I agree with Raedwald’s point about a certain corner of the libertarian world. It is sad and disappointing that in the wake of the Norwegian murders, that before the bodies have all been found and are barely cold, the truthers are spreading their conspiracy theories. The problem, unfortunately, is that we become tarred with a very sticky brush. Any attempt to point the finger at real misbehaviour on the part of politicians leaves us vulnerable to those who will say that we are all swivel-eyed loons who believe that the lizard men and George Bush masterminded the Twin Towers attacks or that the London bombings were a false flag operation. Our credibility promptly goes south by association with such woo.
In the discussion at OoL, I made a small attempt to bring things back to a rational level – not least to counteract such accusations before they occur, but as is always the case with these arguments, I’m wasting my time.
Arguing with a truther always follows the same pattern.
There are “questions that need to be answered”.
Actually, there usually aren’t. All too often, the questions involve irrelevant minutiae that have no bearing on the subject under discussion, but is a useful tactic for undermining the messenger. If the truther finds an anomaly such as a transposed figure or a missing minute in the timeline, he will seize upon it as irrefutable evidence of dark doings on the part of “them”. Anything less than perfection is “evidence” of malfeasance. Never mind that there is usually a perfectly rational and banal explanation (incompetence being the most likely). It also bogs down anyone who foolishly dares to enter the trap. You see, even if you do answer all of the “questions that need to be answered” you will simply be regaled with even more of them at great length while being told that you haven’t answered the previous ones.
And ad nauseam. Which is why I stopped where I did. And, doubtless I will be accused of not seeing the truth. See? I know exactly how this one pans out.
I have to say, I’m disappointed and a little bit sad, but not surprised.
Whilst I am decidedly not a “truther”, I have to ask what psychological space had he been left to move into to make the Norwegian elites to listen to him or even allow him to speak HIS truth. Read his manifesto – he was not a raging loon.
He had learned from the Muslims what makes the elite listen to his complaints and act on them.
what would make the elite listen…
(Before I start can I say I’m not stalking you)
I’m fully aware that a lot of conspiracy theorists are swivel-eyed lunatics. And I also understand coincidence.
But the slime that rule us are liars to their core. Liars that couldn’t give a shit about us as long as we pay our taxes and don’t cause them trouble.
And I don’t know why they continually get labeled incompetent. In their own eyes Labour did a stunning job, almost everything they set out to. Seems pretty impressive to me. (Even if what they did was evil).
Liars, yes. Opportunists, also yes. Control freaks, decidedly. However, I go with Angry Exile on this one.
I’d say that pretty much sums it up.
Taken according to the way the story is being told, and the man’s own confession, this event makes him the single biggest spree killer in history (the previous record standing in the mere 20s).* In 80 minutes, after blowing up the middle of Oslo, he killed, with single shots, 85+ people (apparently returning to shoot many of the dead a second time in the head), many of whom he had to chase through forests round an island. I’m struggling to do the maths on that. But all the survivors I’ve heard have identified the same, sole individual.
I don’t know the truth behind this, and I’m not hatching conspiracy theories, but the extradordinary efficiency of his slaughter sets him apart from any of his predecessors who have taken guns to a place to shoot as many as possible. My immediate reaction was to assume multiple gunmen when the numbers emerged, but the witnesses testify otherwise.
* I have a possibly unhealthy interest in spree killers in general and til now the biggest numbers of victims have been at the hands of Japanese spree gunmen.
Fundamentalist extremist lunacy, especially if “religious” will bring forth more of the same on the “other side”.
Which is one reason I’m an atheist …..
Brevik was/is as sane or as mad as the 7/7 bombers, and for the same reasons.
I think Mad Morgan in his first comment hits the nail on the head.
Also, PT Barnum’s point had occured to me (and many others), one reason for such success was the closed environment, no police, no armed anyone, no cars, no nothing, no escape…fish in a barrel. Added to which the police boat broke down (apparently…part of the plan?)
Seneca would argue (paraphrasing here) that shit happens. So the police boat broke down. How often have we had things fall apart just when we needed them most? The most likely explanation is always the most mundane – inefficiency, incompetence, laziness, poor workmanship or poor quality parts. I’d believe any of these things before I fall for a conspiracy theory.
As for being the most prolific spree killer; well, there will always be someone who holds the crown until the next one. And, frankly, given the environment – as mentioned – fish in a barrel.
@ PT Barnum, it might be the largest spree killing but there have been others well in excess of 30. Martin Bryant in Tasmania murdered 35 people and there was one in Korea about 30 years ago where the nutter had grenades as well as guns, and that I think was up around the 60s. Yes, grenades, but Breivik used a bomb so not dissimilar. And imagine if any of them had used an Oklahoma sized one! I’ve long thought that an intelligent, though obviously evil and insane, spree killer could inflict so many more casualties that way that we’re probably getting off lightly when they reach for guns instead.
Good old Seneca, eh? Still right after all these centuries. 😉
Good old Seneca, eh? Still right after all these centuries
Indeed, to err is human, we all make mistakes but “When so many people and equipment were put into it, the boat started to take on water, so that the motor stopped” is verging on stupidity…
Which is why I favour cock up over conspiracy every time.
He was the son of a Norwegian diplomat, part of the political elite. Did he go on one of the camps on the island as a youth, so that he knew it really well? His massacre show that he was sociopathic but is his anti-Islam rage a rationalisation for anger whose real source is his family and culture for whatever personal hurt. Just interested…
“certain corner of the libertarian world”
Who’s being condemned here? Neither this nor the Raedwald post name names.
“He was the son of a Norwegian diplomat…” and hadn’t seen his father since he was 16. So personal hurt is almost certainly there, in the mix of motives.