Ultra right-wing Anders Breivik pleads not guilty to the murder of 77 kids. Due to self defence.

[FunkyTown]

This angers me.

Anders Breivik admits massacre but pleads not guilty on grounds of self defence - Europe - World - The Independent

[Guest]

I vote for the psychiatric hospital.

[Guest]

That's a good way to plead insanity without anyone challenging it, I suppose. He'll get his, one way or another.

[FunkyTown]

The thing is... I don't think he's crazy. Narcissistic, sure. Wicked? Yeah. Completely unempathetic? Absolutely.

But he seems logical in his thought pattern. This is good. Because it means we can throw the book at him.

[Soulsearcher]

The thing is... I don't think he's crazy. Narcissistic, sure. Wicked? Yeah. Completely unempathetic? Absolutely.

But he seems logical in his thought pattern. This is good. Because it means we can throw the book at him.

I'm not sure if i want to see the book thrown at him. I'm trying to decide what game he's playing and which of his comments to take as serious and which to take as playing the game. He says that if he's found insane that would be worse than anything and if so i think most of us might take a bit more pleasure knowing he's living a personal hell rather than being allowed ot think he's clear and rational. If he's just saying it so people don't lock him up with the serious criminals then i hope the courts figure it out and put him where he truly belongs.

[FunkyTown]

I'm not sure if i want to see the book thrown at him. I'm trying to decide what game he's playing and which of his comments to take as serious and which to take as playing the game. He says that if he's found insane that would be worse than anything and if so i think most of us might take a bit more pleasure knowing he's living a personal hell rather than being allowed ot think he's clear and rational. If he's just saying it so people don't lock him up with the serious criminals then i hope the courts figure it out and put him where he truly belongs.

I think it's too easy to claim someone is crazy. If he's crazy, he's certainly lucid. I want him found sane. If he's found crazy, he could be let out in a few years. I do not cotton to that idea.

[Soulsearcher]

I think it's too easy to claim someone is crazy. If he's crazy, he's certainly lucid. I want him found sane. If he's found crazy, he could be let out in a few years. I do not cotton to that idea.

Agreed and i should clarify when i said where he truly belong i meant it as in, where he will suffer most both due to his own fears and at the hands of others.

[NeuroTypical]

Ultra right-wing Anders Breivik pleads not guilty to the murder of 77 kids. Due to self defence.

I'm ultra right-wing. We don't claim Anders. He's not one of ours. He has about as much to do with the ultra right wing, as Warren Jeffs has to do with the First Presidency. I do not accept the media's attempt to associate him with the right wing as valid. It's about as valid as associating Hitler with proponents of socialism. Edited April 16, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[FunkyTown]

I'm ultra right-wing. We don't claim Anders. He's not one of ours. He has about as much to do with the ultra right wing, as Warren Jeffs has to do with the First Presidency. I do not accept the media's attempt to associate him with the right wing as valid. It's about as valid as associating Hitler with proponents of socialism.

Dude. While I have no doubt that some people are using him to score political points, that's pretty tasteless. Nobody said "How can the right wing justify the murder of 77 kids in cold blood?"

Some people will jump on this just like the right sometimes jumps on whatever leftist person did something bad. I'm not calling you Anders, nor am I going to use him to score some kinda political one-upmanship..

Instead, I'm simply calling him ultra-right wing. Because he was and is. His killing spree was defined by the fact that he was right wing. That doesn't reflect on the right wings beliefs, but it's important to understand the underlying reasons for someone behaving the way they do. The moment we dismiss someone by saying they're crazy, or refuse to acknowledge the things that lead to things that we disdain, we fail to learn lessons.

In Anders case, I don't know what the lesson was. Could we stop another Anders? Recognize him before he comes to the fore? Tricky. I don't know.

[JudoMinja]

What I found most interesting in reading the article is that he doesn't want to be found insane. So he wants to use his self-defense plea and set up the trial so that he can share his extreme views and how he feels those views justified what he did enough to say it was self-defense. Any justice system that accepts his definition of self-defense would have to accept a whole slew of terroristic crimes as nothing more than self-defense.

This is going to turn into a huge stage for him to share his political extremist views as he tries to prove both his sanity and his self-defense plea. I think they will certainly find him sane and guilty, but he's getting exactly what he wanted out of this- attention.

[Windseeker]

^This right winger could care less why he did it, if he's been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he needs a quick escort out of this life and into the next, not rewarded with time and publicity to spread his twisted ideas. He's already admitted his guilt.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm not calling you Anders, nor am I going to use him to score some kinda political one-upmanship..

Oh I get it Funky. Sorry - what I said came across harsher than I meant it.

His killing spree was defined by the fact that he was right wing. That doesn't reflect on the right wings beliefs, but it's important to understand the underlying reasons for someone behaving the way they do.

Ok - time for a test. Would you agree with the following?:

* The New Black Panther's call for the capture or killing of Zimmerman is defined by the fact that they are left wing.

* Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's killing of 13 in Fort Hood, is defined by the fact that he is a muslim.

* The Mountain Meadows Massacre is defined by the fact that those who carried out the executions were Mormon.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[LittleWyvern]

I made a post earlier about Anders' political views. They're pretty well known to be far right:

Anders Breivik's political and religious leanings are hard to pin down, but his "manifesto" that he published and his online activity can give us some hints. He is defintely an Islamophobe, as can be seen by his activity on the mostly Islamophobic website document.no (have google translate the source on that one). He was also very strongly anti-immigration, mostly because of his anti-Islam views (the immigration of Muslims has been a hot topic for years now in Europe, which caused Switzerland to ban minarets a year or so ago). He had contact with several organizations, including the English Defense Leauge and Stop the Islamification of Europe. He even attempted to start a sort of Tea Party inspired movement in Norway in cooperation with document.no, but failed to bring it to fruition. So, the labeling of Breivik as right-wing is pretty spot on.

See my post for the sources.

[NeuroTypical]

So how about it Little Wyvern, would you agree with my three statements above? If not, why not?

[LittleWyvern]

So how about it Little Wyvern, would you agree with my three statements above? If not, why not?

* The New Black Panther's call for the capture or killing of Zimmerman is defined by the fact that they are left wing.

* Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's killing of 13 in Fort Hood, is defined by the fact that he is a muslim.

* The Mountain Meadows Massacre is defined by the fact that those who carried out the executions were Mormon.

. I would, though, use influenced where FunkyTown used defined. Thus, it is pretty well known that Breivik's far-right political views influenced his actions (he said so himself in his manifesto), while your (cherry-picked at best) other examples, even when replacing defined with influenced, still may or may not be true. One would have to prove it either way. I do disagree with all three of them, however.

[LittleWyvern]

Double post, delete me!

[skippy740]

The problem with the terms "left" and "right" is that they are usually revolving around a "center" or 'mainstream' view. And many people associate their political views with one of the two terms.

It's too bad they couldn't use the term "So far off the mark extremist"... but I'm sure there's a reason they can't (or didn't think of it).

[Vort]

. I would, though, use influenced where FunkyTown used defined. Thus, it is pretty well known that Breivik's far-right political views influenced his actions (he said so himself in his manifesto), while your (cherry-picked at best) other examples, even when replacing defined with influenced, still may or may not be true. One would have to prove it either way. I do disagree with all three of them, however.

In other words, your poop don't stink.

[Mahone]

^This right winger could care less why he did it, if he's been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he needs a quick escort out of this life and into the next, not rewarded with time and publicity to spread his twisted ideas. He's already admitted his guilt.

Couldn't? :)

Norway don't recognise the death penalty - he'll likely spend the rest of his life in prison, but won't be executed.

Live update of the trial: Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik trial: live - Telegraph

[FunkyTown]

Oh I get it Funky. Sorry - what I said came across harsher than I meant it.

Ok - time for a test. Would you agree with the following?:

* The New Black Panther's call for the capture or killing of Zimmerman is defined by the fact that they are left wing.

* Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's killing of 13 in Fort Hood, is defined by the fact that he is a muslim.

* The Mountain Meadows Massacre is defined by the fact that those who carried out the executions were Mormon.

I can't comment on what the Black Panther's said because, honestly, I don't know anything about the situation. American news where somebody says something controversial doesn't really make it over here. I don't even know who this Zimmerman is.

The Army Maj. may not have committed his act as an act of terrorism. He didn't want to go overseas - Could be because he didn't want to be involved in war on other Muslims, though I don't have enough information on why he did what he did. He didn't make a huge manifesto on it and we'd only be guessing at his intentions.

The Mountain Meadows are most definitely defined by the fact that those who carried out the executions were Mormon. If you strip that away, it just becomes a bizarre killing with no cause or effect.

I'm glad you brought up the Massacre because it allows me to make a point: Simply because one person commits a radical act does not reflect on the whole of a group. The fact that they are part of that group does help explain things and is necessary information.

As a further example: Let's say that I said "Yeah. There was a guy in American history. Incited a buncha people. Killed more Americans than any other person prior to him in history either directly or indirectly. Committed treason." then you would view this person in a very specific light.

If I then pointed out that this person was George Washington, then you get a more complete picture. Could you really understand the man without understanding the times and beliefs he held?

[Netgood]

Tyranny of the majority is as just to fight against as the tyranny of a King. "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?" - The Patriot

[Still_Small_Voice]

They call this guy an "Ultra Right-Wing" man? A more correct label would be a narcissist, psycho murderer.