Anders Breivik Sentenced to 3 Months for Each Murder

[Symmetry]

Breivik was a religious fanatic- a Christian terrorist. You do nobody any kind of service making excuses for his fanaticism John.

[john9blue]

Breivik was a religious fanatic- a Christian terrorist. You do nobody any kind of service making excuses for his fanaticism John.

if i said all of this during breivik's trial, it would reduce his odds of an insanity plea and therefore increase the odds of a harsher sentence. you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

unless "making excuses" is your own special way of saying "try to find the reasons behind his actions", in which case lol

[Symmetry]

Breivik was a religious fanatic- a Christian terrorist. You do nobody any kind of service making excuses for his fanaticism John.

if i said all of this during breivik's trial, it would reduce his odds of an insanity plea and therefore increase the odds of a harsher sentence. you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

unless "making excuses" is your own special way of saying "try to find the reasons behind his actions", in which case lol

I see no LOL in this. The man was and is a right wing Christian fanatic.

[john9blue]

Breivik was a religious fanatic- a Christian terrorist. You do nobody any kind of service making excuses for his fanaticism John.

if i said all of this during breivik's trial, it would reduce his odds of an insanity plea and therefore increase the odds of a harsher sentence. you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

unless "making excuses" is your own special way of saying "try to find the reasons behind his actions", in which case lol

I see no LOL in this. The man was and is a right wing Christian fanatic.

sure, but does that make him insane?

[Symmetry]

Breivik was a religious fanatic- a Christian terrorist. You do nobody any kind of service making excuses for his fanaticism John.

if i said all of this during breivik's trial, it would reduce his odds of an insanity plea and therefore increase the odds of a harsher sentence. you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

unless "making excuses" is your own special way of saying "try to find the reasons behind his actions", in which case lol

I see no LOL in this. The man was and is a right wing Christian fanatic.

sure, but does that make him insane?

As much and as less as a Muslim fanatic perpetrating Jihad on 9/11. He saw his actions as part of his religion, specifically as part of a Christian holy war against Muslims.

[john9blue]

Breivik was a religious fanatic- a Christian terrorist. You do nobody any kind of service making excuses for his fanaticism John.

if i said all of this during breivik's trial, it would reduce his odds of an insanity plea and therefore increase the odds of a harsher sentence. you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

unless "making excuses" is your own special way of saying "try to find the reasons behind his actions", in which case lol

I see no LOL in this. The man was and is a right wing Christian fanatic.

sure, but does that make him insane?

As much and as less as a Muslim fanatic perpetrating Jihad on 9/11. He saw his actions as part of his religion, specifically as part of a Christian holy war against Muslims.

yeah, i don't really think the 9/11 hijackers were insane either.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree. Those guys knew what they were doing and why. Simply because most people disagree with it (while many root for Al-Qaeda), it doesn't follow that these guys are insane.

[Symmetry]

I agree. Those guys knew what they were doing and why. Simply because most people disagree with it (while many root for Al-Qaeda), it doesn't follow that these guys are insane.

As did Breivik- I don't understand why people are squeamish about calling him a Christian terrorist. He clearly saw himself as a part of a Crusade- a far more militant term than Jihad.

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree. Those guys knew what they were doing and why. Simply because most people disagree with it (while many root for Al-Qaeda), it doesn't follow that these guys are insane.

As did Breivik- I don't understand why people are squeamish about calling him a Christian terrorist. He clearly saw himself as a part of a Crusade- a far more militant term than Jihad.

How is he a Christian terrorist?

I thought he was a fascist carrying out some Nazi agenda through the means of terrorism. So now he's spreading Christianity? Or fighting against some group which is oppressing Christianity?

[BigBallinStalin]

Breivik was a religious fanatic- a Christian terrorist. You do nobody any kind of service making excuses for his fanaticism John.

if i said all of this during breivik's trial, it would reduce his odds of an insanity plea and therefore increase the odds of a harsher sentence. you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

unless "making excuses" is your own special way of saying "try to find the reasons behind his actions", in which case lol

I see no LOL in this. The man was and is a right wing Christian fanatic.

Apparently, Sym's not interesting in "trying to find reasons behind his actions."

Maybe we can extract his claims from Sym's brain and see if they hold.

[Symmetry]

I agree. Those guys knew what they were doing and why. Simply because most people disagree with it (while many root for Al-Qaeda), it doesn't follow that these guys are insane.

As did Breivik- I don't understand why people are squeamish about calling him a Christian terrorist. He clearly saw himself as a part of a Crusade- a far more militant term than Jihad.

How is he a Christian terrorist?

I thought he was a fascist carrying out some Nazi agenda through the means of terrorism. So now he's spreading Christianity? Or fighting against some group which is oppressing Christianity?

Well, there's his manifesto in which he portrays himself as a Christian crusader fighting against Muslims. Kind of the big reason for what he did.

He's pretty clear that he was doing what he did in the name of Christianity. I can probably dig up a link if you haven't looked at his justifications already.

So no need to extract reasons from my brain- Breivik left his reasons for what he did. No need to go passive aggressive BBS.

But yes- Christian terrorist is correct.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm sincerely interested in this Christian terrorist allegation, so if you have quotes from him please present them.

From what I've heard, he's carrying out some neo-fascist, or radical right-wing agenda, against a particular political party, so if that's true, then he's a fascist terrorist--assuming that he only targeted noncombatants. If he targeted politicians and their "henchmen," then we enter the gray area of noncombatant. He would resemble more of an insurgent.

He can use the metaphor of a Christian Crusader to describe his actions, but it doesn't follow that the metaphor is real and that therefore he is actually a Christian terrorist, who is seeking to impose a Christian political agenda on Norway.

Of course, you could conflate "Christian" with "Fascist" as that article has done about "US Conservative American Groups," and your point would be made--albeit erroneously.

[natty dread]

My general contention is more broad. It's about subsidizing mass murder as oppose to lashes and/or granting the victims' family members the discretion to opt for capital punishment. Hopefully, we'll see a compare-and-contrast discussion on relative civility in regard to punishment.

So, you're saying that the victim should be able to determine the punishment for the crime (or if the victim is dead, the victim's family)?

Does this apply to all sorts of crimes? Like if I steal a bread to feed my hungry litter of children, the supermarket can decide how I should be punished?

What exactly would be gained by torturing Breivik? Would it bring the victims back to life? Because if so, they should totally do it.

[Gillipig]

My general contention is more broad. It's about subsidizing mass murder as oppose to lashes and/or granting the victims' family members the discretion to opt for capital punishment. Hopefully, we'll see a compare-and-contrast discussion on relative civility in regard to punishment.

So, you're saying that the victim should be able to determine the punishment for the crime (or if the victim is dead, the victim's family)?

Does this apply to all sorts of crimes? Like if I steal a bread to feed my hungry litter of children, the supermarket can decide how I should be punished?

What exactly would be gained by torturing Breivik? Would it bring the victims back to life? Because if so, they should totally do it.

Yeah I agree, obviously nothing gets better from torturing him. It's not even like fear of being tortured will discourage people like him.
It will just make him a martyr. And it's also dishonorable for a country to not lower itself to torturing people. Human rights should apply to everyone, even those who doesn't recognize others rights.

[Symmetry]

I'm sincerely interested in this Christian terrorist allegation, so if you have quotes from him please present them.

From what I've heard, he's carrying out some neo-fascist, or radical right-wing agenda, against a particular political party, so if that's true, then he's a fascist terrorist--assuming that he only targeted noncombatants. If he targeted politicians and their "henchmen," then we enter the gray area of noncombatant. He would resemble more of an insurgent.

He can use the metaphor of a Christian Crusader to describe his actions, but it doesn't follow that the metaphor is real and that therefore he is actually a Christian terrorist, who is seeking to impose a Christian political agenda on Norway.

Of course, you could conflate "Christian" with "Fascist" as that article has done about "US Conservative American Groups," and your point would be made--albeit erroneously.

Hmm, if he was Muslim, and he explicitly said that he was perpetrating Jihad, I wonder if you'd apply the same principle and say he wasn't a Muslim terrorist.

His manifesto is pretty easy to track down. A simple search on Google is all that you need. I'm not gonna post it here, but even a casual read shows that he was deep into right wing Christian thought.

Europe (or Christendom, as he termed it) was under threat from Muslims for him. He portrayed himself as a Christian crusader. Hence Christian terrorist.

[BigBallinStalin]

My general contention is more broad. It's about subsidizing mass murder as oppose to lashes and/or granting the victims' family members the discretion to opt for capital punishment. Hopefully, we'll see a compare-and-contrast discussion on relative civility in regard to punishment.

So, you're saying that the victim should be able to determine the punishment for the crime (or if the victim is dead, the victim's family)?

Sure, seems fairer to me than allowing some central planner arbitrarily deem that that mass murderer must serve 21 years. Also, see the response below.

Does this apply to all sorts of crimes? Like if I steal a bread to feed my hungry litter of children, the supermarket can decide how I should be punished?

Great question. It would be settled as a tort, overseen by a judge, carrying out precedent and making new ones if need be. In short, the spontaneous order of common law would reveal many possibilities to handle this problem. At least the crime won't be treated as that fallacious crime against society, where that thief stealing for his family will be forced to pay compensation and also serve jail time/"volunteer" service.

What exactly would be gained by torturing Breivik?

It depends on the victims' perceptions of costs v. benefits.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm sincerely interested in this Christian terrorist allegation, so if you have quotes from him please present them.

From what I've heard, he's carrying out some neo-fascist, or radical right-wing agenda, against a particular political party, so if that's true, then he's a fascist terrorist--assuming that he only targeted noncombatants. If he targeted politicians and their "henchmen," then we enter the gray area of noncombatant. He would resemble more of an insurgent.

He can use the metaphor of a Christian Crusader to describe his actions, but it doesn't follow that the metaphor is real and that therefore he is actually a Christian terrorist, who is seeking to impose a Christian political agenda on Norway.

Of course, you could conflate "Christian" with "Fascist" as that article has done about "US Conservative American Groups," and your point would be made--albeit erroneously.

Hmm, if he was Muslim, and he explicitly said that he was perpetrating Jihad, I wonder if you'd apply the same principle and say he wasn't a Muslim terrorist.

His manifesto is pretty easy to track down. A simple search on Google is all that you need. I'm not gonna post it here, but even a casual read shows that he was deep into right wing Christian thought.

Europe (or Christendom, as he termed it) was under threat from Muslims for him. He portrayed himself as a Christian crusader. Hence Christian terrorist.

The burden of proof lies with you, the person making the claims. I laid out the potential problems, but I won't do your homework for you.

[BigBallinStalin]

My general contention is more broad. It's about subsidizing mass murder as oppose to lashes and/or granting the victims' family members the discretion to opt for capital punishment. Hopefully, we'll see a compare-and-contrast discussion on relative civility in regard to punishment.

So, you're saying that the victim should be able to determine the punishment for the crime (or if the victim is dead, the victim's family)?

Does this apply to all sorts of crimes? Like if I steal a bread to feed my hungry litter of children, the supermarket can decide how I should be punished?

What exactly would be gained by torturing Breivik? Would it bring the victims back to life? Because if so, they should totally do it.

Yeah I agree, obviously nothing gets better from torturing him. It's not even like fear of being tortured will discourage people like him.
It will just make him a martyr. And it's also dishonorable for a country to not lower itself to torturing people. Human rights should apply to everyone, even those who doesn't recognize others rights.

If that's true, then give him a state-subsidized gift basket.

If you violate someone's rights, you lose much of your own rights--depending on the severity of the violation. Sorry, but that's how the world works. If it didn't, then there's little need to adhere to rules if you can't trump them by mentioning "I HAVE RIGHTS! YOU CANT DO THIS TO ME EVEN THOUGH I VIOLATED YOUR RIGHTS!" That would be absurd.

[Symmetry]

I'm sincerely interested in this Christian terrorist allegation, so if you have quotes from him please present them.

From what I've heard, he's carrying out some neo-fascist, or radical right-wing agenda, against a particular political party, so if that's true, then he's a fascist terrorist--assuming that he only targeted noncombatants. If he targeted politicians and their "henchmen," then we enter the gray area of noncombatant. He would resemble more of an insurgent.

He can use the metaphor of a Christian Crusader to describe his actions, but it doesn't follow that the metaphor is real and that therefore he is actually a Christian terrorist, who is seeking to impose a Christian political agenda on Norway.

Of course, you could conflate "Christian" with "Fascist" as that article has done about "US Conservative American Groups," and your point would be made--albeit erroneously.

Hmm, if he was Muslim, and he explicitly said that he was perpetrating Jihad, I wonder if you'd apply the same principle and say he wasn't a Muslim terrorist.

His manifesto is pretty easy to track down. A simple search on Google is all that you need. I'm not gonna post it here, but even a casual read shows that he was deep into right wing Christian thought.

Europe (or Christendom, as he termed it) was under threat from Muslims for him. He portrayed himself as a Christian crusader. Hence Christian terrorist.

The burden of proof lies with you, the person making the claims. I laid out the potential problems, but I won't do your homework for you.

No homework required. Type "Breivik manifesto" in to google, search via the video link, look at it. It's not difficult to find.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think you understand what "burden of proof"means.

Or maybe you're being intellectually sloppy?

Or maybe you're trolling yet again?

Who knows what lurks in the mind of Symmetry.

[Symmetry]

I don't think you understand what "burden of proof"means.

Or maybe you're being intellectually sloppy?

Or maybe you're trolling yet again?

Who knows what lurks in the mind of Symmetry.

Did you look at it yet?

[saxitoxin]

IMO, Breivik was a Zionist Terrorist, it would be a stretch to call him a Christian Terrorist.

References to Christianity in his manifesto are almost incidental and he even includes an essay to critically evaluating it, called "Christianity: Pros and Cons." Christianity is an antecedent to what he sees as the need for Europe to support Israel.

[natty dread]

My general contention is more broad. It's about subsidizing mass murder as oppose to lashes and/or granting the victims' family members the discretion to opt for capital punishment. Hopefully, we'll see a compare-and-contrast discussion on relative civility in regard to punishment.

So, you're saying that the victim should be able to determine the punishment for the crime (or if the victim is dead, the victim's family)?

Sure, seems fairer to me than allowing some central planner arbitrarily deem that that mass murderer must serve 21 years. Also, see the response below.

Does this apply to all sorts of crimes? Like if I steal a bread to feed my hungry litter of children, the supermarket can decide how I should be punished?

Great question. It would be settled as a tort, overseen by a judge, carrying out precedent and making new ones if need be. In short, the spontaneous order of common law would reveal many possibilities to handle this problem. At least the crime won't be treated as that fallacious crime against society, where that thief stealing for his family will be forced to pay compensation and also serve jail time/"volunteer" service.

What exactly would be gained by torturing Breivik?

It depends on the victims' perceptions of costs v. benefits.

You haven't said anything about opportunity costs yet. I have a feeling you're going to.

[Symmetry]

IMO, Breivik was a Zionist Terrorist, it would be a stretch to call him a Christian Terrorist.

References to Christianity in his manifesto are almost incidental and he even includes an essay to critically evaluating it, called "Christianity: Pros and Cons." Christianity is an antecedent to what he sees as the need for Europe to support Israel.

Hmm, not even close to true.

[saxitoxin]

IMO, Breivik was a Zionist Terrorist, it would be a stretch to call him a Christian Terrorist.

References to Christianity in his manifesto are almost incidental and he even includes an essay to critically evaluating it, called "Christianity: Pros and Cons." Christianity is an antecedent to what he sees as the need for Europe to support Israel.

Hmm, not even close to true.

ok