If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   NRO doesn't want Anders Breivik to face trial because we all need to get over this nasty business as soon as possible. The fact that he was a big fan of several NRO contributors and may mention that in court has no bearing on that opinion   (nationalreview.com) divider line 233
    More: Unlikely, Breivik, NRO, social democrats, Anglo-Saxon  
•       •       •

2021 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2012 at 2:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



233 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 05:47:31 PM  
Why are you so eager to tiger-hole this guy, WC?

Seriously.

Drop the smokescreen and cough us up a nice neat sound bite.
 
2012-04-23 05:48:07 PM  

WombatControl: If he wants to present a defense, yes, he has the legal right. But what is the advantage to giving him a public forum to do it?


I'll give you one very good reason to do so:

By giving him a public forum for his ideas, everybody gets to see how out of touch he is with reality. He's not a heroic defender of Christian Norway, he's a recluse who's built a reality he shares only with with the far right. Some of the things he says is so far out there that ... I really don't have the words to describe it.

You provided your answer - to supposedly embarrass your political adversaries. That, quite frankly, is not sufficient reason to justify giving Brievik exactly what he wants - a public forum to espouse his hatred.

If Breivik embarrasses the people who agree with him by telling people what he thinks, then maybe the people he embarrasses should rethink their opinions.

It's not Brievik some people want on trial - it's the entire political right.

Nope. We want Breivik on trial. If he drags down everybody who agrees with him, well, why is that a bad thing?

That's where the totalitarian impulse comes in - it's taking the act of a madman and using it as an opportunity to shut down the views of people they don't like. So what if Brievik was "inspired" by someone like Pamela Geller? Does that mitigate against what he did in any way? Absolutely not. So in what way is it relevant to the case? It isn't.

It's relevant in the sense that everything that can explain his motives and his actions are highly relevant to the trial. This is the single most important trial in Norway since WWII. Historians will be studying this for a very long time. Doing it correctly is important.

Giving Brievik the public forum he wants just so he can embarrass one's political enemies is a reprehensible idea.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2012-04-23 05:49:06 PM  

Kittypie070: Why are you so eager to tiger-hole this guy, WC?

Seriously.

Drop the smokescreen and cough us up a nice neat sound bite.


It seems to boil down to "The accused might want it, therefore he shouldn't be allowed to have it."
 
2012-04-23 05:52:42 PM  
theorellior 2012-04-23 05:44:41 PM

Don't has a sad.

Here.

[jingle!]

[coffee pouring sound]

[booze pouring sound]


You has a coffee.

encrypted-tbn3.google.com
 
2012-04-23 05:53:41 PM  

Kittypie070: You has a coffee.


GLUG GLUG GLUG

Now I'm drunk at work. Wheeee!
 
2012-04-23 05:57:24 PM  
*happy cat dance*
 
2012-04-23 06:00:13 PM  

Biological Ali: WombatControl: Giving insane people a public forum incents more insane people to kill.

And you say this based on what? Just a hunch?


Basic logic - if someone kills to gain a public forum for their ideas and gets that public forum, does that not mean that others also wanting a public forum for their crazy ideas will do the same?

Think of the idea of "copycat crimes".
 
2012-04-23 06:00:23 PM  

Kittypie070: I think I shall share my REAL coffee with qorky, Unca Tractor, Halli, Bloody William, and the Queegster.


Thanks. Also, your coffee sounds an awful lot like karsk, except it's made with vodak instead of potato moonshine. Well, you can make karsk with vodak too.

"You put a coin on the table. Then you drink moonshine until you can't see it, then you drink coffee until you can see it."
 
2012-04-23 06:01:00 PM  
Just a note. Wombat, in case you have not already realized, you are seriously advocating authoritarianism purely by not letting the public know the particulars of the case and you disguise it as keeping the public safe and 'not giving this madman a forum to preach his evil.' Do you really think people are so naive that letting them hear the particulars of this man's mindset and what distorted justifications he came up with to act in this way will prompt others to act similarly? Do you realize that by ferreting away the particulars you basically hide all evidence of the atrocity of this person and basically tell people that by purely the result you see before you, he is a monster and therefore guilty, you don't need to see what is behind the rationale, you don't need to see the particulars, you don't need to see the real evil. Just take our word for it that he is guilty and justice has been done.

A trial gives people the opportunity to really see if he is totally nuts and a real whackjob with an utterly detestable viewpoint as well as where he got them from. It also serves as a warning to those peddling this type of viewpoint. And if people get the idea that listening to hatemongers might be a distasteful thing then so be it! I seriously doubt it will cause anyone to create any form of law banning free speech, that is your projection, but it certainly might cause people who listen viewpoints like this to think it over and you don't seem to want people to do that.
 
2012-04-23 06:02:24 PM  

WombatControl: Basic logic - if someone kills to gain a public forum for their ideas and gets that public forum, does that not mean that others also wanting a public forum for their crazy ideas will do the same?


Those others will also see that the things he say are picked apart piece by piece and that he finds himself incapable of defending neither his actions and his motives.
 
2012-04-23 06:06:05 PM  
It's not quite Karsk.

I America'd up the (modern) Finnish Coffee.

For "quarter", read "euro".

Now if I really wanted to wave the flag at it, I woulda replaced the quarter with a JFK '64 silver half dollar.
 
2012-04-23 06:07:51 PM  

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: Giving insane people a public forum incents more insane people to kill.

And you say this based on what? Just a hunch?

Basic logic - if someone kills to gain a public forum for their ideas and gets that public forum, does that not mean that others also wanting a public forum for their crazy ideas will do the same?

Think of the idea of "copycat crimes".


Yeah no. Anyone seeking attention will act regardless. Depending upon how others reacted to previous actions might worsen the act. Say there was very little coverage of the OKC bombing. Next nutbag might think that since no one was paying much attention to such a level of damage they might have to raise the stakes to gain the level of attention that they want. You can't stop the actions of a madman but you can make his ideas more clearer to the public and raise awareness by letting everyone know that these are NOT NORMAL THOUGHTS. And a public trial is perfect for that.
 
2012-04-23 06:11:25 PM  

Citris: WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: Giving insane people a public forum incents more insane people to kill.

And you say this based on what? Just a hunch?

Basic logic - if someone kills to gain a public forum for their ideas and gets that public forum, does that not mean that others also wanting a public forum for their crazy ideas will do the same?

Think of the idea of "copycat crimes".

Yeah no. Anyone seeking attention will act regardless. Depending upon how others reacted to previous actions might worsen the act. Say there was very little coverage of the OKC bombing. Next nutbag might think that since no one was paying much attention to such a level of damage they might have to raise the stakes to gain the level of attention that they want. You can't stop the actions of a madman but you can make his ideas more clearer to the public and raise awareness by letting everyone know that these are NOT NORMAL THOUGHTS. And a public trial is perfect for that.


Plus there can be the opposite reaction to secrecy. "What do they have to hide? Who are they protecting? What are they so afraid of him saying? Maybe he has a point if they are so afraid of him that he must be silenced."
 
2012-04-23 06:12:51 PM  

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: Giving insane people a public forum incents more insane people to kill.

And you say this based on what? Just a hunch?

Basic logic


Emphasis on "basic", I suppose.
 
2012-04-23 06:15:49 PM  
[pours a straight shot of moonshine for WombatOutOfControl]

you're gonna need it when the rest of us get done deconstructing your smokescreen.
 
2012-04-23 06:19:23 PM  

Kittypie070: It's not quite Karsk.

I America'd up the (modern) Finnish Coffee.

For "quarter", read "euro".

Now if I really wanted to wave the flag at it, I woulda replaced the quarter with a JFK '64 silver half dollar.


And if you REALLY wanted to go all "America, fark yeah!" at it, there IS such a thing as legal "moonshine" aka "white dog" that quite a number of places in Appalachia sell nowadays :D

/why yes, I has some; probably will be breaking that out with the coffee in fact :D
//Finally plonked Wombutt on account of defense of the indefensible--one of the few on my Plonk List NOT outright promoting material best left on Stormfront, and he's coming damn close to that IMHO
 
2012-04-23 06:20:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Plus there can be the opposite reaction to secrecy. "What do they have to hide? Who are they protecting? What are they so afraid of him saying? Maybe he has a point if they are so afraid of him that he must be silenced."


Pretty much, my thought on this was some malicious government creating a pasty, have be convicted of some 'vicious crime' then use that to justify rounding up like minded people or something along those lines but the case can be filled with holes large enough to fit an iceberg through but everyone is just told that 'well its a clear case of vicious evil and that's all you need to know. He has been dealt with.' An open and transparent trial removes this possibility as everyone can view what happened and what led him to take these actions.
 
2012-04-23 06:21:01 PM  

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: Giving insane people a public forum incents more insane people to kill.

And you say this based on what? Just a hunch?

Basic logic - if someone kills to gain a public forum for their ideas and gets that public forum, does that not mean that others also wanting a public forum for their crazy ideas will do the same?

Think of the idea of "copycat crimes".


Yeah, sure, I mean, after watching Colin Ferguson's trial I suddenly had the urge to shoot white people on the Long Island Railroad.

/Just kidding.

Link
 
2012-04-23 06:25:33 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Citris: WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: Giving insane people a public forum incents more insane people to kill.

And you say this based on what? Just a hunch?

Basic logic - if someone kills to gain a public forum for their ideas and gets that public forum, does that not mean that others also wanting a public forum for their crazy ideas will do the same?

Think of the idea of "copycat crimes".

Yeah no. Anyone seeking attention will act regardless. Depending upon how others reacted to previous actions might worsen the act. Say there was very little coverage of the OKC bombing. Next nutbag might think that since no one was paying much attention to such a level of damage they might have to raise the stakes to gain the level of attention that they want. You can't stop the actions of a madman but you can make his ideas more clearer to the public and raise awareness by letting everyone know that these are NOT NORMAL THOUGHTS. And a public trial is perfect for that.

Plus there can be the opposite reaction to secrecy. "What do they have to hide? Who are they protecting? What are they so afraid of him saying? Maybe he has a point if they are so afraid of him that he must be silenced."


Exactly! I'm sure the butthurt would be equally epic if the court simply pronounced him guilty and locked him away without a trial.
 
2012-04-23 06:27:52 PM  
Brevik's continued revelation of himself as an utter lunatic is an embarrassment to the two minute anti-Muslim hate. He's bad pub for the far right, he must be silenced! For the good of the people, of course.
 
2012-04-23 06:48:18 PM  
Now I know why the goddamn wombats are running rampant.
 
2012-04-23 06:54:28 PM  
Hey I can get Everclear here.
 
2012-04-23 06:57:24 PM  
I also notice he hasn't come back to defend himself. Yet.

Maybe dinnurtime for Wombats?

/gonna go take myself for a walk, get me a Mexi Coke
 
2012-04-23 06:58:17 PM  

WombatControl: If he wants to present a defense, yes, he has the legal right. But what is the advantage to giving him a public forum to do it?

You provided your answer - to supposedly embarrass your political adversaries. That, quite frankly, is not sufficient reason to justify giving Brievik exactly what he wants - a public forum to espouse his hatred.

It's not Brievik some people want on trial - it's the entire political right. That's where the totalitarian impulse comes in - it's taking the act of a madman and using it as an opportunity to shut down the views of people they don't like. So what if Brievik was "inspired" by someone like Pamela Geller? Does that mitigate against what he did in any way? Absolutely not. So in what way is it relevant to the case? It isn't.

Giving Brievik the public forum he wants just so he can embarrass one's political enemies is a reprehensible idea.


Now that you've got the first one nailed up there good, do you need any help getting your second hand attached to that cross?
 
2012-04-23 07:12:54 PM  

Thrag: WombatControl: If he wants to present a defense, yes, he has the legal right. But what is the advantage to giving him a public forum to do it?

You provided your answer - to supposedly embarrass your political adversaries. That, quite frankly, is not sufficient reason to justify giving Brievik exactly what he wants - a public forum to espouse his hatred.

It's not Brievik some people want on trial - it's the entire political right. That's where the totalitarian impulse comes in - it's taking the act of a madman and using it as an opportunity to shut down the views of people they don't like. So what if Brievik was "inspired" by someone like Pamela Geller? Does that mitigate against what he did in any way? Absolutely not. So in what way is it relevant to the case? It isn't.

Giving Brievik the public forum he wants just so he can embarrass one's political enemies is a reprehensible idea.

Now that you've got the first one nailed up there good, do you need any help getting your second hand attached to that cross?


Nothing more really needs to be said after that bolded part.

/I think WC's just in it for the lulz.
 
2012-04-23 07:22:10 PM  

WombatControl: If he wants to present a defense, yes, he has the legal right. But what is the advantage to giving him a public forum to do it?


Because it is how the Norwegian justice system operates and giving him special treatment is incredibly stupid?

As for him inciting more violence, I would suggest that the government and/or judiciary taking extraordinary actions to shut him up would give a lot of ammunition for the right wing extremists and create plenty conspiracy theories to generate more hate (the liberal government must be covering something up).

WombatControl: a judge could decide it summarily without the need for any factual findings.


Can you cite statute of Norwegian law establishing this ability for judges to make such a summary judgement?
 
2012-04-23 07:30:33 PM  

Citris: Just a note. Wombat, in case you have not already realized, you are seriously advocating authoritarianism purely by not letting the public know the particulars of the case and you disguise it as keeping the public safe and 'not giving this madman a forum to preach his evil.' Do you really think people are so naive that letting them hear the particulars of this man's mindset and what distorted justifications he came up with to act in this way will prompt others to act similarly? Do you realize that by ferreting away the particulars you basically hide all evidence of the atrocity of this person and basically tell people that by purely the result you see before you, he is a monster and therefore guilty, you don't need to see what is behind the rationale, you don't need to see the particulars, you don't need to see the real evil. Just take our word for it that he is guilty and justice has been done.


1.) That's not what "authoritarianism" means - you don't need to diminish your argument by going there.

2.) Nothing is being hidden - we all know what Brievik's crime was. We all know what happened. We know he's admitted to the killings. We know the timeline, the facts, etc. Again, the benefit to society of knowing what his rationale for the killings might have been is overweighed by the fact that giving him a public forum is exactly what he wants.

3.) Again, we're not taking the Norwegian government's word that he's guilty. He has admitted to the killings. If he were denying responsibility there were

A trial gives people the opportunity to really see if he is totally nuts and a real whackjob with an utterly detestable viewpoint as well as where he got them from. It also serves as a warning to those peddling this type of viewpoint. And if people get the idea that listening to hatemongers might be a distasteful thing then so be it! I seriously doubt it will cause anyone to create any form of law banning free speech, that is your projection, but it certainly might cause people who listen viewpoints like this to think it over and you don't seem to want people to do that.

Do we need a trial to show that he's a nutjob? He murdered nearly 80 people in cold blood - that should be more than enough on that point.

It seems quite clear from many of these comments that what many here want to do is put Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer on trial as much as Anders Brievik. They may be reprehensible, they may be xenophobes, etc., but using this tragedy as an excuse to attack them diminishes Brievik's crimes, gives him the public forum he wants, and lets him shift responsibility from himself to others. It is simply a bad idea.
 
2012-04-23 07:39:46 PM  

WombatControl: It seems quite clear from many of these comments that what many here want to do is put Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer on trial as much as Anders Brievik.


The Norwegians are putting him on trial because:

A: that is how their legal system works.

or

B: they've been following this Fark thread, and they want to fulfill the wishes of anonymous liberal Americans.
 
2012-04-23 07:42:01 PM  
Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.
 
2012-04-23 07:49:16 PM  

Kittypie070: Hey I can get Everclear here.


Listen to Fire Maple Song, it's my favorite.
 
2012-04-23 07:50:32 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.


So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .
 
2012-04-23 07:52:31 PM  

WombatControl: 1.) That's not what "authoritarianism" means - you don't need to diminish your argument by going there.


Pretty rich coming from someone who tried to claim giving the guy a normal trial is somehow totalitarian.

Here's an idea, stop using words you obviously don't know the meaning of.
 
2012-04-23 07:58:06 PM  

HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .


No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.
 
2012-04-23 07:58:45 PM  

WombatControl: It seems quite clear from many of these comments that what many here want to do is put Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer on trial as much as Anders Brievik. They may be reprehensible, they may be xenophobes, etc., but using this tragedy as an excuse to attack them diminishes Brievik's crimes, gives him the public forum he wants, and lets him shift responsibility from himself to others. It is simply a bad idea.


They deserve to be on trial for it. In fact, I really wish that they could have been indicted as co-conspirators. They advocate doing exactly what he did, and they spoon-fed him the rhetoric.
 
2012-04-23 08:11:39 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .

No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.


Both sides are bad, so vote for the mass murderer?
 
2012-04-23 08:19:53 PM  

chimp_ninja: Aarontology: Why is Fark still giving green lights to a website that promotes white supremacy and terrorism?

Because Fark really, really loves the myth that if there are two viewpoints on an issue, you have to give them each 50% of your attention, because all viewpoints are precisely equal in validity.


That, and because it brings in traffic. FARK, the bastion of capitalism.
 
2012-04-23 08:21:34 PM  

Citrate1007: NRO's opinion "there is no reason that he deserves the due process of the law, just find him guilt and move on".

Subby's opinion "make shiat up because I don't like the source of the article"


The funny thing is that the party that claims to defend the constitution has no problem circumventing it when it is politically convenient,
 
2012-04-23 08:25:53 PM  

WombatControl: in the specific case of Anders Brievik, what is the benefit to society to give him the public forum he craves when he has admitted to the killings and his alleged defense has not a shred of legal merit?


How could this fast-track, non-public conviction process you advocate be implemented in a way that would actually make it specific to the case of Anders Breivik? What specific criterion do you think should be applied to determine when this alternate process may or may not be used?
 
2012-04-23 08:31:39 PM  

HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .

No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.

Both sides are bad, so vote for the mass murderer?


I don't know enough about any of them to vote, but a "mass murder" implies that innocent people are killed and I would certainly oppose that every time. I don't know enough about the people involved in this that I can determine innocence or guilt. Perhaps I'll learn enough about the matter in the course of the trial to form an opinion.
 
2012-04-23 08:38:24 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .

No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.

Both sides are bad, so vote for the mass murderer?

I don't know enough about any of them to vote, but a "mass murder" implies that innocent people are killed and I would certainly oppose that every time. I don't know enough about the people involved in this that I can determine innocence or guilt. Perhaps I'll learn enough about the matter in the course of the trial to form an opinion.


See, the shooter went after random people, and he had no idea whether any of them were guilty of the crime of supporting Mumia. And I'm pretty sure that supporting Mumia is not a capital offense in Norway.
 
2012-04-23 08:55:06 PM  

HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .

No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.

Both sides are bad, so vote for the mass murderer?

I don't know enough about any of them to vote, but a "mass murder" implies that innocent people are killed and I would certainly oppose that every time. I don't know enough about the people involved in this that I can determine innocence or guilt. Perhaps I'll learn enough about the matter in the course of the trial to form an opinion.

See, the shooter went after random people, and he had no idea whether any of them were guilty of the crime of supporting Mumia. And I'm pretty sure that supporting Mumia is not a capital offense in Norway.


I'm not so hasty to judge. Hitler formed the Youth League of the National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany in 1920. Would it have been a terrible thing if someone had gone Breivik on them at that time?
 
2012-04-23 09:02:18 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .

No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.

Both sides are bad, so vote for the mass murderer?

I don't know enough about any of them to vote, but a "mass murder" implies that innocent people are killed and I would certainly oppose that every time. I don't know enough about the people involved in this that I can determine innocence or guilt. Perhaps I'll learn enough about the matter in the course of the trial to form an opinion.

See, the shooter went after random people, and he had no idea whether any of them were guilty of the crime of supporting Mumia. And I'm pretty sure that supporting Mumia is not a capital offense in Norway.

I'm not so hasty to judge. Hitler formed the Youth League of the National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany in 1920. Would it have been a terrible thing if someone had gone Breivik on them at that time?


Yes. The kids in the Youth League weren't annexing countries and putting people into ovens.

Plus, you might've ended up shooting the current Pope.

/I mean, who would shoot the Pope?
//What's your intention in shooting the Pope unless you're saying, 'Look, I want to go to hell and I don't want to stand in line?'
 
2012-04-23 09:14:24 PM  

HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .

No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.

Both sides are bad, so vote for the mass murderer?

I don't know enough about any of them to vote, but a "mass murder" implies that innocent people are killed and I would certainly oppose that every time. I don't know enough about the people involved in this that I can determine innocence or guilt. Perhaps I'll learn enough about the matter in the course of the trial to form an opinion.

See, the shooter went after random people, and he had no idea whether any of them were guilty of the crime of supporting Mumia. And I'm pretty sure that supporting Mumia is not a capital offense in Norway.

I'm not so hasty to judge. Hitler formed the Youth League of the National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany in 1920. Would it have been a terrible thing if someone had gone Breivik on them at that time?

Yes. The kids in the Youth League weren't annexing countries and putting people into ovens.

Plus, you might've ended up shooting the current Pope.

/I mean, who would shoot the Pope?
//What's your intention in shooting the Pope unless you're saying, 'Look, I want to go to hell and I don't want to stand in line?'


1920. Do the math. What do you think those kids were doing in 1940? They were annexing countries and putting people in ovens. Exceptions, like one of them becoming pope, don't interest me much.
 
2012-04-23 09:26:20 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: HighOnCraic: Noam Chimpsky: Breivik is kind of a political prisoner like that Mumia guy. Ironically, I think that group on Breivik's island protested at the US embassy in Oslo on behalf of poor ol' Mumia a few years ago.

So, you're saying that the people on that island were the real villains?!

Seriously?

/Jiggles the plug on my sarcasm meter. . .

No, the people on the island said the cop Mumia killed was the real villain. I'm not from Norway so I can't really judge who is the villain in that situation they had over there.

Both sides are bad, so vote for the mass murderer?

I don't know enough about any of them to vote, but a "mass murder" implies that innocent people are killed and I would certainly oppose that every time. I don't know enough about the people involved in this that I can determine innocence or guilt. Perhaps I'll learn enough about the matter in the course of the trial to form an opinion.

See, the shooter went after random people, and he had no idea whether any of them were guilty of the crime of supporting Mumia. And I'm pretty sure that supporting Mumia is not a capital offense in Norway.

I'm not so hasty to judge. Hitler formed the Youth League of the National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany in 1920. Would it have been a terrible thing if someone had gone Breivik on them at that time?

Yes. The kids in the Youth League weren't annexing countries and putting people into ovens.

Plus, you might've ended up shooting the current Pope.

/I mean, who would shoot the Pope?
//What's your intention in shooting the Pope unless you're saying, 'Look, I want to go to hell and I don't want to stand in line?'

1920. Do the math. What do you think those kids were doing in 1940? They were annexing countries and putting people in ovens. Exceptions, like one of them becoming pope, don't interest me much.


In fairness, I didn't think you were being serious, and I was just looking for a way to toss in an old Eddie Murphy joke.

So wait, you're saying that there's a chance the kids on that island may have grown up to be soldiers and annex Poland and begin exterminating Jews, so therefore Breivik may have been right to shoot them?

/Honestly, I thought you were just testing out Poe's Law.
 
2012-04-23 09:29:28 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Hitler formed the Youth League of the National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany in 1920. Would it have been a terrible thing if someone had gone Breivik on them at that time?


YES. Slaughtering children who are not an immediate threat to others (as in, in the act of killing someone) is wrong. Period. Most of the people that went through the Hitler Youth never did anything wrong and became productive members of German society following the war, hell one even became Pope. Just like that, the children on the island would have grown up to represent a variety of political views.
 
2012-04-23 10:24:16 PM  

dywed88: Noam Chimpsky: Hitler formed the Youth League of the National Socialist Workers' Party in Germany in 1920. Would it have been a terrible thing if someone had gone Breivik on them at that time?

YES. Slaughtering children who are not an immediate threat to others (as in, in the act of killing someone) is wrong. Period. Most of the people that went through the Hitler Youth never did anything wrong and became productive members of German society following the war, hell one even became Pope. Just like that, the children on the island would have grown up to represent a variety of political views.


I think he's just copy-pasting from an old Freeper thread about the shootings. It's kind of sad. I don't have anyone on my ignore list, but I might start with Noam.
 
2012-04-23 10:37:29 PM  
The problem is that I hate adding people to my ignore list on forums. It gets really annoying when you only get one side of a conversation. And mostly I look a threads in this tab to laugh at people making incredibly stupid comments (from all sides) or getting told for making such comments. Which is hindered by ignorng the people that make or set up others to make these comments. I tend to not post at all here since it is generally just a pile of trolls trolling trolls from the other side, but sometimes I just feel like it.
 
2012-04-23 10:41:28 PM  

dywed88: The problem is that I hate adding people to my ignore list on forums. It gets really annoying when you only get one side of a conversation. And mostly I look a threads in this tab to laugh at people making incredibly stupid comments (from all sides) or getting told for making such comments. Which is hindered by ignorng the people that make or set up others to make these comments. I tend to not post at all here since it is generally just a pile of trolls trolling trolls from the other side, but sometimes I just feel like it.


I agree; I had a few listed, then decided to keep it empty.

I don't know, I think Noam's just looking for attention with his "What if those kids deserved to get shot?" nonsense.
 
2012-04-23 10:43:00 PM  

abb3w: As noted earlier, it seems technically "necessity", not "self-defense"; nødrett versus nødverge, according to Wikipedia.
Either way, though, essentially claiming justifiable homicide.


This guy is creepy as fark. Maybe that's why some people are afraid that he's going to say some things that sound a little too much like their agenda.
 
2012-04-23 11:25:49 PM  
Uhm.

I shoulda given WombatHelpI'mTalkingAndICant'ShutUp the entire frakkin handle of Everclear.
 
Displayed 50 of 233 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report