Oslo

[Charlie Farley]

"This whole thing was too well planned out and carefully executed (perfect word) to be the work of a deranged mind...............hate filled mind for sure, but not insane."

Jim, you wrote the above.
You have so very little understanding of so called sanity, or insanity. Take as examples, Hitler or Stalin. Some would say deranged minds. None will argue they were not highly efficient and planned their culls to the smallest detail.

I know that if i ever become more insane ( lol ) and decided to kill someone, i will draw deeply on all the highly professional taught knowledge i received, from a young age ( military school ) and how to approach it methodically. Infact compared to your statement, history shows us the opposite is true. Warped minds have a propensity to approach the matter in hand in a highly organised and proficient manner. With your 'college' shootings, that seem to be occuring more often, the shooter goes on a blind rampage, not particularly effective, thank god. This guy just planned his job more thoroughly.

Just my 2 cents..

 

[Jim Craik]

Charlie,

I know that this sometimes becomes confusing, here in the US the discussion often goes into things like: did they know it was wrong, did they try and cover it up..........

In this discussion, the comparison came up concerning the 9-11 attackers. It was also a well planned, carefully executed plan.

Using your definition, were the 9-11 attackers insane?

These were both attacks by hate filled folks willing to kill many many folks, to exchange their lives for a political statement.

Although these attacks came from opposite sides of the political spectrum, they seem every similar in agenda, scope and effect.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Well, keep in mind that the idea of "sanity" and "insanity" are somewhat arbitrary definitions that were invented for a purpose. Or purposes.

There was a time in law when if you committed a crime, you were punished for it, and usually in a fairly Draconian way- stealing a loaf of bread could get you hanged. I think the idea of someone being too mentally ill to distinguish right from wrong AS WE COMMONLY SEE IT (don't mean to shout but I can't find the italics) originated in the 18th or 19th century; I seem to remember something about the M'Naughton Rule, but my memory may be fading on this. Don't quote me on that one.

At any rate, the idea grew and gained traction in both law and medicine, and in society in general, that not being able to distinguish right from wrong and being delusional might be a legitimate defense against criminal charges. Of course, as soon as that idea gained traction criminal defendants abused it and plenty of folks tried to get excused from charges of murder on the grounds that they were insane, or at least insane at the time. And SOME criminal defendants ARE crazy and ought to be held to a different standard, or treated differently, than non-crazy people who commit crimes, especially capital murder. Fortunately the law sets the bar pretty high on this, and it seems to me that you have to really be demonstrably and consistently crazy to evade conviction for murder.

But Anders Brievik is different. HE says he's not crazy. HE says all this was planned. HE says all this was deliberate. And HE says he is fighting a war. So there isn't really much question here about sanity. He's going to do everything he can to prove he's sane. And he doesn't seem crazy to me. Just evil in the extreme.

People have debated whether anyone who commits mass murder can possibly claim to be sane. I personally only know one mass murderer- a fellow who attended the same medical school I did*, who went on to murder perhaps four or five dozen of his patients by poisoning them- and I am absolutely certain that this man was and is sane. Evil, certainly, but not crazy. He just liked killing people.

So Anders Brievik thinks he's in a war, and killed seventy noncombatants. I think he ought to be repaid in the coin identical to his own. I think he ought to be extradited to a country where someone is willing to prosecute him for international war crimes and supervise his conviction and his execution. I think that's a fitting end to his life. And I think, like bin Laden, he ought to be buried at sea so no one can make a shrine of his grave.

And if they need someone to pull the trigger, push the switch, or squeeze the syringe, I'm available. I think I'd be doing the world a favor. I wouldn't hesitate. I'd do it in a second, after due process of law was completed. I think there are some crimes that are so heinous that they ought to be punished with death, and if there ever was such a crime, it's his.

*Michael Swango, for anyone interested.

 

[Keith]

Don't you people ever give up? What is your point?

You just had to comment didn't you.

Do you not know that when someone maintains they are sane that they are in fact insane?

If the monster that perpetrated this act was sane and was making a point about Muslim immigration, would he have not killed the "enemy" and not his own people?

Did 11/9 bombers target their own people? 11/9 had a purpose. It was the destruction of economic power. This man had no purpose, no agenda, no back-up no plan, no followers and no follow up. He was and is insane...

Get a life you two muppets..and just give up thinking you know everything. You know absolutely nothing except your own biased dogma.

And you Craik, Mr left right left right ad infinitum ad nauseum why don't you indulge in some original thought instead of sucking on Young's hind tit?

 

[Jeff Young]

What the hell is your problem? I posted an article without comment on this guy. If it's not possible for you to discuss this civilly why don't you go back into retirement?

The "point" by the way is that political/religious terrorism is not exclusive to Islam as seemed to be the prevailing belief here amongts a core group of folks. That is exactly what this guy did, he had a purpose (advancement of a Christian, white supremacist anti-immigrant agenda) and a plan.

Again, the fact that this guy provokes the response he does when compared to Islamic terrorists is quite telling.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Ummm...Keith....I don't think merely maintaining one is sane provides a sure-fire way of distinguishing the sane from the insane, do you? People have to be judged by a lot of things other than just that simple fact. I think you would tell me that you're sane- and that doesn't make you crazy in my eyes. I may not agree with you sometimes, but I don't think you're nuts (a highly technical medical term that I learned in med school)

The 9/11 bombers DID kill a lot of their own people- that is, Muslims working in the WTC. New York is quite a polyglot society and there were more than a few Muslims working in the WTC- maybe some on the airplanes as well. It didn't seem to bother the people who plotted the whole thing.

Maybe we have different definitions of sane and insane here. I think there is most emphatically such a thing as people who are evil and not insane. bin Laden is a good example. Hitler is a good example of that. Milosevich is another good example. Bashar el-Assad is another good example. Brievik is another good example. What all these people have in common is the complete willingness to commit mass murder, either themselves or by proxy, for political ends. This is not war. It is the mass murder of innocents, which is a criminal act, and should be dealt with as such.

Frankly, I think it insults people who are legitimately mentally ill to decide and opine that anyone who commits mass murder is insane- just because they committed mass murder. Now, that's just my opinion, and one opinion is worth exactly as much or as little as another. But that's what discussions are about.

 

[Jim Craik]

Keith,

Let me see if I understand.

Horrific terrorist attacks are the work of vicious hate filled Islamic extremist and should lead to all sorts of sanction and suspicion of all Islamic people.

But similar attacks from white Christians like Timothy McVay and this Oslo murder, they are just unfortunate folks with mental problems?

We have a guy here who starts thread after thread using totally inflammatory hate filled one sided language, lie after lie, missleading post after missleading post..........you have no problem with that.

But if I answer his outright lies, if I point out his missleading statements you critisize me, you say its just dogma.

I have shown with facts, time after time these incorrect statements. Do you criticize them?

NOOOOOO,

You criticize only the side that points out the lies.

Do you critisize the guy who starts these one sided inflamitoty threads? No Keith you defend him. Then you have the nerve to talk about sucking hind tit!!

If you really cared about this you would criticize the lier who startes these threads but you do not.

Keith you say I'm Mr left, right, left, right ad ininitum, I certinally am the left side of the discussion. But Keith, you do understand that there are two sides, right? Yet you only critisize one side, why?

Perhaps you would be happier somewhere were only views you agree with are posted.........

You post my photo with swastikas all over it then try and claim the moral high ground?

I don't think so!

 

[Charlie Farley]

I've had a say, not all i would like to say.
But this thread, has to my mind, descended into the 'Personal'.
A common fault in the Paddock.
I'm out....

 

[Keith]

Ummm...Keith....I don't think merely maintaining one is sane provides a sure-fire way of distinguishing the sane from the insane, do you? People have to be judged by a lot of things other than just that simple fact. I think you would tell me that you're sane- and that doesn't make you crazy in my eyes. I may not agree with you sometimes, but I don't think you're nuts (a highly technical medical term that I learned in med school)

The 9/11 bombers DID kill a lot of their own people- that is, Muslims working in the WTC. New York is quite a polyglot society and there were more than a few Muslims working in the WTC- maybe some on the airplanes as well. It didn't seem to bother the people who plotted the whole thing.

Maybe we have different definitions of sane and insane here. I think there is most emphatically such a thing as people who are evil and not insane. bin Laden is a good example. Hitler is a good example of that. Milosevich is another good example. Bashar el-Assad is another good example. Brievik is another good example. What all these people have in common is the complete willingness to commit mass murder, either themselves or by proxy, for political ends. This is not war. It is the mass murder of innocents, which is a criminal act, and should be dealt with as such.

Frankly, I think it insults people who are legitimately mentally ill to decide and opine that anyone who commits mass murder is insane- just because they committed mass murder. Now, that's just my opinion, and one opinion is worth exactly as much or as little as another. But that's what discussions are about.

Of course you are right Jim. I have no way of knowing if he is or if he isn't (insane). It's an insanely criminal act for sure and would have to be regarded as such by "normal" people as it's a way of coping with the horror of the act in a civilized society. I cannot really comment on the 11/9 thing and I do understand that Muslims were also victims, but these political comparisons should never been made in the first place as we were originally expressing our remorse for the victims. It was not the time or place to further a poltically left wing agenda, nor is it now.

By the way, I don't believe this insanity call has much to do with his real state of mind - more his fitness to stand trial i.e. enter a plea.

Hitler was also clearly insane but many people thought (and still do) that he was a genius - a very fine line.

 

[Jeff Young]

This is an opinion forum. In my opinion, and others, this was EXACTLY the time and place to express remorse for the victims, and express concern for the religious/political motivations behind these actions.

I say it again. The fact that we are so quick to do so with Muslim terrorists, but seemingly unable to do so with white Christian ones speaks volumes about the whole situation.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

I think my point is as follows- being a mass murderer (or any kind of murderer) doesn't necessarily mean you're insane. And I am not talking about killing in justifiable defense; that's a different thing entirely. There are crazy people (insane) and there are mass murderers, and the two groups are not the same. Some mass murderers ARE insane, probably- some are not. And, obviously, not all insane people kill other people. As a matter of fact, I think, from my experience in ERs over decades, that the person most likely to be killed by an insane person is themselves- because quite a few crazy people endure command hallucinations telling them to kill themselves. 'Nuff said.

 

[Mark]

The sane questioning the insane? Really? I read all this sh1t and struggle to tell which is which sometimes!

Sanity is and must be relative. Anyone who can do what another considers unthinkable, must be insane in the eyes of the other! No?