Bombs rock Norweigan capital

[i8godzilla]

--snip--
Neighbors jumped into action ahead of the police and took their boats and rescued fifty people in the water, braving bullets from the shooter (they of course could not shoot back, well you know)

I believe Norway allows its citizens to own firearms. You must have a hunting or sporting license and then obtain a permit. You must also have a safe installed for storage. After this incident let's see if the laws change there.


Edited to fix grammar error.

[VMI77]

A question for you in return, Beiruty. If our nation defaults on its good faith and credit early next month, leading to a worldwide economic catastrophe, might that to a large extent be the result of a very few dedicated terrorists on 9/11 who gave their lives for their cause, as repugnant as that cause might be to most of us? Might that one act have "advanced their cause?" No answer here; just a hypothetical question for you, me, and a lot of others.

I am not arguing that this will or will not happen, and I do not mean to invite an off-topic debate here on the politics of whether it will happen, or why, if it does happen, by those members who know who they are.

Elmo

No, it's due to a spineless Congress and Executive that are owned by Wall Street, and a criminal banking system our government has allowed to loot the country, and then rewarded at the expense of its citizens.

[VMI77]

That said it is really scary that when you disarm a whole group of people -a whole nation really--you take with it any notion of resistance other than fleeing.

That's the whole point of the anti-gun crowd. They're really anti self-defense. The Europeans, especially the Brits, have been conditioned to accept this philosophy but it still doesn't sound so good to American ears so they concentrate on removing the means of self-defense. It's part of the collectivist agenda: the deliberate creation of enfeeblement and dependency. Independent thought and action undermine the collective and can't be tolerated in the Brave New World. Note that the Norwegian authorities are saying that taking an hour to stop this guy's murder spree is perfectly acceptable. This attitude is the brother of Stalin's sentiment that one death is a tragedy but a million deaths are just a statistic. These modern "liberal" governments are just less ambitious than Stalin was in compiling their statistics (so far anyway).

[philip964]

Great, a conservative, white, licensed gun owner, mason, right wing, nut job and now he likes Texas.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2011/07 ... manifesto/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Beiruty]

Great, a conservative, white, licensed gun owner, mason, right wing, nut job and now he likes Texas.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2011/07 ... manifesto/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does he reference Waco, and Koresh too?

[RPB]

Deja Vu

same comments @ U Texas last year- Norway police were "fantastic" of course police arrived a bit late at both

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/intern ... d=30751176" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OSLO (Reuters) - Norway's justice minister on Tuesday hailed "fantastic" police work after Anders Behring Breivik killed at least 76 people, setting aside criticisms that police had reacted too slowly to a shooting massacre.

I do agree, Police in both instances were great ... but that shouldn't be used as a reason to deny a right of self-defense/self-preservation.

[VMI77]

Great, a conservative, white, licensed gun owner, mason, right wing, nut job and now he likes Texas.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2011/07 ... manifesto/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I doubt it, especially in the context being applied. White and nut-job are the only things we really know about the guy. The media wants you to believe Loughner is a "conservative" too but they started backing off that narrative in the face of too much conflicting information. You think the media is going to admit someone like this is a socialist, liberal, or leftist? If the guy is actually insane and delusional as is being suggested today then any political label is meaningless. In any case though, the media is going to do its best to tag anyone like this as "conservative." For one thing, it serves their agenda, but I think there may also be a good deal of projection and suppressed admiration from the left as well --after all, the most murderous regimes in history were all of the left, and the further left you go, the more murderous they are, and the more that killing is central to their ideology.

[Ameer]

Good evidence he was active on National Socialist websites.

[b322da]

Good evidence he was active on National Socialist websites.

Right you are, Ameer. We still see some here who close their minds to what is coming out in the news. Their ideology just will not give way to evidence, and they are incapable of admitting that their early conclusions based on an absence of facts, but an abundance of opinions, might be wrong. That is such a shame.

I do hope those here, and there must be some here, who might equate "National Socialist" with "Socialism" will take the time to Google it a bit.

I cannot resist expressing an opinion of my own here, based on nothing other than what I read in the world's press (not limited to our domestic press) on the Internet. I suspect Europe has coming some serious problems caused not by multiculturalism or Islam, but caused rather by racism.

Elmo

[74novaman]

I do hope those here, and there must be some here, who might equate "National Socialist" with "Socialism" will take the time to Google it a bit.

Elmo

Well, lets look at the party platform from 1920, shall we?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html

Could you argue that socialists today wouldn't support points 11-17, 20, 21, or 25? (of the actual text, not the guys summery on top)

Though there was elements of extreme nationalism (as understood in the Western European sense of Nationalism) in the National Socialist German Workers Party (left wing buzzwords enlarged for you), you're going to have a very hard time convincing me socialism wasn't a part of the Nazi party platform.

That kind of leads to a whole different discussion, regarding where Nazis truly fell on the political spectrum. I would argue a part of why Nazis are identified as "right wing" is partially due to an oversimplification of trying to place them in opposition of their main opponents, the "left wing" communists.

If you want to use the pedantic, wrongheaded left to right spectrum, I arrange my personal spectrum with absolute freedom on the right, and absolute tyranny on the left, so it end up looking something like this with regard to all the isms:

Communists, Socialists, European Labor party and socialists, US Democrats, US Republicans, libertarians, anarchists.

Though I much prefer a 2 axis political diagram, like this:



For the TL;DR crowd:
National Socialism, while not a true socialist movement, contained enough elements of socialism in their platform and goals to justify the "socialist" part of the NSDAP name.

[Ameer]

For the TL;DR crowd:
National Socialism, while not a true socialist movement, contained enough elements of socialism in their platform and goals to justify the "socialist" part of the NSDAP name.

I think the NSDAP and the Soviets were both socialist with strong central control. They were more alike than different. The biggest difference was the different nationalist identities. Neither was Communist as Marx imagined where government ceases to exist.

[Beiruty]

Why Islamic System considered at the extreme of collectivism? Islamic System support Free market, NO Taxation (other than 2.5% of net worth of businesses and savings above certain level), and Encourages Education, and Science and Technology.

[74novaman]

Why Islamic System considered at the extreme of collectivism? Islamic System support Free market, NO Taxation (other than 2.5% of net worth of businesses and savings above certain level), and Encourages Education, and Science and Technology.

I didn't put together the chart. From the guy who did though:

What unifies the collectivist Nazis, Fascists and Islamists is not just their belief that humans have built-in attributes, but that their specific social, ethnic or religious group possesses built-in attributes superior to everyone else’s.

And I think even you would agree there is a difference between an Islamic country, like Turkey, and what some refer to as Islamists, or Islamofascists, and groups like Al-Queda who seek to impose a global caliphate by force. It is that minority which the chart refers to.

[edmart001]

I've been living in the UK since early May on a work assignment. In a discussion with three of my colleagues at the office yesterday, after expressing condolences for the dead and injured, I stated that I can't understand why 5 or 10 of the youth on the island didn't rush the guy and take him down. That he may have been able to shoot a few of them but not over 60 of them and that in an hour and a half, there had to have been opportunities to disarm him, like while reloading, or something.

The Brits all looked at me like I had lost my flipping mind.

One of them re-explained the turn of events to me as reported in the media as if I obviously didn't understand what had happened. Again I asked, why, after a few minutes, when it was apparent that help would not arrive in a timely manner and their friends were being executed, didn't several mass attack the guy and take him down? I was given the explaination that, "Well, that's the job for the police". To which I replied, "Who took an hour and a half to get there".

I could see that I was making everyone uncomfortable, so I ended the conversation by turning it into a general industrial safety point (we work for an engineering / construction company). I pointed out that we are all responsible for our own personal safety. That governments, companies and projects are all trying to look out for our best interest, and many safe-guards and systems have been put in place to minimize our exposure to risks in an attempt to make our lives safer. But at the end of the day, when and if the excrement impacts the fan blades, we still have to use our heads, think for ourselves and exercise good judgement. I reminded them of the Piper-Alpha disaster many years ago in the North Sea where 168 people died, many of whom were mustered at the escape capsules waiting for the order to abandon the platform, but since the initial explosion took out the control room, there was nobody left to give that order. The few that did survive are the ones who thought for themselves, realized the situation on the platform was going from real bad to worse, and decided to take their chances at being rescued by going overboard near rescue craft.

My colleagues looked very troubled by the entire exchange, but one of them looked me in the eye, nodded and winked.

Maybe a spark of understanding???

[VMI77]

I've been living in the UK since early May on a work assignment. In a discussion with three of my colleagues at the office yesterday, after expressing condolences for the dead and injured, I stated that I can't understand why 5 or 10 of the youth on the island didn't rush the guy and take him down. That he may have been able to shoot a few of them but not over 60 of them and that in an hour and a half, there had to have been opportunities to disarm him, like while reloading, or something.

The Brits all looked at me like I had lost my flipping mind.

One of them re-explained the turn of events to me as reported in the media as if I obviously didn't understand what had happened. Again I asked, why, after a few minutes, when it was apparent that help would not arrive in a timely manner and their friends were being executed, didn't several mass attack the guy and take him down? I was given the explaination that, "Well, that's the job for the police". To which I replied, "Who took an hour and a half to get there".

I could see that I was making everyone uncomfortable, so I ended the conversation by turning it into a general industrial safety point (we work for an engineering / construction company). I pointed out that we are all responsible for our own personal safety. That governments, companies and projects are all trying to look out for our best interest, and many safe-guards and systems have been put in place to minimize our exposure to risks in an attempt to make our lives safer. But at the end of the day, when and if the excrement impacts the fan blades, we still have to use our heads, think for ourselves and exercise good judgement. I reminded them of the Piper-Alpha disaster many years ago in the North Sea where 168 people died, many of whom were mustered at the escape capsules waiting for the order to abandon the platform, but since the initial explosion took out the control room, there was nobody left to give that order. The few that did survive are the ones who thought for themselves, realized the situation on the platform was going from real bad to worse, and decided to take their chances at being rescued by going overboard near rescue craft.

My colleagues looked very troubled by the entire exchange, but one of them looked me in the eye, nodded and winked.

Maybe a spark of understanding???

I highlighted two sentences in red. The first one is a perfect illustration of the ultimate objective of the left and it's success in the British Nanny State: enfeeblement and dependency. No doubt your comments weren't appreciated --you're challenging the collective. The left doesn't care about people being killed with guns, first and foremost the left wants a helpless population, because it's easier to have your way with those who are helpless and dependent. And this notion leads to my next comment.....

Don't fall into the Nanny State trap yourself....governments and corporations are not looking out for your best interests. Governments and corporations look out for their own best interest. Was operation "Fast and Furious" in your best interest? Something like safety rules may appear to be in your best interest, and may be in your best interest most of the time, but these rules primarily serve government and corporate interests, and I'd submit that if they didn't there wouldn't be any such rules --generally they are a social/political/economic tradeoff between having them and not having them. I'd also submit that if your interest is in opposition to the government or corporate interest (to the extent it can be so simply expressed) that it will be your interest that is disfavored.