Breivek not Insane !!! (119)
vinny1967: In a lot of ways I agree with you about the platform Con.
I suppose there is a need for laws for terrorists given that some western nations can hold them indefinitely while they procure information, and without trial. I suppose we won't be calling any suicide bombers terrorists from now on, whether they are doing it for Allah or for any other motives that may be in any way political. As you say it only lends credence and validates their cause.
But that doesn't mean that when everything is said and done you have to¨try them on Terror-Charges.I suppose there is a need for laws for terrorists given that some western nations can hold them indefinitely while they procure information, and without trial. I suppose we won't be calling any suicide bombers terrorists from now on, whether they are doing it for Allah or for any other motives that may be in any way political. As you say it only lends credence and validates their cause.
That would remove the one thing they have going for themselves.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: I asked what definition of terrorism you were using. Not what the the definition of a terrorist was.
As for his defense, he has pleaded innocent of terrorism. As you are so sure of his guilt of being a terrorist and employing terrorism it would be a shoe in for you to recite what definition of terrorism you are using to make this case a fact.
Can you or are you simply blustering and really have no definition other than just throwing a word out?
As for his defense, he has pleaded innocent of terrorism. As you are so sure of his guilt of being a terrorist and employing terrorism it would be a shoe in for you to recite what definition of terrorism you are using to make this case a fact.
Can you or are you simply blustering and really have no definition other than just throwing a word out?
Alberta, Alberta, Alberta.
Your need to argue over a word speaks volumes of your agenda and prejudices. It actually nauseates me that you would even argue that this guy is not a terrorist so I'm not going to buy into your prejudiced agenda, as this will be my last post on this topic of whether Brievek is a terrorist or not. Ask yourself the question whether these people were terrorised or not and maybe you will come up with a different view.
I have given you a definition of a terrorist from the Collins dictionary. If you wish to argue please forward your concerns to them.
As I sad Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and they don't have to have a towel on their head and a beard to be a terrorist
------ This thread is Locked ------
Conrad73: But that doesn't mean that when everything is said and done you have to¨try them on Terror-Charges.
That would remove the one thing they have going for themselves.
That would remove the one thing they have going for themselves.
No I agree Con. It does lend credence to their actions.
------ This thread is Locked ------
vinny1967: Alberta, Alberta, Alberta.
Your need to argue over a word speaks volumes of your agenda and prejudices. It actually nauseates me that you would even argue that this guy is not a terrorist so I'm not going to buy into your prejudiced agenda, as this will be my last post on this topic of whether Brievek is a terrorist or not. Ask yourself the question whether these people were terrorised or not and maybe you will come up with a different view.
I have given you a definition of a terrorist from the Collins dictionary. If you wish to argue please forward your concerns to them.
As I sad Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and they don't have to have a towel on their head and a beard to be a terrorist
Your need to argue over a word speaks volumes of your agenda and prejudices. It actually nauseates me that you would even argue that this guy is not a terrorist so I'm not going to buy into your prejudiced agenda, as this will be my last post on this topic of whether Brievek is a terrorist or not. Ask yourself the question whether these people were terrorised or not and maybe you will come up with a different view.
I have given you a definition of a terrorist from the Collins dictionary. If you wish to argue please forward your concerns to them.
As I sad Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes and they don't have to have a towel on their head and a beard to be a terrorist
Of course a terrorist is one who commits terrorism. I asked you what your definition of terrorism was.
That you will not provide one when there are many available for you to provide speaks volumes of how weak your case is.
Using your non definition we can call anybody and everything a terrorist. Hell, you avoiding the provision of a simple definition can be construed as terrorism as you are showing your intent to label those whom you dislike as terrorists. In short, it neuters the word when used so nonchalantly as you bandy it about.
So, stop the cop out please and tell us what definition of terrorism you use. Myself, I use the FBI one when determining what is and what is not terrorism.
------ This thread is Locked ------
A LAY Judge in the trial of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway was dramatically dismissed today after it emerged that he had written on his facebook account that the mass murderer should face the death penalty.
The main judge, Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, told the court: "We understand that the events affected many people... and the statement came before he was a lay judge, but the statements may weaken trust in his impartiality".
She then appointed Anne Wisloff to replace Thomas Indrebro.
Lay judge Thomas Indreboe – who normally works as a receptionist - had publicly said that the only "just" punishment for Breivik is the death penalty.
The main judge, Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, told the court: "We understand that the events affected many people... and the statement came before he was a lay judge, but the statements may weaken trust in his impartiality".
She then appointed Anne Wisloff to replace Thomas Indrebro.
Lay judge Thomas Indreboe – who normally works as a receptionist - had publicly said that the only "just" punishment for Breivik is the death penalty.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: Of course a terrorist is one who commits terrorism. I asked you what your definition of terrorism was.
That you will not provide one when there are many available for you to provide speaks volumes of how weak your case is.
Using your non definition we can call anybody and everything a terrorist. Hell, you avoiding the provision of a simple definition can be construed as terrorism as you are showing your intent to label those whom you dislike as terrorists. In short, it neuters the word when used so nonchalantly as you bandy it about.
So, stop the cop out please and tell us what definition of terrorism you use. Myself, I use the FBI one when determining what is and what is not terrorism.
That you will not provide one when there are many available for you to provide speaks volumes of how weak your case is.
Using your non definition we can call anybody and everything a terrorist. Hell, you avoiding the provision of a simple definition can be construed as terrorism as you are showing your intent to label those whom you dislike as terrorists. In short, it neuters the word when used so nonchalantly as you bandy it about.
So, stop the cop out please and tell us what definition of terrorism you use. Myself, I use the FBI one when determining what is and what is not terrorism.
I gave you what definition of terrorism I use and suggested you contacted them to argue your point.
By that definition.
He is a terrorist.
The people were terrorised.
He terrorised people.
You can choose to go by the FBI definition if you wish. That's your choice. Thankfully the FBI do not control the world nor anyone who produces a dictionary, or any other country that suffers terrorism and has laws against it. Your argument is futile and prejudiced.
Now if you wish to start a thread on the word terrorist I will gladly participate. So I ask you kindly to take your agenda from this thread. Thanks.
------ This thread is Locked ------
vinny1967: I gave you what definition of terrorism I use and suggested you contacted them to argue your point.
By that definition.
He is a terrorist.
The people were terrorised.
He terrorised people.
You can choose to go by the FBI definition if you wish. That's your choice. Thankfully the FBI do not control the world nor anyone who produces a dictionary, or any other country that suffers terrorism and has laws against it. Your argument is futile and prejudiced.
Now if you wish to start a thread on the word terrorist I will gladly participate. So I ask you kindly to take your agenda from this thread. Thanks.
By that definition.
He is a terrorist.
The people were terrorised.
He terrorised people.
You can choose to go by the FBI definition if you wish. That's your choice. Thankfully the FBI do not control the world nor anyone who produces a dictionary, or any other country that suffers terrorism and has laws against it. Your argument is futile and prejudiced.
Now if you wish to start a thread on the word terrorist I will gladly participate. So I ask you kindly to take your agenda from this thread. Thanks.
I see what the problem is. In post #105 when you used Collins dictionary to look up 'terrorism' you accidentally misspelled it and entered 'terrorist' and got this;
vinny1967:
Definitions
noun
a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
((as modifier) ? terrorist tactics
Collin's dictionary.
Definitions
noun
a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
((as modifier) ? terrorist tactics
Collin's dictionary.
Here, I corrected your mistake and entered 'terrorism' and here is what I got;
""Terrorism
noun
-systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
-the act of terrorizing
-the state of being terrorized ""
As he was using one time only violence with no chance of repetition to kill people with his incarceration or death being certain and a 'systematic' repeat of this action being extremely unlikely the fear would be minimal as would the ability to achieve some goal other than killing people and, a by product of the actual goal of committing violence it is not the first.
As he was killing people, most of whom were in shock and the state of being murdered he could not realize the second.
And likewise the third.
Vinny, by your own dictionary, he is not a terrorist but rather a murderer.
------ This thread is Locked ------
This is a good site to follow what's happening. There has been a clarification from the interpretors.
He is claiming not guilty by necessity as opposed to self defence.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: I see what the problem is. In post #105 when you used Collins dictionary to look up 'terrorism' you accidentally misspelled it and entered 'terrorist' and got this;
Here, I corrected your mistake and entered 'terrorism' and here is what I got;
""Terrorism
noun
-systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
-the act of terrorizing
-the state of being terrorized ""
As he was using one time only violence with no chance of repetition to kill people with his incarceration or death being certain and a 'systematic' repeat of this action being extremely unlikely the fear would be minimal as would the ability to achieve some goal other than killing people and, a by product of the actual goal of committing violence it is not the first.
As he was killing people, most of whom were in shock and the state of being murdered he could not realize the second.
And likewise the third.
Vinny, by your own dictionary, he is not a terrorist but rather a murderer.
Here, I corrected your mistake and entered 'terrorism' and here is what I got;
""Terrorism
noun
-systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
-the act of terrorizing
-the state of being terrorized ""
As he was using one time only violence with no chance of repetition to kill people with his incarceration or death being certain and a 'systematic' repeat of this action being extremely unlikely the fear would be minimal as would the ability to achieve some goal other than killing people and, a by product of the actual goal of committing violence it is not the first.
As he was killing people, most of whom were in shock and the state of being murdered he could not realize the second.
And likewise the third.
Vinny, by your own dictionary, he is not a terrorist but rather a murderer.
So I would assume by your definition that suicide bombers are not terrorists. The right wing spin that the west put on things thru brain washed people like yourself is nauseating. We categorise people based on our prejudices and fear and use spin to label people who do not see things our way.
Now I ask you kindly again to take your argument elsewhere
This is the last time I will be asking.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: I see what the problem is. In post #105 when you used Collins dictionary to look up 'terrorism' you accidentally misspelled it and entered 'terrorist' and got this;
Here, I corrected your mistake and entered 'terrorism' and here is what I got;
""Terrorism
noun
-systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
-the act of terrorizing
-the state of being terrorized ""
As he was using one time only violence with no chance of repetition to kill people with his incarceration or death being certain and a 'systematic' repeat of this action being extremely unlikely the fear would be minimal as would the ability to achieve some goal other than killing people and, a by product of the actual goal of committing violence it is not the first.
As he was killing people, most of whom were in shock and the state of being murdered he could not realize the second.
And likewise the third.
Vinny, by your own dictionary, he is not a terrorist but rather a murderer.
Albert listen to the phone call from the lass who was hiding in the toilet.Here, I corrected your mistake and entered 'terrorism' and here is what I got;
""Terrorism
noun
-systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
-the act of terrorizing
-the state of being terrorized ""
As he was using one time only violence with no chance of repetition to kill people with his incarceration or death being certain and a 'systematic' repeat of this action being extremely unlikely the fear would be minimal as would the ability to achieve some goal other than killing people and, a by product of the actual goal of committing violence it is not the first.
As he was killing people, most of whom were in shock and the state of being murdered he could not realize the second.
And likewise the third.
Vinny, by your own dictionary, he is not a terrorist but rather a murderer.
Sheer TERROR....Shespoke to the police for some time as he shot folk around her and even when he entered the toilet.
Her terror was obvious...So y your defination HE DID ACHIEVE the second..
Like I said you are splitting hairs and the question I have is
WHY?
Are you afraid to admit that right wing terror groups exist???
Sadly we have Terror groups from every faction a factof life in todays world.
------ This thread is Locked ------
vinny1967: So I would assume by your definition that suicide bombers are not terrorists. The right wing spin that the west put on things thru brain washed people like yourself is nauseating. We categorise people based on our prejudices and fear and use spin to label people who do not see things our way.
Now I ask you kindly again to take your argument elsewhere
This is the last time I will be asking.
Now I ask you kindly again to take your argument elsewhere
This is the last time I will be asking.
Why would you assume that the systematic application of random violence designed to induce terror and lack of confidence in a governments ability to carry out it's main function which is to protect it's tax base so the political arm of the network can exploit it not be terrorism as defined by Collins to you?
You display an incredible bigotry to what is fact and what you wish to be fact and this is proven by your unwillingness to even define what a simple definition is, preferring to make your own up to suit your reality. Myself, I use facts when forming an opinion and am certainly not afraid to look a word up to understand what it means.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: Why would you assume that the systematic application of random violence designed to induce terror and lack of confidence in a governments ability to carry out it's main function which is to protect it's tax base so the political arm of the network can exploit it not be terrorism as defined by Collins to you?
You display an incredible bigotry to what is fact and what you wish to be fact and this is proven by your unwillingness to even define what a simple definition is, preferring to make your own up to suit your reality. Myself, I use facts when forming an opinion and am certainly not afraid to look a word up to understand what it means.
You display an incredible bigotry to what is fact and what you wish to be fact and this is proven by your unwillingness to even define what a simple definition is, preferring to make your own up to suit your reality. Myself, I use facts when forming an opinion and am certainly not afraid to look a word up to understand what it means.
It's called reality Alberta. You should try it sometime. Thankfully the trial is not under the auspices of the FBI and what they decree a terrorist should be.
No bigotry here Alberta as I'm not the one trying a futile argument to prove their view of the world. There are terrorists on both sides of the religious and cultural divide. I suggest you get over it
------ This thread is Locked ------
patmac: Albert listen to the phone call from the lass who was hiding in the toilet.
Sheer TERROR....Shespoke to the police for some time as he shot folk around her and even when he entered the toilet.
Her terror was obvious...So y your defination HE DID ACHIEVE the second..
Sheer TERROR....Shespoke to the police for some time as he shot folk around her and even when he entered the toilet.
Her terror was obvious...So y your defination HE DID ACHIEVE the second..
So his intent was to induce terror in a gal in the toilet then? From what I see it was a reaction from the intended deed which was nothing other than to kill a bunch of people. Is the gal in the toilet in his manifesto? Was his intent to kill people and hope some managed to access their cell phones? From what I see he set about to kill a bunch of people pure and simple with no followup, no collusion with any other group and no exploitation of the fear factor from his non existent group.
patmac: Like I said you are splitting hairs and the question I have is WHY?
Are you afraid to admit that right wing terror groups exist???Sadly we have Terror groups from every faction a factof life in todays world.
Are you afraid to admit that right wing terror groups exist???Sadly we have Terror groups from every faction a factof life in todays world.
No I am not afraid to admit this however, a guy who is not part of a group and who did not commit terrorism is not a terrorist but a murderer. Just as many acts people call terrorism are not terrorism. I cited acts against the US and British forces by insurgents that are not terrorism but insurgency. Acts of terrorism have to have a message intended to garner a political end from people not involved in the act as perpetrators or victims themselves. Here there was not one other than him killing a bunch of people. There was no randomness to it other than the victims time of day attending the location as he is only one person, one nutjob with no followup group to continue the treat that it could happen again hence, the terror factor is zero and the sorrow portion of it is stark reality.
------ This thread is Locked ------
vinny1967: It's called reality Alberta. You should try it sometime. Thankfully the trial is not under the auspices of the FBI and what they decree a terrorist should be.
No bigotry here Alberta as I'm not the one trying a futile argument to prove their view of the world. There are terrorists on both sides of the religious and cultural divide. I suggest you get over it
No bigotry here Alberta as I'm not the one trying a futile argument to prove their view of the world. There are terrorists on both sides of the religious and cultural divide. I suggest you get over it
You couldn't even define terrorism and now attempt to lecture me? I gave you two definitions, one from your own dictionary and you still can't deal with either.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: You couldn't even define terrorism and now attempt to lecture me? I gave you two definitions, one from your own dictionary and you still can't deal with either.
I was going to ban you because you are pushing your own agenda here and it is blinkered in the extreme. But I will leave you to it because you are showing your prejudices and fears here for all to see
I suggest you take your case to the Norwegian authorities who are charging him with 'acts of terror' and all the media outlets that actually concur that the guy is a terrorist as you won't be receiving any more fuel from me to push your blatant right wing agenda.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: You couldn't even define terrorism and now attempt to lecture me? I gave you two definitions, one from your own dictionary and you still can't deal with either.
Albert all you have done is deny deny he is part of a group read his comments....Knights Templar for one. Can't see why you do this Albert makes you look ....MMMMMMMMMMM
------ This thread is Locked ------
Leanybean: You are absolutely correct Vinny. Breivik knew exactly what he was doing. That is not catagorized as insane. See
I'm sorry I am only replying to you now as it has taken me some time to understand and filter your link.
I don't think Breivek is insane either but I think we are quick to categorise people who don't have our morals as insane because we cannot understand how someone can commit an atrocity like this.
As for your link I find it very disturbing to say the least. I see nothing in your link that proves anything and all I see is a blog by someone who is spreading hatred against Israel and the Jewish people.
------ This thread is Locked ------
Albertaghost: You couldn't even define terrorism and now attempt to lecture me? I gave you two definitions, one from your own dictionary and you still can't deal with either.
World English Dictionary
terrorism ('t?r??r?z?m)
— n
1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
2. the act of terrorizing
3. the state of being terrorized
Isn't the above exactly what Breivek was doing to unarmed teenagers.
------ This thread is Locked ------
This Thread is locked
More Threads
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
who shaped your life?
Kultur-multur
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Have it both ways!
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
Trump Elementary
s*xual skills
Say Anything Again
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Related Forums
- One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
- Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
- who shaped your life?
- Kultur-multur
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- Have it both ways!
- What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
- Trump Elementary
- s*xual skills
- Say Anything Again
His lawyers are courting publicity so they should be easily contactable. Your information will be invaluable to them in their case.
Definitions
noun
a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
((as modifier) ? terrorist tactics
Collin's dictionary.Personally I fail to understand how people do not see this guy as a terrorist. I think its a futile argument and raises all sorts of questions about prejudice and fear. The world is full of nut jobs on both sides of the religious and cultural divide
I asked what definition of terrorism you were using. Not what the the definition of a terrorist was.
As for his defense, he has pleaded innocent of terrorism. As you are so sure of his guilt of being a terrorist and employing terrorism it would be a shoe in for you to recite what definition of terrorism you are using to make this case a fact.
Can you or are you simply blustering and really have no definition other than just throwing a word out?