Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

I WAS contrasting my stance with the loon position when a Muslim carries out an attack.

Muslims who openly cite the texts and teachings of Islam when they carry out attacks. I'll wait to see in the coming days and weeks whether he was truly a religious fundamentalist as is typically the case of Muslim terrorists or was more of a Christian nationalist but someone who didn't give much thought to religion as he did with other matters. Here's an interesting assessment I found on HuffPost:

“Reports say that the gunman was pro-gay rights and supported the socialist welfare state and was concerned that too many right-wing religious Muslim immigrants would threaten those two principles­. So the only thing 'Christian­' about him seems to be that he isn't Muslim and the only thing 'conservat­ive' about him seems to be that he is anti-immig­ration.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Da ... 96492.html

He was also a Free Mason. Not sure if Christian fundamentalists usually are members, but there is a Scandinavian branch that only accepts Christians, apparently.

Thats one for weasly excuses.

Well they've released some of his diary entries leading up to the bombing and shooting and it's clear he was against his governments agendas, against muslims taking over Europe and Marxism-Islamic collaboration. So pretty much a modern day crusader. What he did was shocking, but his view point is nothing new and something that has been bubbling under the surface in many European countries for a long time now. I hate to say it, but I don't think this will be the last of this sort of thing.

desertdudeshj wrote:Thats one for weasly excuses.

Yeah, all those Christian fundamentalists who are pro-gay rights and Freemasons.



Here's what one commentator at the notoriously wingnut site Loonwatch has written about Anders:

I’m a Norwegian and I’ve read through pretty much everything he has written, and there’s little that indicates that he is a Christian fundamentalist (by the same standards pretty much every Muslim would be considered a fundamentalist) nor is his ideology “extreme”. He opposes racism (ethnocentrism) and nazism (which he considers to be a leftist ideology and compares it with Marxism and Islam). Though, he seems paranoid in regards to the ruling elite (cultural marxists) who he believes to have a hidden agenda to destroy western culture and create a socialist utopia (same old story).

So I’d rather say that it was the result of an absurd hatred towards the ruling elite. And of course, a fucked up individual.

I’d avoid the term neo-nazi at least. He is pro gays’ rights, pro Israel, anti-racist, anti multiculturalism and anti-muslim. This is pretty far from the ideological standpoint of (neo) nazis. Perhaps a neo-fascist, anti-muslim zionist? Maybe its a bit long ;p

He is obviously an “extreme” person, but his ideological standpoint (from what he has written under his full name on the internet) has’t been particularly extreme. Ie. they didn’t stand out from the average anti-muslim, anti-multiculturalism comments that flood the internet – on the contrary he seemed ‘fairly’ rational in comparison (even though it feels wrong to use that word).

The thing that stood out to me was his paranoia and hatred towards the ruling elite which he referred to as cultural marxists (he believed that Europe had been controlled by cultural marxists ever since the soviet flag was raised on the German Reichstag).

This led me to believe that his hatred was directed at the ruling elite for ‘flooding’ Europe with muslims, undermining our culture, values and so on and so forth, and that the muslims were a passive piece in this play. Similar to the anti-semitic theories that the Jews use Muslims in a divide and conquer technique. There was also little that indicated that he was a christian fundamentalist (apart from the fact that he was conservative).

Well, obviously I was wrong, and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was in any way defending this savage, cold hearted mass murderer.

But hey, as the same poster pointed out later, calling him a neo-Nazi (or in this case, a Christian fundamentalist) is more of a political curse-word rather than a precise definition of the ideology he supports.

But why let facts get in the way of misinformation? Tim McVeigh was soooo sixteen years ago. And that stuff about him being agnostic certainly doesn't help the argument that there are Christian extremists too.

The Left and Muslims are going to cash this attack in for all it's worth, I see DD is already starting himself.

So eh, is your argument that this blond, Christian terrorist is not really a Christian?

He certainly is clearly right wing (like you), is opposed to immigration by non-whites to Europe (like you), is anti-Muslim in his writings (like you) and is a Christian (you guessed it..).

A terrorist who blows up civilians and shoots kids - all because of his ideology.

But amuse me, which of his political views do you NOT agree with? (I'm hoping you'll join me in denouncing his racist, islamophobic manifesto - shocking stuff):



Cheers,
Shafique

I'll have to read the reader's digest of his manifesto to get back to you.

I'm not sure if I would agree with you that he was totally right wing, words and terminology tend to get butchered.

He apparently supported gay rights and Norway's social welfare state.

My guess is if his views were totally analyzed, he would be further from the 'right' than a religious nutter who wants to turn the clock on society back to the seventh century.

I also have a feeling I'm more liberal than you as well. But hey, you're free to live in your fantasy world for as long as you like.

He (a Protestant) does seem to have justified his actions on papal decrees much like Muslim religious fanatics who use Islam's legalism to justify violence.

I certainly understand Europe wanting to preserve its culture and that makes her no different from any other country that has an official language, religion and even ethnicity, such as your typical Arab country (so that makes Anders closer in mindset to most Arabs, actually).

I agree with Anders that there certainly is a problem with immigration in the Scandinavian countries. I also agree Europeans need to reassess immigration issues - they should look at immigrants to see what they as individuals can add to their prospective adopted homeland rather than as a destination dump for any person.

Europe isn't the United States, after all. I have no problem with immigrants in the US (even illegal immigrants) because the US doesn't have a grain to go against in the way Europe does. In that way I suppose the United States is inherently multiculturalist.

I also never diminished his Christianity. I simply said his views are varied (gay rights, welfare state) and don't perfectly fit previous ideological molds. He seems more of a Christian nationalist than a bona fide Christian religious extremist.

event horizon wrote:I'll have to read the reader's digest of his manifesto to get back to you.

I'll hold you to that. Alternatively, you can comment on what the terrorist says tomorrow to justify his crimes.

I asked specifically which views you disagreed with. Let's see...

event horizon wrote:I'm not sure if I would agree with you that he was totally right wing, words and terminology tend to get butchered.

He apparently supported gay rights and Norway's social welfare state.

Interesting - do all right wingers oppose gay rights? I thought you were right wing and supported gay rights? (or am I mistaken here?). Would not his other extremely right-wing views not make him right-wing?

event horizon wrote:My guess is if his views were totally analyzed, he would be further from the 'right' than a religious nutter who wants to turn the clock on society back to the seventh century.

Can you clarify - you're not seriously trying to link this Christian terrorist with Muslims are you? That would be funny - given he's an Islamophobe. He'd be horrified if you were trying to say his extremist views are closer to Muslims than your right-wing views. But, alas, your fantasies aren't in question here (or relevant) -whether you think I am a more extremist religious nutter than you is also not relevant here.

Of the political views of this terrorist, I'm not the one who is struggling to find points to disagree with - that appears to be you.

event horizon wrote:He (a Protestant) does seem to have justified his actions on papal decrees much like Muslim religious fanatics who use Islam's legalism to justify violence.

So, is Christianity to blame to the same extent that you blame Islam when Muslim terrorists attack?

event horizon wrote:I certainly understand Europe wanting to preserve its culture and that makes her no different from any other country that has an official language, religion and even ethnicity, such as your typical Arab country (so that makes Anders closer in mindset to most Arabs, actually).

So, you agree with him on this point. I thought so. The whataboutery argument involving Arabs is weak and funny.

event horizon wrote:I agree with Anders that there certainly is a problem with immigration in the Scandinavian countries. II also agree Europeans need to reassess immigration issues - they should look at immigrants to see what they as individuals can add to their prospective adopted homeland rather than as a destination dump for any person.

Ok, I'm waiting to see where you disagree with the terrorist.

event horizon wrote:I also never diminished his Christianity. I'm simply said his views are varied (gay rights, welfare state) and don't perfectly previous ideological molds. He seems more of a Christian nationalist than a bona fide Christian religious extremist.

So, he's a Christian who commits Terrorism - and uses papal decrees to justify his views.

Unless I missed it, I couldn't see any of his political views that you didn't agree with. That speaks volumes.

Cheers,
Shafique

His political views weren't exactly extreme. He opposed Nazism, Antisemitism, racism. Supported Norway's welfare state and gay rights. If you're basing his views on that, he's more of a 'liberal' than you are, since he departs with you on your seventh century mindset and Antisemitism.

The political spectrum is broken down in numerous ways. You can be an social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

I asked specifically which views you disagreed with.

The political views I know he has were addressed. I already said Europe needs immigration reform. There are problems with immigration in many European countries...or at least with how immigrants are handled once they arrive in Europe.

I think if Europe took the cut throat approach of Dubai and other gulf countries the natives would have fewer problems. Of course, that has its own set of drawbacks in the form of human rights violations, etc (human rights isn't a priority for liberals/Leftists when it comes to Muslims violating these rights).

So, is Christianity to blame to the same extent that you blame Islam when Muslim terrorists attack?

I'll have to wait and see to what extent religion played. I certainly would view it hypocritical to blame Pam Geller for his actions but not the Bible (or Koran in the case of Muslim religious fanatics), especially if I believed these books were inspired or written by a higher authority. From my perspective, I place *HIGHER* standards on an almighty than mere mortals.

But of course Muslim apologists see this differently and haven't seemed to have logically thought that through.

shafique wrote:

event horizon wrote:My guess is if his views were totally analyzed, he would be further from the 'right' than a religious nutter who wants to turn the clock on society back to the seventh century.

Can you clarify - you're not seriously trying to link this Christian terrorist with Muslims are you? That would be funny - given he's an Islamophobe. He'd be horrified if you were trying to say his extremist views are closer to Muslims than your right-wing views. But, alas, your fantasies aren't in question here (or relevant) -whether you think I am a more extremist religious nutter than you is also not relevant here.

My comment was clear. The issue is with those with reading comprehension problems, not the one who wrote something in plain English.

I'll clarify if someone else reads my comment and didn't understand what I wrote. My guess is that everyone else on the forum will understand what I wrote when I said Anders' political views are further from the right (social conservative) spectrum than religious fundamentalists who want to live in the seventh century.

So, in summary - you agree with his political views.

If this summary is wrong, please list which political views (so far expressed in his writings etc) that you don't agree with.

I'm not surprised that you're taking pains to explain why you agree with this terrorist's political outlook.

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting post on LW of his manifesto:

“Page: 1363

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. Being a Christian can mean many things;

- That you believe in and want to protect Europe’s Christian cultural heritage.

The European cultural heritage, our norms (moral codes and social structures included), our traditions and our modern political systems are based on Christianity – Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity and the legacy of the European enlightenment (reason is the primary source and legitimacy for authority).

It is not required that you have a personal relationship with God or Jesus in order to fight for our Christian cultural heritage and the European way. In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a “Christian fundamentalist theocracy” (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).

The PCCTS, Knights Templar is therefore not a religious organisation but rather a Christian “culturalist” military order.”

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/07/robert ... ment-82554

There's more.

Sorry, were you listing which elements you agreed with, or which ones you disagreed with?

Please explain.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'll assume you disagree with him where he says he wants a secular Europe and his religious views are moderate.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/07/robert ... ment-82542

shafique wrote:^Good points DDS.

Dillon wrote:Yes I've no doubt we'll get the usual suspects trolling their predictable and irrational Christianophobia!

By your own definition of trolling, the only trolls in this thread are the Islamophobes who fell into the trap of believing their own hype rather than trusting the stats which showed where the true risk of terrorism comes from (stats are quite clear - terror attacks in Europe are by a large margin carried out by non-Muslims).

I see no irrational Christianophobic posts in this thread - but I do see Islamophobia (which is always irrational, by definition).

That the guy does seem to share the right-wing views of some posters here, it will be interesting to hear whether herve, eh et al can bring themselves to condemn this terrorist bomber and shooter or whether we hear some weasly excuses.

Cheers,
Shafique

Read the thread again Shaf, you are the troll of trolls and your constant derision of your critics really does you no favours of credibility whatsoever, it was the WSJ who overnight published the misinformation regarding Islamic extremism being responsible for the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, not your “Islamophobic loons” Christianophobia and anti-Semitism is alive and kicking as evidenced in this thread and others on DF, I maintain that posters on DF will be judged by their peers on the content of what they post, not what they claim they’re not.

Weasly excuses? Well you would know all about that one, and just as a by the way, Norway too have similar views to the UK with regard to Islamic Extremism as the most significant threat of terrorism, It matters not, how many times you attempt to redress the advice from the Home office and misrepresent incomplete statistics, The current threat level to the UK from international terrorism is STILL severe. And STILL “the most significant international terrorism threat to the UK remains violent extremism associated with and influenced by Al Qa'ida.”

We can see now how corrupt and a coward is shafique to use this terrible mass killing as a vehicle for his islamo propaganda

LOL - this is indeed a terrible Terrorist attack - a couple of bombings and shooting of young people. All because a right-wing nutter didn't like their opinions on political and social issues.

Dillon - as I said before, the statistics and the loon hype don't agree with each other.

In this thread, the loons/Islamophobes were proved wrong. FD, to his credit, didn't attribute blame until some info came in - and it didn't take long. You predicted we'll have some 'Christianophobic' comments - and yet we have had none. In fact I went out of my way to say that this Christian Terrorist does NOT represent Christians in general and I would not make any link to the terrorism and the violent verses in the Bible, for example.

Veggie sees 'Islamopropaganda' in my posts - which just shows he is trying to live up to his label as the funny loon.

Stop pointing fingers at imaginary Moooslim fanatics - and look to stop the people who are actually setting off the terrorist attacks in Europe. In this case it was someone who shares pretty much all of event horizon's political and racist views. Interesting that.

Cheers,
Shafique

One of his political views was that he despised Pakistan-like circumstances, where everyone not considered a Muslim is prosecuted.

Well I firmly believe the arresting officers on Utoya should have shot the sick ba$tard and dropped him in the fjord like the Americans did OBL, denying him the platform he desires, which I've no doubt he will eventually get, for even sicker attempts to justify his actions.

Bring back Capital Punishment for crimes such as this and dispatch the perpetrator without any further ado.

I would vote for it's return in any referendum.

I think nobody doubts that this guy shouldnot be part of society anymore for the rest of his life. However, he will be out well in time for his state pension.

Flying Dutchman wrote:I think nobody doubts that this guy shouldnot be part of society anymore for the rest of his life. However, he will be out well in time for his state pension.

Well I sincerley hope not FD! I know Norway is liberal but I think this act may have shaken them to the core.
He is now banged up in solitary. if he'd been in the UK we would have been ensuring he had access to a playstation, Sky TV and a counsellor.

I missed this quote from FD from earlier on in this thread.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Whereas poster Shafique and others call Hamas suicide children bombers resistance fighters. Thats also psycho!

Sir, you are telling a bare-faced lie and I expect an apology.

I have never called a suicide bomber targetting civilians (let alone children) anything other than a terrorist. Certainly not resistance fighters.

Please, please, please leave me out of fantasies about Muslims - please take back this lie or produce your evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I missed this quote from FD from earlier on in this thread.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Whereas poster Shafique and others call Hamas suicide children bombers resistance fighters. Thats also psycho!

Sir, you are telling a bare-faced lie and I expect an apology.

I have never called a suicide bomber targetting civilians (let alone children) anything other than a terrorist. Certainly not resistance fighters.

Please, please, please leave me out of fantasies about Muslims - please take back this lie or produce your evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, you call Hamas resitance fighters. And those resistance fighters celebrate suicide bombers.

Produce your evidence that I said Hamas suicide bombers killing civilians were resistance fighters and not terrorist criminals.

Shame on you.

Cheers,
Shafique

I have not used the word civilian. A word by the way that means very diferent things to different people.

A 16 year old boy blowing himself up in an Israeli army post...terrorist criminal or resistance fighter? I have read statement of yours that every Israeli military target is legit. Also that suicide is unislamic, but thats not the issue now.

You could have just said you have NO evidence for your claim. Produce the post if you can.

Shame on you.

You should especially be ashamed as I've agreed with you in the past about the involvement of children in warfare being a crime. International law and guidelines specify that armed resistance against a Military Occupation is legitimate (and not terrorism).

That you should twist two different things to paint me as a supporter of terrorsim is just down-right low and nasty. Shame on you again.

Cheers,
Shafique

Your inability to answer a simple question says enough

Ok, now we've established FD's evidence (or lack of it), back to the subject at hand.

His lawyer is claiming he's insane - he's apparently full of hatred for anyone who isn't an extremist, and believes we are at war!

I'm still waiting to hear from eh which of this terrorist's political views he disagrees with! Perhaps this is one of them??

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: International law and guidelines specify that armed resistance against a Military Occupation is legitimate (and not terrorism).

That you should twist two different things to paint me as a supporter of terrorsim is just down-right low and nasty. Shame on you again.

Cheers,
Shafique

You clearly support HAMAS, you never admitted it is a terrorist organization, hence you are a supporter of islamic terrorism. And your are not duping anyone with your crocodile tears on the Norway attack.
When directly asked if HAMAS is a terrorist organization, you response is that you condemn all terrorist acts.
Non sense, irrelevant and dodging the bullet
1) you dont respond to the question, you hide your true nature
2)according to your post, they are not terrorist acts anyways but armed resistance

AND.....what has any of that got to do with the op which is "Double Bombings In Norway"
Looks like you're going to join you're loony brethren and talk about everything on this planet except what the thread is about.

I can see you already came back in this thread with an over dose of what aboutery as it is.

desertdudeshj wrote:AND.....what has any of that got to do with the op which is "Double Bombings In Norway"
Looks like you're going to join you're loony brethren and talk about everything on this planet except what the thread is about.

I can see you already came back in this thread with an over dose of what aboutery as it is.

Your contributions to this thread are only of the trolling nature.

Yeah and I've seen your "valueable inputs" aswell. Hamas has alot to do with the Norway attacks