Explosions in Norway

#277
#277
Just read it and don't see how it can be read as approval.

It is a little disconcerting that the "take away" from it is that this act of terrorism is going to hurt the cause of anti-Muslim factions in Europe. I mean, I think it enough to condemn it as 90+ acts of senseless murder and leave it at that. Expressing disappointment that it hurts the cause of rejecting multiculturalism seems misplaced.
 
#278
#278
droski said:
i read that article. how in the world is that a tacit approval?
Click to expand...

He approves of absolutely everything that Breivik stands for, aside from the violence. Bawer would rather use his books to inspire the change; Breivik used violence. They both have the same aims, they just use different tools.
 
#279
#279
lawgator1 said:
Just read it and don't see how it can be read as approval.

It is a little disconcerting that the "take away" from it is that this act of terrorism is going to hurt the cause of anti-Muslim factions in Europe. I mean, I think it enough to condemn it as 90+ acts of senseless murder and leave it at that. Expressing disappointment that it hurts the cause of rejecting multiculturalism seems misplaced.
Click to expand...

The timing is bad and insensitive but agree there is no approval of the act either explicitly or tacitly.

Rejecting multiculturalism (or the approach that has been taken in Europe) is a legitimate position to take - hell, Merkl and Sarkozy have both made recent commentary that it has been a fraught with problems and needs to be examined.
 
#280
#280
therealUT said:
He approves of absolutely everything that Breivik stands for, aside from the violence. Bawer would rather use his books to inspire the change; Breivik used violence. They both have the same aims, they just use different tools.
Click to expand...


I think that's an over statement (believes everything Breivik believes in).

Feeling that multiculturalism has gone to far seems to be a legit position as much as believing multiculturalism hasn't gone far enough.
 
#281
#281
therealUT said:
He approves of absolutely everything that Breivik stands for, aside from the violence. Bawer would rather use his books to inspire the change; Breivik used violence. They both have the same aims, they just use different tools.
Click to expand...

how does blowing up a building help get rid of muslims?
 
#282
#282
droski said:
how does blowing up a building help get rid of muslims?
Click to expand...

Breivik's aim was to eliminate the current leadership, that shows deference to Muslims, and to eliminate the future generation that he felt would show deference to their cause.
 
#283
#283
therealUT said:
Breivik's aim was to eliminate the current leadership, that shows deference to Muslims, and to eliminate the future generation that he felt would show deference to their cause.
Click to expand...

ok. so if i'm against raising taxes and some nutjob decides bombing the irs building is going to accomplish not raising taxes than that means i approve of the irs building getting blown up?
 
#285
#285
About the "Knights Templar" bit; Why is this being pushed by the media as "real" and not just the imagination of a psychotic?
 
#287
#287
droski said:
ok. so if i'm against raising taxes and some nutjob decides bombing the irs building is going to accomplish not raising taxes than that means i approve of the irs building getting blown up?
Click to expand...

If you write a book deriding an entire group of persons as a scourge upon humanity; if you make the claim in that book that those persons are ultimately going to attack and kill other groups of persons unless they are stopped and/or gotten rid of; if you then write a column in which you glad hand Breivik (he is so intellegent; so brilliant; so well spoken; this violence must mean he is insane) while also esteeming Geert Wilders (who has called for governments to forcibly remove Muslims); then, one tacitly approves of that person who uses force to accomplish the goals that they also hold.
 
#290
#290
therealUT said:
If you write a book deriding an entire group of persons as a scourge upon humanity; if you make the claim in that book that those persons are ultimately going to attack and kill other groups of persons unless they are stopped and/or gotten rid of; if you then write a column in which you glad hand Breivik (he is so intellegent; so brilliant; so well spoken; this violence must mean he is insane) while also esteeming Geert Wilders (who has called for governments to forcibly remove Muslims); then, one tacitly approves of that person who uses force to accomplish the goals that they also hold.
Click to expand...

you seem to go from A to C with no B in between.
 
#294
#294
droski said:
are you seriously arguing that a preponderance of "totalitarian regimes" in the middle east has anything to do with the US?
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? I am saying that they rightfully blame us for the CIA-led coup in Iran. They hated that regime. Maybe it was better than what they might have had, but we don't know that. All we know is they hated that regime and they blame us for it.

Then we can also talk about the aid we gave to Hussein in order to fight Iran. Maybe that's another reason why they cheered when 9/11 happened.

Once again, where in the hell were you going with this "democracy" point? How did it even come into play?
 
Last edited:
#297
#297
nbakerld said:
Where did you get that from? I am saying that they rightfully blame us for the CIA-led coup in Iran. They hated that regime. Maybe it was better than what they might have had, but we don't know that. All we know is they hated that regime and they blame us for it.

Then we can also talk about the aid we gave to Hussein in order to fight Iran. Maybe that's another reason why they cheered when 9/11 happened.

Once again, where in the hell were you going with this "democracy" point? How did it even come into play?
Click to expand...

then why mention they were totalitarian?
 
#300
#300
droski said:
no. when i tell my wife to get her loser brother out of my house i'm not suggesting she kill him.
Click to expand...

When one advocates that the government should remove someone , they are advocating for the use of force and, ultimately, providing their permission for the use of deadly force (as force and resistance tend to escalate). Once that permission to the government has been implied, then the argument re: vigilantism centers itself not around morals but simply around legality, as the moral basis and permission for force against such persons has already been established and granted.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top