2011 Oslo/Utoeya Norway attacks

(i also realize that armchair mental health assessments are also nagl)

Were there unaffiliated nihilists carrying out random assassinations a century ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Nechayev

i don't think this guy actually got any assassinations done but he was a very busy and lonely bee.

bakunin loved him at first and then basically had a "wait. wait sergey hold on. shit." moment.

Neither the insanity interpretation nor the terrorism interpretation are without drawbacks and problems- If we just decide that "he's crazy" then we medicalize his actions- then he is sick and these actions are symptoms of a sick person who needs and deserves treatment, and this makes him a victim too- which I am not sure is more or less appealing than the decision to treat him as a coldblooded political agent who is pursuing his vision "by any means necessary". Can we treat him as a terrorist without in the process "taking his ideas seriously" i.e dignifying those ideas as somehow part of an ongoing political conversation between different parties? Dumb / badly formed / simplistic ideas have effects in the world- often they are more successful because of their very incoherence- I mean, fascism wasn't intellectually coherent either and that didn't stop it from taking over.

I guess Darraghmac is right that there is a vanishing middle / false choice if Breivik can't be read as an insane terrorist who is *both* politically motivated and a psychopath- the self-training is, as Geir points out, really striking to think about here because a garden variety psycopath wouldn't have any empathy to restrain, while a "normal" person would. To me as a partisan for the very society of tolerance that Breivik attacked, what I would hope for is that this would make extreme nationalist politics less appealing than ever, and in order for this action to discredit the politics for which it was committed we have to see the link between the act and the ideal as a tight one- if we just discount this person as "merely crazy" then we can't do that effectively, and so extreme nationalism isn't the topic anymore, it's brain chemistry, early parenting, care in the community etc.

Were there unaffiliated nihilists carrying out random assassinations a century ago? Crime & Punishment suggests maybe there were, actually.

I refer you to this:

http://images.word-power.co.uk/images/product_images/9780224078078.jpg

Neither the insanity interpretation nor the terrorism interpretation are without drawbacks and problems- If we just decide that "he's crazy" then we medicalize his actions- then he is sick and these actions are symptoms of a sick person who needs and deserves treatment, and this makes him a victim too- which I am not sure is more or less appealing than the decision to treat him as a coldblooded political agent who is pursuing his vision "by any means necessary". Can we treat him as a terrorist without in the process "taking his ideas seriously" i.e dignifying those ideas as somehow part of an ongoing political conversation between different parties? Dumb / badly formed / simplistic ideas have effects in the world- often they are more successful because of their very incoherence- I mean, fascism wasn't intellectually coherent either and that didn't stop it from taking over.

I guess Darraghmac is right that there is a vanishing middle / false choice if Breivik can't be read as an insane terrorist who is *both* politically motivated and a psychopath- the self-training is, as Geir points out, really striking to think about here because a garden variety psycopath wouldn't have any empathy to restrain, while a "normal" person would. To me as a partisan for the very society of tolerance that Breivik attacked, what I would hope for is that this would make extreme nationalist politics less appealing than ever, and in order for this action to discredit the politics for which it was committed we have to see the link between the act and the ideal as a tight one- if we just discount this person as "merely crazy" then we can't do that effectively, and so extreme nationalism isn't the topic anymore, it's brain chemistry, early parenting, care in the community etc.

I basically agree with all of this---it just seemed to me that ppl were p quick to dismiss mental illness in a rush to demonize his eminently demonizable politics. both were at work and served each other.

do these deconstructions happen when the perpetrator isn't white?

BTW, there have been several questions about whether 21 years is really the longest sentence Breivik can receive; apparently there are clauses which will allow him to be locked up for life:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7725087

(the above is somewhat challenging to decipher due to Google Translate.)

do these deconstructions happen when the perpetrator isn't white?

You could use the DC sniper as a test case for this, but the perpetrator identified his motive as extortion rather than straight-up politics, so the parallel is not exact.

It's very difficult to talk about 'garden variety psychopaths' as nobody seems particularly clear about what psychopathy means or how to identify it. I think most people recognise a continuum between 'can function in society' and 'serial killer' but even that's controversial. Most of the people on that continuum are held criminally responsible for their actions and are not routinely defined as crazy.

It's probably important to remember that his beliefs are not really outside of the mainstream of the European far right, even if the actions would be. It might seem impossible to understand how someone could genuinely believe, without being mad, that militant Islam is destined to conquer Europe unless someone stands up for white Christian culture but thousands and thousands of people do. They have political parties, television shows and organise marches through the streets. Is it a clear sign of mental illness that someone went one step further and tried to eradicate the people he saw as facilitating that? No. Is it likely that his brain works differently to most other people? Yes. It's impossible to know to what extent, though.

None of this would put him outside the class of the other terrorists who do pretty much exactly the same thing in the name of other causes, though.

You could use the DC sniper as a test case for this, but the perpetrator identified his motive as extortion rather than straight-up politics, so the parallel is not exact.

― Aimless, Sunday, July 24, 2011 7:59 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

The beltway sniper was a terrorist. I'm fascinated by how he's been portrayed as anything else.

"In the short term, Mr. Malvo said, their aim was to create havoc to cover for Mr. Muhammad's plans to kidnap his three children. The longer-term goal, Mr. Malvo testified, was to extort law enforcement to stop the killing, after which Mr. Muhammad would take the money and move to Canada with Mr. Malvo and the three children. There, Mr. Malvo said, Mr. Muhammad planned to create a training ground for 140 young homeless men whom he would send out to wreak similar havoc and to "shut things down" in cities across the United States."

He legitimises his actions by framing them in history: he's only doing what the legit crusades and original knights templar were doing, in his head.

Neither psychopathy nor terrorism have a very clear definition, iirc. Both follow their own internally consistent logic, except their premises and conclusions aren't what the rest of society thinks. "Wrong" is too weak a word but that's what they are, ultimately. Like this guy, he isn't crazy or dumb, but he is very very wrong. His pure white christian society is long gone, it won't magically reappear once he and his imaginary army of facebook recruits have won the battle. 9/11 was, in Bin Laden's head, a legitimate reaction to some perceived American threat or wrongdoing and every tape that was made public only gave him a new way to spread that world view.

That's also why Breivik's asking for a public hearing: he wants a soap box to let us all know he's saving us, etc
I don't think loads of extremists who got his manifesto will join his cause, but it is a danger - they're often very sensitive to that kind of historic glory blah blah blah.

It's very difficult to talk about 'garden variety psychopaths' as nobody seems particularly clear about what psychopathy means or how to identify it.

Yeah, I read that "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us" book by Robert Hare a while ago and it was fascinating to a point but also pretty apparent that there wasn't a conclusive and convincing account of the genesis of this condition, its boundaries- there are actions and patterns and tendencies but not some clearly evident bright line that separates these people out- a case of "you know it when you see it"- but do you?

Stan otm about why Breivik made sure to be captured alive- he can't wait to start blathering into the mics and cameras about his views and longs to be persecuted by his enemies- his sentencing will confirm his narcissism (I'm guessing his reaction to his conviction will be not dissimilar to Varg Vikernes' great big shiteating grin at hearing his own conviction)

ShariVari very much otm. his political ideas, however extreme and incoherent, are not just his own made-up misconceptions but part of the public political discourse and to leave that out and sum it up as simply madness would be terribly wrong i think.

otm

Psychopath: not mad but wrong.

bumper sticker?

The analysis piece on one belgian news site focuses on the most important issue of this whole story: violent computer games. Sigh.

Surgeons, meanwhile, confirmed he used "dum-dum" bullets designed to disintegrate inside the body and cause maximum internal damage.

Sort of feel that targeting white Norwegians (however much they are "traitors") gives the game away a bit. Isnt this the standard resentment of your imagined persecutors, those you imagine are excluding you? I'm probably wrong but I can't help but feel there is a disconnect between his politics and his act--he just wants to hurt those people who he imagined hurt him.

So, I am really speechless when I see the cult calling themselves national socialists
today. If you truly love our tribe, the Nordic tribes or any other European tribe, you must
learn and acknowledge that Hitler is a traitor to the Germanic and all European tribes,
NOT a hero. Hitler had the military capabilities necessary to liberate Jerusalem and the
nearby provinces from Islamic occupation. He could have easily worked out an
agreement with the UK and France to liberate the ancient Jewish Christian lands with the
purpose of giving the Jews back their ancestral lands. The UK and France would perhaps
even contribute to such a campaign in an effort to support European reconciliation. The
deportation of the Jews from Germany wouldn't be popular but eventually, the Jewish
people would regard Hitler as a hero because he returned the Holy land to them.

there is a strange recursive logic throughout, having created these strange taxonomies (category a and b traitors) they are reified to the nth to degree and treated as self-evident things

hundreds of pages seem to be devoted to the evils of miscegenation

though he is at pains to point out that he is very much not a racist

3. Destructive role models who propagate and glorify anti-authority/
revolutionary/anarchistic attitudes through the graffiti movement (which is a central part
of hip-hop).

I remember my active years in the hiphop movement as a continuous and intense orgy of
misconduct, manifested primarily through tagging and piecing. During my two most
active years at the age of 15 and 16, I estimate that myself (Morg), Richard (Spok) and
Jon Trygve (Wick) inflicted property damage (through bombing raids - "tagging") of
approximately 2 million Euro combined of which I inflicted aprox. 700 000. The three of
us were the most active of a loosely distributed "tagger force" numbering approximately
1000 at the time. This was during a primary peak of Hiphop, in 1994-1995.

That's also why Breivik's asking for a public hearing: he wants a soap box to let us all know he's saving us, etc
I don't think loads of extremists who got his manifesto will join his cause, but it is a danger - they're often very sensitive to that kind of historic glory blah blah blah

I'd be more concerned about his success in carrying out the killings, if we're talking about his being an example pour encourager les autres

geir, do you know more about the chances of him being released after 21 years?

Only his shrink knows. And only after 21 years.

The practice that makes it possible to lock up lunatics for life is still no older than 11 years or so. A guy who, together with his friend (who was not deemed "crazy" enough), raped and killed two little girls at a lake in Southern Norway was the first one to get this kind of sentence and he has still not yet even finished his ordinary sentence. So there is no practice to speak of, and not a lot of experience. However, a guy who had molested his own young son more than 100 times got out because he was a "hopeless case" and later travelled to Gambia to molest more kids, so it doesn't seem like it always works properly. :(

Sort of feel that targeting white Norwegians (however much they are "traitors") gives the game away a bit. Isnt this the standard resentment of your imagined persecutors, those you imagine are excluding you? I'm probably wrong but I can't help but feel there is a disconnect between his politics and his act--he just wants to hurt those people who he imagined hurt him.

Labour Youth have done a very good job recruiting immigrant youth the past 10 years or so (there weren't so many back in the 90s when I was active there), so I would guess a fair percentage of his victimes were actually immigrants. Not that it seems he went after them in particular though.

what do you think the political consequences for this will be? (do you think a historic labour landslide is in the future?) do you think gun control laws may drastically change?

do you think gun control laws may drastically change?

i was trying to work out what someone would need an automatic weapon for today. anyone?

do you think gun control laws may drastically change?

I'm waiting for the American gun nuts to launch into their standard issue spiel (this may have already happened, I've been away from news sources for much of last night and today) about how if only more people carried guns this guy would have been stopped well before he killed so many.

we need video game control

I dunno if it's trite or stupid to say it, but my strongest impulse with guys like this and say, the London bombings, is to think they're totally intellectually bankrupt as well as morally. I feel like there's a modern brand of utterly egotistical moron that does this shit, and it's not evil that should be being discussed rather than how utterly thick these guys are. You watch this guy's YouTube vid and it's like "EUR-ABIAN UNION" and you can't help but feel it's just a total fucking amoeba who self aggrandises violent tendencies into some sort of world view. Maybe it feels better to say people are dumb rather than evil, but I'd personally like if this was admitted more. I feel too much credit is given to these guys, it's not a political statement, it's some totally dumb full of himself sociopathic moron. I really believe that.

do you think gun control laws may drastically change?

They did here (Aus) when this last happened here (Martin Bryant)

beautiful speech by the prime minister saddened me, not just b/c of its content, but b/c i can't imagine any american president ever approaching it. and even if they did, they would still insist on throwing in some cowboy talk about the need for swift retribution or whatever

I'm not sure thats really fair wrt to an American president, considering they've already apprehended the suspect here. I don't think Obama engaged in any "cowboy talk" after the Arizona shootings. Not at all the same scale, but still.

He sure did when campaigning! And revisited when Osama was found.

well killing osama is not the same as having 90 people die in a massacre

if the norwegian president somehow found and killed osama he'd prob have a little cowboy in him for a day or two

He sure did when campaigning! And revisited when Osama was found.

I was specifically referring to the speech he gave after the Arizona shootings which, while not at all comparable in terms of scale or impact, was similar in that the suspect had already been taken into custody by the time it came to political speeches. I never inferred that Obama had never taken part. Just seemed like a cheap shot "lol @ dumb cowboy Americans" type of joke.

yeah, i think jon is otm

Overgeneraliztion, yes.

Just seemed like a cheap shot "lol @ dumb cowboy Americans" type of joke.

wasn't a "cheap shot" or a joke, or anything about americans being "dumb". it's more about a mentality that i think exists here and results in the fact that if an american leader were to express some of the ideas that were in Stotenberg's speech, or if they delivered it with similar emotion, i feel like they would end up being called a pussy or something along those lines

but mainly expressing my frustration that some other countries have adults for leaders whereas judging by the debt ceiling fiasco and a whole bunch of other crap we seem to mostly have infants holding things down

really agree with, of all people, boris johnson on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/8658872/Anders-Breivik-There-is-nothing-to-study-in-the-mind-of-Norways-mass-killer.html

Michael Ryan had no ideology in Hungerford; Thomas Hamilton had no ideology in Dunblane. To try to advance any other explanation for their actions – to try to advance complicated "social" factors, or to examine the impact of multiculturalism in Scandinavia – is simply to play their self-important game. Anders Breivik may have constructed a portentous 1,500 page manifesto, but like so many others of his type he was essentially a narcissist and egomaniac who could not cope with being snubbed. We should spend less time thinking about him, and much more on the victims and their families.

"The Norwegian anti-Islamic citizen journalist website Document.no, to which Mr Breivik himself was a frequent contributor, has said large parts of his "compendium" are copied directly from US "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski's manifesto. Six of the references to the British National Party are from a Melanie Phillips article in Britain's Daily Mail about Labour, immigration and the BNP, which he appears to have cut and pasted into the document."

So now we know who reads Melanie Phillips' columns

He's being brought into court to the judge right now. The correspondent of Dutch radio is bemused: she and her colleagues can just walk in and out the building freely. No checking of bags or ID, nothing, no extra security measures or policemen separating the suspect from other people...

This OP/ED re: Oslo in The Jerusalem Post is mind-boggling. Just awful.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=230788

^^ Shameless and awful op/ed. Jeez.

Perhaps Brievik’s inexcusable act of vicious terror should serve not only as a warning that there may be more elements on the extreme Right willing to use violence to further their goals, but also as an opportunity to seriously reevaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere.

confusing 'let's learn from this' with 'let's listen to what this guy is saying'

Death toll revised to 8 (Oslo bombing), 68 (Utoeya shootings).

how did so few people die in the bombings? i mean, the devastation looked major but 8 people? i can't really get my head around it, esp in a city at what, 1600 on Friday afternoon?