots of people, you get instantly terminated,

scraprider - Member

open court, found guilty , death penalty . good bye , end of

Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.

ernie_lynch - Member
just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law'
Put them down as you would a dog.

You should get the Sun to back your 'Dereks Law' campaign.

Write them a letter and see what they say. They like a good rabble-rousing campaign.

Specially if it has a hint of the lynch mob about it.

Well you'll have to excuse the seemingly absurdness of that line, but it was only a few days ago, folk were howling for the death of some defenceless dumb animal because it had damaged some Coves fine anorak, yet here we are with a genuine reason to remove something truly dangerous, not dumb, but scheming, and we have veritable hands bleeding they are wrung that dry..only in STW could this be, there should be a verb about it.

And the very thing he wants is being achieved right here, he's being talked about, his views are being discussed, he's not just winning, he has won probably more than his wildest fantasies ever suggested to his addled persona..

So GrahamS resume of what happened, "78 killed? Did they get someone? Yes instant justice under Dereks Law, he's dead now, good pass the beer nuts..

Is what it should rate, then he loses.

TandemJeremy - Member

Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.

No, don't you start, go back read the thread, Dereks Law states where there is no doubt, caught red handed, smoking gun in hand, everything else remains as is, hypocrisy, plea bargains, human rights and all..

Just instances like this where there is mass slaughter the perp is caught in situ..

Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.

I'm sure 'Dereks Law' would not include the right of appeal, public inquires, or any other sort of nonsense like that.

So they would in fact all remind guilty. Which is much more tidy.

I love this place... Seriously. It's like a trip to Bedlam for those Victorians must have been, but without the smell... 🙂 🙂

Well you'll have to excuse the seemingly absurdness of that line, but it was only a few days ago, folk were howling for the death of some defenceless dumb animal because ......

I know someone who's dog was legally destroyed because it bit someone, but it did have to go to court for that to happen.

So unlike your claim that Dereks Law would [i]"put them down as you would a dog",[/i] it wouldn't - dogs would have more rights.

Or are you going to extend Dereks Law to also include dogs ?

derekrides
No, don't you start, go back read the thread, Dereks Law states where there is no doubt,

So how do you prevent the like of the birmingham 6 then? Are you prepared for oinnocents to be excecuted after miscarriges of justice?

You appear to be proposing a new level of guilt. at the moment we have guilty beyond reasonable doubt as the standard of proof. Lots of folks get off because it can't be proved. you want a higher standard? guilty beyond any doubt at all even in the mind of the most loony person in teh UK

[i]Are you prepared for [b]oinnocents[/b] to be excecuted after miscarriges of justice?[/i]

Is that guilty of being Oirish then TJ? 🙂

Dereks Law states where there is no doubt

So no different from the Legal System that found those 10 innocent people Guilty then ?

...[b]Beyond all reasonable doubt:[/b]...The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

I generally don't believe in the death penalty, but every rule can have exceptions. I'd put him down.

Reasonable? Introduce words like that and you create an entire Industry for the well educated better than the rest of us, to decide for us, at not inconsiderable expense I might add.

What I'm saying is that in examples of irrefutable guilt shall we say, maybe that word irrefutable would suffice, be capable of translating into enough languages for it to be universally accepted.

Where they did it, no question, there they are on the scene even admitting to it.

It's a no brainer, we don't need a trial, long drawn out expense, opportunity for theatre, acres of newsprint, reels of news video...

Simple instant justice, just like an on the spot fine.

I just don't get it with any argument against this, it's pure logic, a simple answer. Maybe it won't happen as often, whereas right now, you can't tell me there's not some other Norwegian nut job looking at all this and wondering... Or another Jap thinking about another gas attack, it's bad enough we have religious zealots promising multiple virgins in exchange for the loan of a vest, not much can be done about that, but this type of slaughter is a little easier to understand and deal with imv.

And as i said before, I do accept all your human benevolence and views, but have to call them into question and once more beg to differ and try to depart this thread unbowed.

Simple instant justice, just like an on the spot fine.

But obviously a little more severe than a fine.

I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying.

So then derek. at the moment we find people guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You want a new higher standard of irrefutably guilty who can be executed without trial. Who decides they are irrefutably guilty? Everyone thought the birmingham 6 were. Stephen Downing had a cast iron case against him.

I just don't get it with any argument against this, it's pure logic

You must be right then.

The fact that many many people disagree with the death penalty, for varying different reasons is irrelevant to your "pure logic" is it ?

Everyone thought the birmingham 6 were. Stephen Downing had a cast iron case against him.

I don't know why you keep banging on about the Birmingham 6 TJ, I get the distinct impression that derekrides isn't the sort of person to overly worry about the odd innocent person getting gunned down in the street by police implementing Dereks Law. After all, no law is perfect.

Am I right derekrides ?

Derek, your solution?

[img] [/img]

Shoot him in the head without a trial much like Ernie's idol, Che

TandemJeremy - Member
So then derek. at the moment we find people guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You want a new higher standard of irrefutably guilty who can be executed without trial. Who decides they are irrefutably guilty? Everyone thought the birmingham 6 were. Stephen Downing had a cast iron case against him.

Er hello.. The Birmingham 6 were not caught in situ, hence reasonable doubt.

And yes exactly that a higher level of irrefutable guilt punishable instantly by either death or cure should one be found, but at the moment death will do. Proof of a cure would take some convincing.

Now there are other crimes where this could work, Padeo's, rapists someone mentioned earlier, castration could work and be instantly applied, if the higher guilt level were available.

So how do you prove irrefutable ?

Perpetrator at scene, Key legal witness(es) at scene, perpetrator confesses at scene. All present in the Breivik case.

Would that do it for you? Assuage your sensibilities?

It's a fair cop gov, I need to die...

enfht's turned up 😀

[img] [/img]

hehehe which part of that was wrong El Che?

Are those dreads, like the ones in my photo I posted, are you being racist as well as stupid?

tut tut

nealglover - Member

You must be right then.

Thank you yes, I generally am, good night all.

Derekrides - I suggst you look into the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed ]Stefan Ivan Kiszko[/url]case. He confessed. But was innocent

Or [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Downing_case ]Stephen Downing[/url] Found at scene, had victims blood on him, confessed, found guilty, did 30 years, now known to be innocent.

TandemJeremy - Member
Derekrides - I suggst you look into the Stefan Ivan Kiszkocase. He confessed. But was innocent

Or Stephen Downing Found at scene, had victims blood on him, confessed, found guilty, did 30 years, now known to be innocent.

Irrelevant, Dereks Law only applies in mass murder scenarios, had you read the thread, you would be aware of that essential point, now I really must depart, early start tomorrow, kids back at school.

Are those dreads, like the ones in my photo I posted, are you being racist as well as stupid?

😀 I take it you don't know Terry ?

Let me help you :

He is understatedly captioned as "the unintelligent cartoon character". He is a brainless, notionless, mindless imbecile who mistakes gas bills for exam results and his neighbor for his mother. Terry looks the part as well: he is cross-eyed and has wild black hair sticking up ludicriously from his misshapen head in a style which appears to be dreadlocks. He also wears platform shoes, for no discernible reason. He is quite foul-mouthed and when he realizes that he has just done something stupid he will declare "**** me, I've got shit for brains, me." His frequent appraisals of his lack of intelligence are Terry's only correct statements.

racist and marxist, a heady mix

interesting that a thread about a mass murder in norway, committed by a norwegian, being tried in a norwegian court should elicit so little in the way of actual reference to the norwegian legal system, the effects on the political system or, heaven forbid, the victims themselves.

those norwegians tho, i just bet if you asked those who were on the island and survived, they'd be well up for an stw style death penalty
oh except, maybe not...
http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/norway-massacre-survivors-all-we-want-is-justice

norwegian's not so difficult to read but, seeing as loads of norwegians speak english, the trial and the surrounding issues aren't hard to follow.

maybe it might be interesting to see how another country, another culture does things. or perhaps it's better to rely on our own certainties, prejudices if you will. and who does that make us more like?

I'm only butting in cos' it's on BBC2 now.

So GrahamS resume of what happened, "78 killed? Did they get someone? Yes instant justice under Dereks Law, he's dead now, good pass the beer nuts..

And you really think that's how people would react?
No one would be remotely interested in who killed these people and why?
Not to mention the minor issues of did they get the right man and was he definitely working alone?

Personally I think if people are killed for political/ideological reasons then these are things to discuss. That are better off uncensored. I hate the idea of the news saying "77 people died today, somehow, in an undisclosed incident. The unnamed suspect was executed by a Derek Squad at the scene. We know why he did it, but we can't tell you. The government say it is nothing for you to worry about. Just some nutter. Here's Carol with the weather"

So how do you prove irrefutable ?
Perpetrator at scene, Key legal witness(es) at scene, perpetrator confesses at scene. All present in the Breivik case.
Would that do it for you? Assuage your sensibilities?

Right. So you don't want a trial. But you would like evidence and witnesses to be presented and a chance to verify these to the satisfaction of others. Maybe say 12 peers. And THEN they should be executed without trial?

🙄

[b]ernie[/b]: your point (as I understand it) is just that he should not be given media coverage, yes? The trouble is see with that laudable approach is that it basically impossible to implement as the super injunctions fiasco showed.

Instead the story will be underground through blogs, forums, twitter etc and corrupted by those that have an agenda. The extreme far right would get MORE time to put their nonsense across and paint him as a martyr to the cause.

ernie: your point (as I understand it) is just that he should not be given media coverage, yes?

I think there should be reporting restrictions and that he shouldn't be allowed to use the trial as a platform to disseminate his hate-driven murderous agenda, something which he clearly relishes doing.

Whilst the overwhelming majority of people will obviously just be simply repulsed by it all, and more than likely will be even more determined to oppose intolerance having seen what it can eventually lead to, it's not them I'm worried about. There is a significant amount of people in the world who share Breivik's deep hatred and welcome the killing of innocent people based on their colour, culture, and/or creed. I have no wish to see him inspire them.

Furthermore there will be people in the world who are still at various stages of developing equal levels of hatred and aspirations of ethic/cultural violence, specially young people, it is particularly dangerous that he should be an inspirational figure for them, something which I have no doubt he fully recognises.

Finally it is imo totally unnecessary for him to be given such extensive publicity. It is perfectly possible for him to receive a completely fair trial without giving him that level of publicity. The murders and the determination to be caught alive so that he would stand trial was all part of a publicity stunt for his "crusade". This is not a normal murder trial.

BTW I'm also unimpressed that although he has freely admitted to the killings that he should apparently be given the opportunity make a case of self-defense. The prosecution case should simply rest on the evidence that he has admitted to the killings, no jury should be allowed to consider whether this was self-defense - it makes a complete mockery of justice imo, again, something which I have no doubt he is acutely aware of.

Still, let's see how the trial pans out and whether he actually gets everything he hopes for. Although it's not looking particularly encouraging at the moment imo.

EDIT :

Instead the story will be underground through blogs, forums, twitter etc and corrupted by those that have an agenda. The extreme far right would get MORE time to put their nonsense across and paint him as a martyr to the cause.

I'm unconvinced that making hate based propaganda which encourages and glorifies murder easily available somehow makes it less effective or easier to control.

I'm unconvinced that making hate based propaganda which encourages and glorifies murder easily available somehow makes it less effective or easier to control.

Well we are not talking about the distribution of hate based propaganda, we are talking about a trial, where hateful bullshit will try to be used as an excuse. Hate groups already use the secrecy of Governments to drive their propaganda. Conspiracy theories are exploding in numbers because of the failure of governments to operate openly.
Hiding justice from public view can only make that worse, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. We need too have confidence that those who exercise power on our behalf do so also in our interest.

Don't you guys watch TV or go to bed?

Don't you guys watch TV or go to bed?

Not while the world needs saving!

With his 1500 page 'manifesto' already in the public domain, and heavily reported, I don't think allowing him to speak at his own trial is going to be as damaging as a perceived 'silencing' of him would be.

Who would have thought that clicking on a threadcabout a mass murderer would be so funny. Well done guys.

And the very thing he wants is being achieved right here, [i]he's being talked about[/i]

Really???

Much of the talk is about your own abhorrent views....

I'll re-state the reminder - there is a lot of "we" on this thread should we do this, should we allow that.

This is about:
Norwegian justice system
Norwegian sociatal and cultural values
Norwegian response to the heinious crimes committed against their own...

If you show me strong evidence of clamouring crowds in Oslo, baying for capital punishment and retribution, then you might go some way to convincing me.

No. The Norwegians seem to have shown a remarkable dignity in dealing with this.

Glad to see you've managed to sort this delicate subject out then.

All we need is to decide who gets to be Lord High Master, Judge, Jury and Executioner? Will it be Hora or Derek. Both seem perfectly qualified. Hmmmmmmmm Its a dilemma alright

[img] http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcToG7PAUgmXMB5Vfi4TGgE5ncPGF57wIOnNuY3lO9Ae7MPQedCG-_24CsA [/img]

binners - Member
All we need is to decide who gets to be Lord High Master Executioner? Will it be Hora or Derek. Both seem perfectly qualified. Hmmmmmmmm Its a dilemma alright

Easy way to sort it out - Thunderdome!

there is a lot of "we" on this thread should we do this, should we allow that.

That's because their is nothing peculiar about Norway that created this crime, it could just have easily happened in any European country, and it is not unreasonable to discuss it in terms of how it effects wider society or could have effected our own countries.

MSP - I agree that the right wing hatred is borderless.

But - the proponents of swift retribution are overprinting their own politically influenced, right wing UK or US based views of "justice" onto a scenario based in a small population, tolerant, conservative scandinavian country.

swiss01 - Member
interesting that a thread about a mass murder in norway, committed by a norwegian, being tried in a norwegian court should elicit so little in the way of actual reference to the norwegian legal system, the effects on the political system or, heaven forbid, the victims themselves.

Indeed. I was going to post something along these lines yesterday but couldn't be arsed getting into a thread that was totally derailed by fantasists of “terminations”, “eliminations”, and various forms of prolonged and torturous deaths as representing justice. Oh, and spiced up with the occasional crass and insensitive comment, spurious stats, thinly-veiled homophobic asides, and truly remarkable displays of “pure logic”. STW continues to trawl the depths, but that doesn't really seem a surprise any more.

As you mention, the press coverage on either side of the north sea is interesting, and at times revealing – just like some of the utter bollocks being posted on here. It's actually pretty sad to imagine that a significant (vocal) minority within the UK might be unable, afraid or unwilling to consider this issue with confidence and reflexivity comparable to their Norwegian counterparts.

Oh, and a +1 for richmtb's post on page 2 of the thread, and rkk01's post higher up this [edit, the previous] page.

If you need to debate executions/terminations without trial, at least use the correct term - assassination.
Would be better on its own thread though.

There is a certain irony about condemning a right wing nutter who executed the perceived enemies of his ideology, by suggesting as a solution..... executing him.

No doubt this whistled so far over the heads of the would-be hangmen, they never even saw it

You couldn't make it up

I also think referring to him as a 'nutjob' when he has been declared sane by professionals who know what they're talking about is nothing but a safety blanket.

It's a lot easier to deal with something like that if you dismiss it as the work of 'madness' or 'evil' rather than confronting the scary proposition that someone in possession of all their faculties can commit these horrific acts. And helps to dehumanise the perpetrator so calls for 'elimination' or 'termination' (ie killing) are more palatable.

I'm unconvinced that making hate based propaganda which encourages and glorifies murder easily available somehow makes it less effective or easier to control.

Yeah but my point is that it [u]will[/u] get out and be discussed, regardless of reporting restrictions imposed, as the super injunction debacle showed us.

So the question is would you rather have it reported by the BBC or StormFront?
That's where the "control" aspect comes in.

thinly-veiled homophobic asides

???? I must have missed those. 😕

Wow. After all the bollx that's been previously posted on this thread, by adolescent sounding Judge Dredd wannabes, it's nice to see that this new page has brought some sense back into it.

Meanwhile over on twitter Ken Livingstone's old friend and advisor on race Lee Jasper is blaming the Norway killings on the Tory party.

"Its your divisive politics that creates the enviro where the Breviks of this world gain the courage of their racist convictions"

Proper Twitterspat yesterday, he really thinks white folk are basically all racist.

Quite obviously not 'blaming the Norway killings on the Tory party'.

Graham S - (I think) it's stuff like this:

even for you and other single speed riding lycra boys who bivi in the same sleeping bag is fundamental to the human condition.

he really thinks white folk are basically all racist.

ernie_lynch - Member
Whilst the overwhelming majority of people will obviously just be simply repulsed by it all, and more than likely will be even more determined to oppose intolerance having seen what it can eventually lead to, it's not them I'm worried about. There is a significant amount of people in the world who share Breivik's deep hatred and welcome the killing of innocent people based on their colour, culture, and/or creed. [b]I have no wish to see him inspire them.[/b]

Ernie - this is well put and I agree with your concerns, but this does not IMO lead to the conclusion...

ernie_lynch - Member
I think there should be reporting restrictions and that he shouldn't be allowed to use the trial as a platform to disseminate his hate-driven murderous agenda, something which he clearly relishes doing.

Yes, it feels abhorrent that this guy gets/will get [b]so much[/b] coverage and the BBC website this morning churns my stomach as this is the lead story combined with tasteless (again IMO) tag lines such as "key moments of the opening day" and "Norway's trial of the century." But it is also too easy to take these kinds of consequential arguments too far and as others have pointed out almost impossible to to define the limits on these cases objectively.

In the end the more categorical arguments around freedom of the press, right to fair trial, respect for everyone's human rights (including those of alleged and proven criminals and murderers) surely outweigh other arguments. Of course, at times this insults our feelings and sensitivities and freedom of the press can easily become press manipulation (especially given current concentration of ownership etc). But that is sadly a price to pay for our greater liberties.

I would "prefer" there to be no coverage of this trial in the UK for many of Ernie's reasons but would also prefer to live in a society where that was not mandated by law. So for that reason, I agree with MSP:

MSP - Member
[b]Hiding justice from public view can only make that worse,[/b] justice must not only be done, [b]it must be seen to be done.[/b] We need too have confidence that those who exercise power on our behalf do so also in our interest.

From Teh Grauniad coverage today:

There are many more who believe it is wrong for the media to report his justifications. But some of those who survived his attacks think differently.
Bjørn Magnus Jacobsen Ihler, 20, managed to hide from Breivik on Utøya. Outside the courtroom, he said: “I think it’s very important to hear what he has to say. I think it’s very important to listen to him because these ideas aren’t just Breivik’s ideas. He shares them with a lot of people ... it’s important to look at these societies and break into them and get new ideas into them. We have to do whatever we can to fight future extremism from all political sides.”

2 good posts ^^^, I hope the media give as much coverage to Bjørn Magnus Jacobsen Ihler and others blowing holes in breivik's mentalist statements, and generally pointing out how stupid and despicable they/he are.

I hope that the media also gives an opportunity to interview Hora and Derek, on the courtroom steps, arguing the relative merits of being thrown out of a window, or eaten by tigers

If someone disagrees with you in person do you keep at them until they change their opinion to yours?

Awwwwwwwwww, binners you big meanie.

People are allowed to have differing opinions, you know? You're getting confused again. What you're thinking of is fascism.

Which, if I'm honest, is disappointing at this juncture, as up to then you'd been coming across as reasonable and thoughtful. Especially about the tigers. A much under-utilised tool in the armoury of the criminal justice system

I am appalled that the Norwegian authorities have failed in their responsibilities to the international community and have allowed Breivik a platform to promote his views globally. He might well be just one individual but his views will have significant support among the far-right throughout the world.

Pretty much my view - we have given him a platform when everyone knows he is guilty as charged..it is a show trial and rather than the state doing it he is doing it...It is not great idea IMHO and he has already published a huge manifesto. Re the Guardian quote - it is hardly surprising the media gave a quote supporting the views of the media.. I have no idea what the consensus view is re the survivors or those directly affected.

hope that the media also gives an opportunity to interview Hora and Derek, on the courtroom steps, arguing the relative merits of being thrown out of a window, or eaten by tigers

hora - Member
If someone disagrees with you in person do you keep at them until they change their opinion to yours?

Hello hora, we've never met but well said anyway, oh and how do you do by the way..

As to 'them' we've committed that fateful error of 'being wrong on the internet' it'll keep em going for days..

Even though in my instance I've been polite enough to acknowledge I accept their views and understand it is so much better to publicise and endlessly discuss a mass murderer such as this than the simple expedient of dealing with him in similar vein to the manner in which he despatched his victims..

But then that is the Socialist Society Leftist way, unless you keep fear of the bogey man present, you cannot justify government, nor the huge expense of it...

oh good a circular argument

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww bless. The 'special' children have gravitated naturally to one another. Play nice now boys

Special children?

derekrides - Member

But then that is the Socialist Society Leftist way, unless you keep fear of the bogey man present, you cannot justify government, nor the huge expense of it...

What tosh.

Hang on a minute? Someone agreeing with you? Hmmmmmmmmm. Very suspicious?

Have you stopped taking your medication? Is this schizophrenia live on the internet? Actually.... reading 'both' your posts, that would explain a lot

I reckon they are two new Elfin identities.

But then that is the Socialist Society Leftist way, unless you keep fear of the bogey man present, you cannot justify government, nor the huge expense of it..

The state [ government] existed due to the King [often to simply provide a military army for said monarch ]- I am pretty sure the monarchs were not socialist lefties judging by the way they amazed wealth and power in the hands of a hereditary peerage

Could you expand on your reasoning please as to your claim [ it seems to be right wing rhetoric that is very poorly thought out - you will be telling me that America - biggest army spending in the world are a bunch if lefty socialist no doubt or perhaps using an explanation involving Tigers?

Special children?

Lifer - Member

What tosh.

Sorry chap you are wrong, fear is what drives all governments of left or right persuasion, it is fundamental to their existence, dates right back to feudalism. It also drives economies, it is driving our economy right now, do you really think we are at that huge a risk of terrorism at our airports for example.

The 'war on terror' if it really were a war it wouldn't have been that difficult to win now would it?

We are all constantly manipulated and fear is an essential ingredient of society, always has been and always will be.. So simple solutions are too cheap, far better for long drawn out wealth and job creating ones.. Oh and of course humanitarian, lets not forget that..

Wow, I stand back and applaud the way big hitters are revealing themselves on this thread

[img] [/img]

The Norwegian authorities aren't giving Breivik a platform they are exposing his deluded fascism to the world in the hope of demonstrating where it can lead.

In the same way that 9-11 essentially ended Irish terrorism hopefully exposing Breivik for what he really is in the full glare of an open media will actually set back the facist cause.

Groups on the fringe of respectable politics with a thinly veiled (very thinly in the case of some) ultra right wing / facist agenda will be forced to moderate their views in light of Breivik actions as they know that openly fascist views will not be tolerated.

What do you think this trial will do for the ability of the likes of the BNP and EDL to raise funds?

It's a lot easier to deal with something like that if you dismiss it as the work of 'madness' or 'evil' rather than confronting the scary proposition that someone in possession of all their faculties can commit these horrific acts. And helps to dehumanise the perpetrator so calls for 'elimination' or 'termination' (ie killing) are more palatable.

It's clear to anyone that in the common use of the word anyone who could do something like he has is "bonkers". I'd be more interested in what led him to his views and actions though.