Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Well, credit where credit is due - herve admits that the worst act of terrorism in some years in Europe is carried out by a blond, Christian terrorist!

I am happy to be proved wrong on this point - I'm glad herve agrees with me that this guy is a terrorist. (See, no excuses, no fluff - happy to admit I was wrong - I did think herve would argue against the facts this time too).

What will be interesting will be to hear what this terrorist will say tomorrow when he says he'll explain (he's admitted to the terrorist bombing and shootings).

herve - don't you feel a little bit silly for your rants about Moooslim threats etc? Are you going to call for tall blond Norwegians to be screened now? (Doesn't it make your stereotypes from before look ridiculous now if you apply them to this terror attack - or are you going to use exactly the same arguments non-loons use? The arguments are that terror attacks are not representative of the religious/political groups the terrorist comes from).

But let's be clear - in this thread, the loons who assumed the terrorist was a Moooslim when there was no proof are the ones who look silly.

herve - you may also wish to express your sympathy for the victims rather than venting hatred against Muslims who had nothing to do with this heinous attack. The blond terrorist seems to share your hatred of Muslims though - shocking news for you, I guess.
Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:herve - don't you feel a little bit silly for your rants about Moooslim threats etc? Are you going to call for tall blond Norwegians to be screened now? (Doesn't it make your stereotypes from before look ridiculous now if you apply them to this terror attack - or are you going to use exactly the same arguments non-loons use? The arguments are that terror attacks are not representative of the religious/political groups the terrorist comes from).

But let's be clear - in this thread, the loons who assumed the terrorist was a Moooslim when there was no proof are the ones who look silly.

herve - you may also wish to express your sympathy for the victims rather than venting hatred against Muslims who had nothing to do with this heinous attack. The blond terrorist seems to share your hatred of Muslims though - shocking news for you, I guess.
Cheers,
Shafique

This attack was unpredictable, even the police said he came out of the blue, so there is nothing that could have been screend, or detected, he does not fit the profile of a terrorist.
on the other end, islamic fit a profile, and that s why they get busted before they do it, proof that profiling of mooslims work.
it is not schoking news, i just dont understand , this guy lost it, there are other ways to fight the moozlims, and certainly not by using their methods.

Did you forget to say 'yes, I join you in sympathising with the victims of this terror attack'??

It would be good if we could agree on this point too.

Cheers,
Shafique

I sympathise with the victims, absolutely, but I dont associate myself with you or join you doing so, because you are an hypocrite.

Thanks for finally stating that you do sympathise with the victims of this Christian Terrorist.

I guess you may now realise how offended Muslims may feel when they are labelled 'terrorist supporters' by Islamophobes and have to state that they don't agree with some Muslims blowing up civilians. You guys assume that if we don't condemn terrorist acts, we support them. Yet, even when we state we condemn all terrorist acts, your fantasies lead you to think that we are actually lying.

I've not seen one 'Christianophobe' blame the Bible for this guy's terrorism, nor have I see anyone ask Christians whether they agree with this terrorist act or whether they secretly condone it.

This guy rants about Muslims in his writings and then goes out and shoots teenagers - all out of hatred for their 'liberal' views, it seems. Hatred breeds hatred. He may be a Christian, but it is not Christianity's fault. Same argument goes to the terrorists who happen to be Muslim - and who, thankfully, are far less prevalent in Europe and the US than non-Muslim terrorists, like this guy.

Cheers,
Shafique

Why do you feel the need to push people to condemn this man and sympathise with the victims? It's as if you are claiming some sort of victory or something!

You really are a piece of work Shafique. You repeat over and over about this man being a blonde Christian. I couldn't care what colour he was, he was a nutter and 90+ people are dead because of him.

I hope you are feeling somewhat satisfied that you can claim that 90+ people died at the hands of a Christian. That will prove a comfort to the families no doubt.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

^My starting point is that people will condemn this Christian terrorist and won't blame Christianity or the Bible or other right-wing supporters for this terrorist attack.

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

herve - you say this attack was unpredictable. However, I've pointed out ad-nauseum that the statistics shows that terrorist acts in Europe come from non-Muslims. You've been in denial and even tried to rubbish me in your first post:

herve wrote:Al shafique the hamas supporter will probably tell you it is the irish boys

You thought it was a Muslim bombing when you posted this (as did eh) - but in reality it was someone who shares your views about Islam and eh's views about Christianity.

Given you share his anti-Islam and anti-Immigration views, and eh shares his Christian views - it would be natural for non-loons to turn the tables against you guys and use YOUR usual arguments against Muslims. However, note that we do not view this right-wing Christian terrorist as anything more than he is - a terrorist and not a role model.

I would look silly if I were to say that the many violent verses of the Bible are to blame - as silly as you guys are when you use that argument for terror attacks by Muslims. I know you'll argue that it is not the same - but it isn't.

My thoughts are still with the victims - the first posts in this thread were thinly, and not so thinly, veiled attacks on Muslims. Shame on you.

Cheers,
Shafique

Bethsmum wrote:You repeat over and over about this man being a blonde Christian.

Was about the comment on that.

One can only wonder why it is so important the terrorist is blond to Shafique. IMO it can only come from racist views.

I'm simply using the same tactics you guys use when it is a terrorist who isn't blond or European of origin.

As I stated in my previous post, my stance is that most people won't assume that this blond Christian terrorist is a representative of blonds or Christians.

Had the terrorist been of Lebanese or Arab descent, I know the shoe would be on the other foot. If you are honest, you won't be able to deny that. Just look at the first few posts when the posters just assumed (wrongly) that it was a Muslim behind the attacks.

Cheers,
Shafique

I donot think anybody on DF ever mentiones the hair colour of whatever terrorist, except Shafique.

Is there anything wrong with stating that the terrorist is blond and a Christian and right wing?

To me it sums up that he doesn't fit herve's stereotype of what a Terrorist looks like.

It also has a bearing on the security lapse after the bombings - the authorities allowed the guy to take a ferry and walk on to the island unchallenged and then proceed to kill children attending a summer camp. There is a serious point there.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Is there anything wrong with stating that the terrorist is blond and a Christian and right wing?

Why are you asking? Are you unsure?

You are not stating he is blond, you are thumping on it in almost every of your latests posts. I think mentioning he is extreme right wing is relevant as it appears to be where his motive comes from. Christian, as background sure. As far as I can tell now though, its not what motivated him. Blond? Complety irrelevant and your constant remarks about it, have a dirty smell of bigot racism.

I agree then that Christian and Right Wing speak to his background. Blond speaks to his appearance.

I stated that his appearance does indeed have a bearing here - as I think the authorities weren't widening the net wide enough after the bombings. Had they been suspicious of even blond men carrying guns, then perhaps he would not have got on to that ferry? Speculation, I know, but his appearance is indeed valid.

Cheers,
Shafique

FD you a lawyer by anychance, you have thus uncanny ability to pick out the most inane detail about something and blow it up so some propotions that to someone who is not fimiliar with you can totaly forget about what was it they were talking about it the first place.

Now you've picked out this one word blonde and spun the entire topic around it, even ol shaf got caught up in it. BTW you should be sending out strong worded letters to almost all news networks aswell because very soon after the attacks they started reporting that the attacker was a "blonde white man"

You Sir, truly are the king of what about-ery and that is no joke.

I am taking the fifth.

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