Today Breivik told his lawyers that seing and hearing the badly injured victims makes him "emotionally injured". This is the only sign of emotion from him (apart from a smile or two) since he cried at his own youtube propaganda video. This might be a play to convince the court he is sane. Then again, doing so is a sign of sanity. He also said he won`t ask for a retrail if he is sentenced to prison (as opposed to the "madhouse" as he calls it)
When I read the two policemen who came first to the shore of the fjord where Utoya is, I had the strangest thoughts. I thouht about the 2003 movie "Pleasantwille". The movie is about two modern-day siblings played by Tobie Maguire and Reese Witherspoon who end up in a town where everything is like the world of 1950`s American TV. Picket fences, stay-at-home moms, huge cars and barbeques. There is no powerty, divorces, sex, crime, fires or even colour. All the fire brigade do is help cats down from trees. Because of the crack between realities created by the sibligs the real world gradually seeps inn. Colour, violence and sex occour. Then there is a fire. They call the fire brigade. The firemen come, but when they see the burning house the firemen are stunned. They have never seen such a thing before. They may have read about fires, even practiced putting them out, but they have never seen one before. They just stand there for some time before they snap out of it and do their job.
Norway last year wasn`t that different: Hardly any poverty, low unemployment, low crime, police witout guns, small political differences and no sex. Well, there are many signs people had sex at the time. I just didn`t get any myself. Then suddenly a terrorist bombs the Governent building and start shooting defenceless youth traped on an island.
The two first two policemen who arrived at the shore they had helmets, bullet-proof vests, pistols and submachineguns. The sound of gunfire was heard from Utoya about 600 metres away. One of them runs to the nearest farm and asks if the farmer has a boat. No boat. Then the officer gives up getting to the island. There are boats 300 meres along the shore and some boats pass them all the time ferrying survivors to safety One officer tries to help the kids who have managed to swim to the shore, the other officer starts directing traffic. They do that for half an hour until SWAT arrives an finally arrests Breivik.
I don`t think the two policemen were tupid or even cowards. I think they had the same problem as the firemen in Pleasantville: they were not prepared mentally. They had the mentality to deal with Plesantville, not the mindset for war.
Great parallel (it also sounds a good film that I'll check out) but it probably was a hell of a situation to find yourself in. Do you rush into a battle? Or do you help save injured victims and coordinate? Where are you best placed? I worked in close protection for a number of years, and both trained on, and trained students for two security companies. A lot of people got into the work for the bravado. The thing is, for instance if you are with a VIP and someone takes a shot at attacking you (by whatever means) your job is primarily to get the VIP away from the threat. That may mean shoving the attacker to the ground and getting away. It certainly doesn't mean having a fight (whereby even a skinny kid could get a lucky shot in and knock you out/draw a weapon and use it/or may not actually be alone and outnumber you), or helping others. Civilians never saw that picture. The tough guys always failed on these training scenarios. One of the DS would walk by and fire a blank pistol at the VIP as they were dealing with the supposed attacker. Likewise the ex-police recruits would look too deeply at the law aspect. They would often help others, this was obviously a diversion for the main attack. Though not perfect most armed forces personnel could stick to the brief and objective and deal only with the VIP.
What I'm trying to say is these police officers serve to protect people, and that may well have been best placed helping, and relaying what intelligence they picked up from eye witnesses to command, where better suited teams could go in and deal with it.
There is also the fact that this sort of thing is unbelievable to imagine. And sometimes this sort of situation can give you just too much information to process. Many people just need someone to get on the scene and tell them what to.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Many good points there.
Now we know Breivik would have surrendered to the first policmen who turned up on Utøya. Obviously the first two officers didn't know that. We also know more than thirty people were murdered after the two officers reached the shore. More than a dozen were killed only minutes before he was arrested. The standing orders for the police in "shooting in progress" situations are to engage the shooter as soon as posible to stop him. The two policemen have argued that they thought there were multiple shooters on the island, so they decided to wait for SWAT.
To my mind police are not like any regular job. They are not like electricians, shopkeepers or hairdressers. If the situation demands it they are expected to put their own lives at risk so that others might live. I don't expect them to behave suicidal, no-one can expect them to attack criminals armed with assault rifles if they only have a baton. But their job is more like firefightes or soldiers than regular jobs. Firemen run into burning houses to save people. They don't have the right to wait until it's safe for them before they start saving people.
There were only 2-3 boats on Utøya when the shooting started. Some kids found a rowing boat and filled it with people. A couple of boys manned the oars and rowed to safty while Breivik stood on the shore and shot at them. They survived, but were shocked to find two armed policemen with helmets and vests had been hiding behind a boatshed right were they got on shore. I admit their MP5's were out of range, but still ...
Fair enough - but some jobs create jobsworths out of folk, where any heroic or 'interesting' behaviour is frowned upon. Maybe these guys were in that mindset. It's easy to think of yourself as heroic when it's a time of your own volition, not so easy when it's forced upon you and you'd rather be doing something else.
In a way they were simply getting these people to safety, whereas any intervention and they'd just be another one for the nutter to notch up. But there are circumstances where that kind of defensive thinking would be more appropriate.
Actually they weren't getting anyone to safety. People swam the entire way on their own or were picked up by civilians inn their boats. Those civilians were not told to do so by anyone, they just did the right thing. There were many who could and did get people to safty, but those two policemen were the only ones for miles around who could stop the killing.
I've seen the footage of people swimming in the icy water. I was surprised more boats were not mustered to help. i don't know about these two cops, but if they were armed, then it seems fair that they should engage the threat.
We've seen health and safety rubbish here where a police officer wouldn't go to the assistance of a drowning boy because of health and safety. The boy drowned. Police have to pass basic swim tests, first aid etc. I think that was unacceptable. Next you'll have firefighters saying it's too high on that ladder, or they're due a break in the middle of a fire... 8-)
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Tyrifjorden is not really a fjord, but a lake. There were only a limited number of boats available close enough to help. Also, Breivik shot at them with a semi-auto rifle. Non of them were hit and Breivik claims he didn't shoot at the boats to hit, just to scare. That might actually be true. He sees himself as a hero who protects ordinary Norwegians from muslims and socialist who wants to let them in.
There is a ferry used to traffic people to and from the island, owned by the Labour party I think. That ferry helped Breivik to the island believing he was a policeman. After the shooting started it fled with only about eight passengers and never came back towards the island to save more. I found that strange since it was not only the largest boat on the lake, but also as a retiered infantry landing vessel was also partly bullet proof. A later found that the captain of the ferry saw Breivik shoot his first victim, an off-duty policman. Then Breivik shot the captain's wife. She had been in charge of the island for years and was known as "Mother Utøya". The captain can't remember seeing his wife getting killed, but he must have. Clearly he was in chock and that probably explains why the ferry wasn't used for saving more people.
BTW: when I write on my Kindle I write Utoya. When i use the computer I write Utøya. The computer has a full Norwegian keyboard and Norwegian is a too rich language for just 26 letters. We have ÆØÅ/æøå too ...
I know a very good soldier (strong, fit , tough etc) who had seen battle in two wars, and was on second tour of Afghanistan. He was experienced. In a very violent battle he got separated from the rest of his patrol, and in a huge exchange of gunfire he ran out of ammunition. He had no grenades left, had emptied all of his magazines from his rifle, and his Sig 9mm. He had his bayonnette fixed, and could hear the enemy moving towards him, exchanging information by shouting to each other. They fired occasionally, keeping him pinned down while they worked towards him. Some guys from the RAF Regiment, and two Royal Marines arrived on the scene after a quick search for him was initiated. They literally walked up behind the pincer movement and shot the **** out of them! The guy was almost paralysed with fear and had been crying. One of the blokes smacked about the head to get him back in the battle, helped him load his weapon and dragged him out of his retreat. This is a guy I would have wanted with me anywhere. But that is the difference between being armed, and being unarmed in a fight.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Agreed. It is at the same time hard to imagine how it feels when your son or daughter gets murdered while armed police stood half a mile away and directed traffic. Likewise I try to imagine how it feels to be one of the two officers in question and the whole nation knows they didn`t do what they could have done to stop a mass murderer.
It is easy to think "if I was in that situation I would have ...". When I find myself thinking along those lines, I remind myself of what a Swedish/Israeli ex-para (yes, such a creature really exists ..) once told me: Training helps, but you never know how you will act under fire until the enemy starts shooting at you.
When the trial started the prosecutors had not yet decided what court reaction they would argue for: prison or mental institution. Tomorrow they will make public their desicion. The defence has allways aimed for prison. The prosecutors will most likely go for mental institution for Breivik. The Comision of Legal Medicine (Officially there to safeguard the quality of the medical findings) made fools of themselves in and outside the witnes box. The judge actually shook her head in amazement of the confusing testemony of the leader of CLM, But the two psyhcologist who argued Breivik was to mentally ill for prison managed to defend their highly controversial thesis in the witnes box in spite of very critical and tough questioning. Just like an accused can get a not guilty verdict if there is enough doubt that he actually did it, Breivik can be sentenced to mental care if enough doubt about his mental health has been established.
In practical terms it is probably just a question of what the sign on his prison cell door will say. For Breivik and many of his victims it is a lot more important than that.
The widower of a woman who happened to walk past the bomb explotion in Oslo made his testemony today. He said the public reaction here in Norway towards Breivik has been to calm and politically correct. Personally he would "like to see Breivik burn in the blackest of hells for the rest of his days." He has a very good point.
Now it`s official: The prosecutors claim Breivik was insane and should be sent to a mental institution, while his defence authorneys says he is sane and should be sent to prison ...... Strange,very strange.
Now it`s official: The prosecutors claim Breivik was insane and should be sent to a mental institution, while his defence authorneys says he is sane and should be sent to prison ...... Strange,very strange.
I mean it feels like he is «sane»...
If you can't trust a Swiss banker, what's the world come to?
What happened to the defence attorney that the nutter requested, the one who was a surprise choice because he was known for being a liberal? Did he agree to do it? At first, it seemed like he would out of principal, in that everyone should get a defence, but then I figured it was just the way of the nutter gloating at his opponents, you know, let's get the liberal to defend something he finds repugnant.
Now it`s official: The prosecutors claim Breivik was insane and should be sent to a mental institution, while his defence authorneys says he is sane and should be sent to prison ...... Strange,very strange.
I mean it feels like he is «sane»...
Were the surviving WTC terrorists considered sane? Terrorist acts at least as bad as the crimes of Breivik has been done more often than we'd like to think. Only most of them were done by people from another generation or by someone who doesn't look like us or believe in the same god as we do. We have few problem believing thay are sane and responsible for their own actions. There is little doubt Breivik is not completely sane, but I believe he knew what he was doing.
What happened to the defence attorney that the nutter requested, the one who was a surprise choice because he was known for being a liberal? Did he agree to do it? At first, it seemed like he would out of principal, in that everyone should get a defence, but then I figured it was just the way of the nutter gloating at his opponents, you know, let's get the liberal to defend something he finds repugnant.
I believe you are refering to Geir Lippestad. He was Breivik's first choise. Unfortunately he went on camera before consulting with his client saying Breivik must clearly be insane. It is the obvious defence when your client kills 77 people in one day and confesses the crime. But he shouldn't have gone public before talking to Breivik. Lippestad has been clear on the fact that he is doing his job, but he has no sympathy with the crimes Breivik commited. Today the trial ended. The judges will have the time up tothe 24th of August. Five of Breivik's victims spoke today and Lippestad and many others applauded them when they were finished. Then all the survivors and relatives of victims present got up and walked out before Breivik made his last comments (including complaints about the ethnic background of Norway's European Song Contest winners ) ) This is a right all accused in Norway has. Vidkun Quisling gave a closing speech of about five hours back in the day...
Breivik claims he acted in self defence on behalf of the Norwegian people. So he wants a "not guilty" verdict based on this. Lippestad wisely spent his entire closing statment arguing that Breivik is sane. At he end he formally requested that Breivik is guilty. The judge who knew Breivik's position asked if he was absolutely sure .... Lippestad said yes, but Breivik said (with some nervousnes in his voice ):"You can't do that ...". Oooops .... Lippestad had said what he was thinking, not what he had come to do. He quickly changed it to "not guilty". Lippestad has been a good defence lawyer for Breivik in spite of this. Breivik probably chose him because Lippestad defended some racists who killed a black boy some years ago and did it well. Breivik knew he couldn't find a competent lawyer with the same politics as his own, so he chose one who had a proven reccord of defending people he adhors very well.
Thanks Number 24, that's interesting. No reference to any of that in the papers.
I feel it is wrong to enter into a 'relationship' of sorts with the nutter, but easy to say that when not in the same nation and relatively distanced. It's just, we see pics of the killer smirking a bit, in the papers, and I think to myself, am I supposed to be annoyed and wound up by that? Is that the killer's intention? I don't want him to rub off on me in any way. He's a nutter.
Thanks Number 24, that's interesting. No reference to any of that in the papers.
I feel it is wrong to enter into a 'relationship' of sorts with the nutter, but easy to say that when not in the same nation and relatively distanced. It's just, we see pics of the killer smirking a bit, in the papers, and I think to myself, am I supposed to be annoyed and wound up by that? Is that the killer's intention? I don't want him to rub off on me in any way. He's a nutter.
Breivik is a man completely comsumed by the idea that muslim immigrants are taking over the country with the help of socialist politicians. He belives that his acts of terrorism will work as a `fireworks display` to draw attenion to his minifesto. The manifesto he had written was so impotant to him it made him late. Most people in the Government building had allready left for the weekend when the bomb blew, including the Prime Minister. Then there was a traffic accident on the min road towards Utoya. When he reached the Island Gro Harlem Brundtland had left. She is a former Prime Minster from the Laour party and one of the most important politicians in Norway since the war. Breivik hated her and wanted to behead her on the island. But Breivik felt he had to send his manifesto to about thousand politicians and media people before he drowe to Oslo to set off the bomb. His modem was slow and it too much time, but when he sent the first mail the die was cast. His manifesto not only included his thoughts on politics, but also described his plans for the bombing and the Utoya shootings. He is a political terrorist with a hugely inflated view of himself. He is extremely self centered. The only time he cried was when his youtube propaganda video was shown in court. He also said he felt `emotionally wounded` from listening to the testemonies of his victims i.e. he focused on his experience, not his victims. But he knew what he was doing.
Today this year`s summer camp for Labour Party Youth starts. It is not held at Utoya, but on another island. This time security is tighter, or should I say there is security this time? Utoya is being rebuildt and the buildings were the most people were killed are torn down . The plan is to use Utoya for next years summer camp, but there are doubts. Can anyone take a girl for a walk down Lover`s Path and not think about the kids who were shot down when they ran down that very forrest path?
In other news: Al-Queda has just trained an ethnic Norwegian in a terrorist camp in Yemen.
Today it's one year to a day since the terrorist attacks. Members of Labour Party Youth, the Prime Minister, survivors and relatives of the dead are gathered on Utøya. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg visited the island a couple of days ago all alone. He wanted to see the island again the way it was before the buildings where the most people where killed are torn down for new buildings. Stoltenberg visited Utøya every summer from 1974 to 2010 and called it "The paradise of my youth that turned into a nightmare."
The day was remembered all over Norway. I took active part in a memoirial service in the local church. In Oslo there will be a concert tonight, there are rumours Bruce Springsteen will perform as one of the artists.
A week ago a new story from Utøya was told. One 18-year old boy chose to jump in front of a girl and took the bullet ment for her. He died and she got to the fjord and swam away from the island. She is alive and very aware that someone gave his life to save her. The parents of the boy said this was very much in character for their son and knowing that he died a hero made their sorrow more bearable.
Good god. One can only imagine how events like this effect the people involved. Not only the victims, their families, their local community and the nation as a whole, but in some cases the family and friends of the perpetrator, who in some cases get wrongfully tarred with the same brush.
There is no good outcome or change from events like this, it makes me wonder why people still carry them out, assuming their actions will change society for a better cause, they're always wrong. Violence solves nothing.
I remember a story I was told as a kid. Being brought up CofE my first headmaster was a traditionalist, but always had good intentions. At the time we thought he was nuts. Now being older I can reflect back and see he was teaching us a valuable lesson;
One day the sun and a cloud were talking up in the sky. They noticed below them a man walking along a path. The cloud bet the sun he could blow the mans coat off. But the sun said he didnt think the cloud could do it. The grumpy cloud reckoned he could use his might and powerful wind (parp) to blow the mans coat right off his back, so he blew and blew and the man leaned into the wind and held on tight to his coat. No matter how much he tried, he couldn't do it. The sun then tried. He beamed his rays down and smiled as his glow started to warm the man up. With getting warm, the man took off his coat as he walked along.
The moral of the story? Being forceful will not get people to do what you want, a more gentle and kind way will always work better.
Back to my padded room now....
Thoughts are with you and your countrymen and women number 24, people seldom get over traumatic events, but with time they can adapt to the change. I hope this happens for you guys soon pal, take care.
I think I understand what you ment by that fable, Minigeff. You win against evil by doing good.
I think Norway has understood this. We could have reacted to the terrorsit attacks by making stricter laws that would limit our personal freedoms and our democratic rights. We could have created a political climate where questioning the current immigration policy would be regarded as support for the terrorist. I belive we have done so in only a very small degree. Our Prime Minister spoke about "more openness, moretolerance, more democracy, more love" after the terrorist attacks. The political equalent of "more sun" in the fable you used.
I think the shootings in Denever, Colorado feels closer to Norwegians than it would before. A woman there said "I want my city to be taken back from evil!" That's how Norwegians feel about our country.
BTW - Bruce Springsteen sang at the memorial concert in Oslo
Any theme can be lightened up with humour if done right. I remember one story: some teeanage boys sat and told jokes to each other. They started telling jokes about jews. After a while they started noticing that one of them, usually the great jokster of the group, became uncharecteristically quiet. A girl asked him what it was. "My granddad died in a consentration camp", he anwered quietly. Cue uncomfortable silence. " ...... how did he die?"
"He fell off a guard tower!"
Some would call that joke beyond the pale, others laugh.
There are actually examples of humor on Utøya. A girl and a boy were hiding behind a large rock. They started talking (quietly, one hopes) and it turned out they were on their way to the island kiosk to by cigarettes when the shooting started. They also had to confess they were craving smokes like never before as they were sitting there hiding from the killer. "But i really doubt the kiosk is open now, though." "Yeah, probably not ..." :v
One of the survivors was at a party a few months after the terrorist attacks. He wanted to change the music and put on "All my friends are dead" by the Norwegian band Turbonegro.
Dark humour.
Comments
Norway last year wasn`t that different: Hardly any poverty, low unemployment, low crime, police witout guns, small political differences and no sex. Well, there are many signs people had sex at the time. I just didn`t get any myself. Then suddenly a terrorist bombs the Governent building and start shooting defenceless youth traped on an island.
The two first two policemen who arrived at the shore they had helmets, bullet-proof vests, pistols and submachineguns. The sound of gunfire was heard from Utoya about 600 metres away. One of them runs to the nearest farm and asks if the farmer has a boat. No boat. Then the officer gives up getting to the island. There are boats 300 meres along the shore and some boats pass them all the time ferrying survivors to safety One officer tries to help the kids who have managed to swim to the shore, the other officer starts directing traffic. They do that for half an hour until SWAT arrives an finally arrests Breivik.
I don`t think the two policemen were tupid or even cowards. I think they had the same problem as the firemen in Pleasantville: they were not prepared mentally. They had the mentality to deal with Plesantville, not the mindset for war.
What I'm trying to say is these police officers serve to protect people, and that may well have been best placed helping, and relaying what intelligence they picked up from eye witnesses to command, where better suited teams could go in and deal with it.
There is also the fact that this sort of thing is unbelievable to imagine. And sometimes this sort of situation can give you just too much information to process. Many people just need someone to get on the scene and tell them what to.
http://apbateman.com
Now we know Breivik would have surrendered to the first policmen who turned up on Utøya. Obviously the first two officers didn't know that. We also know more than thirty people were murdered after the two officers reached the shore. More than a dozen were killed only minutes before he was arrested. The standing orders for the police in "shooting in progress" situations are to engage the shooter as soon as posible to stop him. The two policemen have argued that they thought there were multiple shooters on the island, so they decided to wait for SWAT.
To my mind police are not like any regular job. They are not like electricians, shopkeepers or hairdressers. If the situation demands it they are expected to put their own lives at risk so that others might live. I don't expect them to behave suicidal, no-one can expect them to attack criminals armed with assault rifles if they only have a baton. But their job is more like firefightes or soldiers than regular jobs. Firemen run into burning houses to save people. They don't have the right to wait until it's safe for them before they start saving people.
There were only 2-3 boats on Utøya when the shooting started. Some kids found a rowing boat and filled it with people. A couple of boys manned the oars and rowed to safty while Breivik stood on the shore and shot at them. They survived, but were shocked to find two armed policemen with helmets and vests had been hiding behind a boatshed right were they got on shore. I admit their MP5's were out of range, but still ...
In a way they were simply getting these people to safety, whereas any intervention and they'd just be another one for the nutter to notch up. But there are circumstances where that kind of defensive thinking would be more appropriate.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
We've seen health and safety rubbish here where a police officer wouldn't go to the assistance of a drowning boy because of health and safety. The boy drowned. Police have to pass basic swim tests, first aid etc. I think that was unacceptable. Next you'll have firefighters saying it's too high on that ladder, or they're due a break in the middle of a fire... 8-)
http://apbateman.com
There is a ferry used to traffic people to and from the island, owned by the Labour party I think. That ferry helped Breivik to the island believing he was a policeman. After the shooting started it fled with only about eight passengers and never came back towards the island to save more. I found that strange since it was not only the largest boat on the lake, but also as a retiered infantry landing vessel was also partly bullet proof. A later found that the captain of the ferry saw Breivik shoot his first victim, an off-duty policman. Then Breivik shot the captain's wife. She had been in charge of the island for years and was known as "Mother Utøya". The captain can't remember seeing his wife getting killed, but he must have. Clearly he was in chock and that probably explains why the ferry wasn't used for saving more people.
BTW: when I write on my Kindle I write Utoya. When i use the computer I write Utøya. The computer has a full Norwegian keyboard and Norwegian is a too rich language for just 26 letters. We have ÆØÅ/æøå too ...
http://apbateman.com
It is easy to think "if I was in that situation I would have ...". When I find myself thinking along those lines, I remind myself of what a Swedish/Israeli ex-para (yes, such a creature really exists ..) once told me: Training helps, but you never know how you will act under fire until the enemy starts shooting at you.
In practical terms it is probably just a question of what the sign on his prison cell door will say. For Breivik and many of his victims it is a lot more important than that.
The widower of a woman who happened to walk past the bomb explotion in Oslo made his testemony today. He said the public reaction here in Norway towards Breivik has been to calm and politically correct. Personally he would "like to see Breivik burn in the blackest of hells for the rest of his days." He has a very good point.
I mean it feels like he is «sane»...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Were the surviving WTC terrorists considered sane? Terrorist acts at least as bad as the crimes of Breivik has been done more often than we'd like to think. Only most of them were done by people from another generation or by someone who doesn't look like us or believe in the same god as we do. We have few problem believing thay are sane and responsible for their own actions. There is little doubt Breivik is not completely sane, but I believe he knew what he was doing.
I believe you are refering to Geir Lippestad. He was Breivik's first choise. Unfortunately he went on camera before consulting with his client saying Breivik must clearly be insane. It is the obvious defence when your client kills 77 people in one day and confesses the crime. But he shouldn't have gone public before talking to Breivik. Lippestad has been clear on the fact that he is doing his job, but he has no sympathy with the crimes Breivik commited. Today the trial ended. The judges will have the time up tothe 24th of August. Five of Breivik's victims spoke today and Lippestad and many others applauded them when they were finished. Then all the survivors and relatives of victims present got up and walked out before Breivik made his last comments (including complaints about the ethnic background of Norway's European Song Contest winners
Breivik claims he acted in self defence on behalf of the Norwegian people. So he wants a "not guilty" verdict based on this. Lippestad wisely spent his entire closing statment arguing that Breivik is sane. At he end he formally requested that Breivik is guilty. The judge who knew Breivik's position asked if he was absolutely sure .... Lippestad said yes, but Breivik said (with some nervousnes in his voice
I feel it is wrong to enter into a 'relationship' of sorts with the nutter, but easy to say that when not in the same nation and relatively distanced. It's just, we see pics of the killer smirking a bit, in the papers, and I think to myself, am I supposed to be annoyed and wound up by that? Is that the killer's intention? I don't want him to rub off on me in any way. He's a nutter.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Breivik is a man completely comsumed by the idea that muslim immigrants are taking over the country with the help of socialist politicians. He belives that his acts of terrorism will work as a `fireworks display` to draw attenion to his minifesto. The manifesto he had written was so impotant to him it made him late. Most people in the Government building had allready left for the weekend when the bomb blew, including the Prime Minister. Then there was a traffic accident on the min road towards Utoya. When he reached the Island Gro Harlem Brundtland had left. She is a former Prime Minster from the Laour party and one of the most important politicians in Norway since the war. Breivik hated her and wanted to behead her on the island. But Breivik felt he had to send his manifesto to about thousand politicians and media people before he drowe to Oslo to set off the bomb. His modem was slow and it too much time, but when he sent the first mail the die was cast. His manifesto not only included his thoughts on politics, but also described his plans for the bombing and the Utoya shootings. He is a political terrorist with a hugely inflated view of himself. He is extremely self centered. The only time he cried was when his youtube propaganda video was shown in court. He also said he felt `emotionally wounded` from listening to the testemonies of his victims i.e. he focused on his experience, not his victims. But he knew what he was doing.
2010: 31 people were murdered in Norway
22. July 2011: 77 people were murdered by Breivik
The rest of last year: 34 people were murdered in Norway.
In other news: Al-Queda has just trained an ethnic Norwegian in a terrorist camp in Yemen.
The day was remembered all over Norway. I took active part in a memoirial service in the local church. In Oslo there will be a concert tonight, there are rumours Bruce Springsteen will perform as one of the artists.
A week ago a new story from Utøya was told. One 18-year old boy chose to jump in front of a girl and took the bullet ment for her. He died and she got to the fjord and swam away from the island. She is alive and very aware that someone gave his life to save her. The parents of the boy said this was very much in character for their son and knowing that he died a hero made their sorrow more bearable.
There is no good outcome or change from events like this, it makes me wonder why people still carry them out, assuming their actions will change society for a better cause, they're always wrong. Violence solves nothing.
I remember a story I was told as a kid. Being brought up CofE my first headmaster was a traditionalist, but always had good intentions. At the time we thought he was nuts. Now being older I can reflect back and see he was teaching us a valuable lesson;
One day the sun and a cloud were talking up in the sky. They noticed below them a man walking along a path. The cloud bet the sun he could blow the mans coat off. But the sun said he didnt think the cloud could do it. The grumpy cloud reckoned he could use his might and powerful wind (parp) to blow the mans coat right off his back, so he blew and blew and the man leaned into the wind and held on tight to his coat. No matter how much he tried, he couldn't do it. The sun then tried. He beamed his rays down and smiled as his glow started to warm the man up. With getting warm, the man took off his coat as he walked along.
The moral of the story? Being forceful will not get people to do what you want, a more gentle and kind way will always work better.
Back to my padded room now....
Thoughts are with you and your countrymen and women number 24, people seldom get over traumatic events, but with time they can adapt to the change. I hope this happens for you guys soon pal, take care.
MG -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I think Norway has understood this. We could have reacted to the terrorsit attacks by making stricter laws that would limit our personal freedoms and our democratic rights. We could have created a political climate where questioning the current immigration policy would be regarded as support for the terrorist. I belive we have done so in only a very small degree. Our Prime Minister spoke about "more openness, moretolerance, more democracy, more love" after the terrorist attacks. The political equalent of "more sun" in the fable you used.
I think the shootings in Denever, Colorado feels closer to Norwegians than it would before. A woman there said "I want my city to be taken back from evil!" That's how Norwegians feel about our country.
BTW - Bruce Springsteen sang at the memorial concert in Oslo
Roger Moore 1927-2017
How cryptic, the letter 'I'. Hmmmm
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"He fell off a guard tower!"
Some would call that joke beyond the pale, others laugh.
No, I'd like to see that.
http://apbateman.com
One of the survivors was at a party a few months after the terrorist attacks. He wanted to change the music and put on "All my friends are dead" by the Norwegian band Turbonegro.
Dark humour.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org