10 ms·

10 years since the Utoya massacre in Norway

119 points by xaner4 5y ago

ksaua 5y ago
Here's the page in English: https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/english/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/english/
- neither_color 5y ago
  “APPROX. 18:30: The son of Trond Berntsen (the security guard and police officer who was among the first to be killed) is standing in the sea on the southern tip when he comes face to face with Breivik. The terrorist shoots and kills five people in front of him. ‘Don’t shoot me!', the boy shouts, doing all he can to demonstrate to the gunman how small he is. Breivik does not shoot the ten year-old. According to the testimony he will later give in court, Breivik decided not to shoot Berntsen because be believes that 'it is wrong to kill children'. When interrogated, Breivik will say that he spared the lives of the smallest children because they were too young to have been 'indoctrinated by the Labour Party” What kind of messed up mental gymnastics is that? I had no idea this whole rampage was about a political party; That makes it scarier because you can see this happening in any country where the fringes are being radicalized against each other.
  - dudul 5y ago
    Not sure I see the "mental gymnastics" here. Isn't it a usually accepted thing that young children have no clue? It makes "sense" (at least in the scope of Breivik's craziness) to consider that these kids were "victims" brought there by their parents or something. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "mental gymnastics". I think this expression usually applies when 2 contradicting /paradoxical statements are made in the same sentence.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Might be that he killed 33 children that day.
      - roel_v 5y ago
        I'm obviously not defending him, but those were 16-18 year olds who were already party members. My point is: it's easy to find flaws in the reasoning of extremists, and use that to show how "crazy" and "illogical" and "insane" they are, and thereby distance ourselves (mentally) far from them. What we need to do however is face the much more scary truth that even the people who commit atrocities are for the most part reasonable and (somewhat) intelligent people, with some sort of roots in "normal" society, who for some reason just get one idea in their head very strongly (and act on it), and this can happen to many (I won't say "all", but I would say "most") people. This sort of cases is not about isolated loners that we cannot possibly understand; freaks of nature who are not like the rest of us "normal" people. They can show up anywhere for reasons and through processes we just don't quite understand. But we have to not delude ourselves and see them as an "out group" - radicalization can happen to many people you would bump into in your street, every day.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Two 14 year olds, seven 15 year olds, eight 16 year olds, sixteen 17 year olds. I wasn't counting folks eighteen and over. He killed 33 children.
        roel_v 5y ago
        OK, 33 14-17 years olds who were already party members then... That doesn't materially change the point I made.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        The point you made seems to be remarkably overlapping with that it is ok to shoot children that are members of some political party, which I hope was not what you intended. You're 'obviously not defending the guy' with words that are pretty close to if not already across that border. When you step into the breach for some monster weigh your words a bit more carefully please.
    - neither_color 5y ago
      He was attacking a youth camp and shot many young teens(I didn’t read every slide but one example I saw was a 14 YO girl hit four times) so I don’t see a difference. I guess I’m just shocked at seeing a weird attempt at “ethics” from someone who would do something like that.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        In the ethics of evil, one can see that even evil acts are done for some false sense of ‘good’ by the doer.
      - meowface 5y ago
        Breivik likely saw himself as a very ethical and virtuous individuals. His reasoning there doesn't surprise me. He and some other mass killers may even feel as though they have a stronger personal code of ethics than most people. Their ethical philosophies and stances are just unfathomably twisted and corrupted, not unlike how cancer cells behave as if they're functioning rightfully.
      - magicalhippo 5y ago
        What he did was horrible and evil, but it was also extremely calculated and carefully planned. He knew full well what he did. For example, he researched which drugs he could take that would make it easier for him to shoot the kids[1]. He was not insane. He wasn't on a wild rampage. He had a specific goal in mind: to destroy the future of the labour party. [1]: https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/QJRjP/behring-breivik-var-paavirket-av-rusmidler https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/QJRjP/behring-breivik-var...
      - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
        He believes it's wrong to kill children, not teens. The age of 12 is approximately when people go from childhood to adolescence.
    - bitcurious 5y ago
      Historically 14 year olds were considered adults, though young. Look at the very many rites of manhood for an context - they used to mean something. Although not aligned with the contemporary definitions of child/adult, it’s not far fetched that a radical right-wing extremist would look to the past for his definitions, and thus see a difference between a 10 year old and a 14 year old.
  - unixhero 5y ago
    The terrorist also chose to not shoot one guy because "he looked like a right-wing person, due to their clothing etc and that he saw a little bit of himself in the guy"[0][1]. Raging madness. 0, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://www.tv2.no/a/13356020/ https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https:/... 1, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/WbyJ2/breivik-gjorde-en-tabbe-ved-aa-spare-meg https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https:/...
  - skrebbel 5y ago
    How entire goal was to eradicate the most promising young people of the Labour Party, ie the country's likely future leaders. Iirc his idea was when the most promising political talents are dead, the party has to settle for less and will lose votes. So it wasn't really mental gymnastics, it was a conscious attempt to curb a particular party's future. It's evil and it's nuts, but it makes logical sense. It's not dissimilar from genocide motives in that sense, just on a smaller scale.
    - BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
      And it largely worked. His party went on to win elections.
- dang 5y ago
  Changed from https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/. Thanks! Submitters: We have deep respect for other languages, but this is an English language site so please submit articles in English. It's hard enough to get readers to read the articles even when they are...
goldenkey 5y ago
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
ceejayoz 5y ago
Warning: There are some fairly graphic photos in here.
- ccakes 5y ago
  I can't help but think that if the actual impact of gun violence (and violence in general) was shown in the media, we'd have a lot less of it to deal with...
  - Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    Probably not though, gun violence is not caused by people not being aware of the consequences or the shock thereof. It's not even caused by gun ownership itself. There's a whole slew of issues behind gun violence in the US.
    - tk75x 5y ago
      It could cause people to take action around laws or other issues that contribute to gun violence - because they want less of it to occur.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Maybe, but it seems like people largely don't care enough to take action unless it has impacted them locally. Even then, many people have personal problems that affect them more directly that they tend to focus on. For example, genocide in Sudan was pretty heavily covered, including some graphic content. Yet we didn't do much of anything to fix it. There were not many people saying "send me over there so I can stop it". Most people always want someone else to fix the issue for them rather than take direct action themselves. We know that socioeconomic issues are the main drivers of gun violence and violence in general. Most people are not willing to address those issues through paying higher taxes (it's always tax some other person), volunteering, or even being neighborly. Many of the better off people do not live in the areas affected most by gun violence.
  - giantg2 5y ago
iratewizard 5y ago
The UX on this page is awful. The text fades in way too slowly and not at all in a useful or aesthetic way. It could win an award for creatively poor UX.
roschdal 5y ago
This massacre was a protest against multiculturalism and the spread of islam to Norway.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  "Protest" is very much the wrong word here.
neonnoodle 5y ago
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.
  - praptak 5y ago
    The paradox disappears when you treat tolerance as a peace treaty rather than a universal moral obligation.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    For context Karl Popper's quote on the paradox of tolerance: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." [0] [0] K. Popper (1945) 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'
    - smcl 5y ago
      Amazing that he anticipated "So much for the tolerant left" about 70 years before it became a widespread complaint
croes 5y ago
I remember how most were sure it was an islamistic assault. In the aftermath the press gave him to much room with pictures of him and citations from his "manifest". Even the attacker of the Christchurch mosque massacre referenced him. Ban his name and pictures, remember his victims instead.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  And in the news this morning it was called a "drama" or "tragedy", not a "right-wing terrorist attack" as it would have been called if it was done by muslims.
  - valdiorn 5y ago
    Not defending it, but I'm not sure the concept of "right-wing terrorism" was a commonly known concept at the time. People commit acts of terror for all types of reasons; holy wars, separatist movements and other political movements, etc. There had been attacks and events in the US for similar right wing reasons, but there wasn't really an umbrella term for this type of event at the time. The fact that this motive is now as commonly known as jihad terrorism is, is rather worrying.
    - croes 5y ago
      There is a long history of right wing terrorism, Timothy McVeigh committed the deadliest act of terrorism in the US until 9/11. In Italy right wing terrorists from the stay behind army Gladio committed several false flag attacks to prevent the rise of communist parties. 1980 a right wing extremist bombed at the Oktoberfest in Munich. Before 9/11 it was one of the dominant forms of terrorism. The movie The Sum of all fears is bases on the book of the same name. In the book the terrorists are muslim extremists, but they deemed the scenario as too unrealistic so they changed it to Neo Nazis for the movie.
- vixen99 5y ago
  Banning his name and pictures? On what basis? I guess you're not also asking for Stalin and Hitler plus a whole galaxy of mass killers who've massacred their way across the 20th century to join the list of banned killers? Or do they not qualify for banning because they killed orders of magnitude more people than the appalling Breivik? Should Breivik have killed more to qualify for banning. Yes, a ridiculous suggestion as with the idea of banning mention of him. There is probably even more work to do on Stalin's legacy not to mention the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Great_Purge_victims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Great_Purge_victims
foreigner 5y ago
Weapons purchased completely legally.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  This is not about gun control.
- foolinaround 5y ago
  Just state your point explicitly? As a thought experiment, do you think there would be so many casualities if this island was located in Texas, USA where socialists/labor party is also not very popular?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Very possibly. Even in Texas, a bunch of kids on a youth camping retreat probably aren't heavily armed and ready to do battle. The element of surprise helps, too. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shoo... (it is probably a safe assumption that a Baptist church in a small town in Texas had at least a couple armed congregants)
    - foolinaround 5y ago
      The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage. It would be great to have no bad guys, but they will always exist, and will not follow the laws no matter what. Laws should be written to enable good guys to protect themselves.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage. I don't find this as logical as you do, I think.
      - sofixa 5y ago
iamshs 5y ago
The fact that Breivik cited Hindu Nationalism in his manifesto went under-reported totally. The guys he cited are today on Twitter spewing the same hatred day after day. Hindu Nationalism now rules over India and they aren't going anywhere. World has changed so much within a decade.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. The body count it's racked up so far is genuinely shocking. One riot[0]in 2002 (some argue it was a pogrom) killed at least 1,000 people. Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing, since he was the chief minister of the area at the time. I only know about this because of "Behind the Bastards", I've never heard a lick about this stuff in my regular news channels. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. Was the Godhra train arson[1] where 100+ Hindu pilgrims including women and children were deliberately set afire by a Muslim mob ever covered by the Western press? This is what triggered the riots. > killed at least 1,000 people. So no Hindus were killed in the riots? Only Muslims? > Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing These people are Hinduphobes who deliberately lie about and malign Hindus, their religion, their culture and their leaders on every platform they can find. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > Was the Godhra train arson[1] where 100+ Hindu pilgrims including women and children were deliberately set afire by a Muslim mob every covered by the Western press? That's a pretty easy answer: the very first item in the bibliography of that Wiki article is from BBC News, and the Indian government says it wasn't arson. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm "We killed 1k people because you killed 50" isn't a great defense, even if it was arson.
haasted 5y ago
Anyone know what Norway will do when Breivik's 21 year prison sentence [0] is up in 10-12 years? Difficult to imagine him being released back into society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivi...
- pimterry 5y ago
  It's 21 years because that's the longest formal imprisonment sentence allowed for crimes (other than war crimes) in Norway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway. It doesn't mean that such prisoners are definitely released with 21 years - it can (and likely will) be extended indefinitely for as long as a prisoner remains dangerous to society: > If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the detention can be extended by five years at a time. Renewal of the detention every five years can in theory result in actual life imprisonment.
  - agency 5y ago
    It’s fascinating getting glimpses of other justice systems like this. Meanwhile in the US many states have three-strikes laws where you can get a mandatory life sentence for repeat offenses, even if the last offense is relatively minor or non-violent. Insanity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_L._Tyler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_L._Tyler
    - sershe 5y ago
      Why exactly is it insanity? I like the 3 strikes better (my only concern is drug crime and other non-crime) - 3 separate occasions of disregarding others' most basic rights establish a clear pattern; the society reciprocates by not respecting the rights of the criminal as it protects itself from them. It's only incidentally a punishment, it's really removal - in fact, humanistic removal, the more cost-effective one would be execution. Now, in case as unique and clear-cut as that of Breivik, I would advocate for an extremely rare application of actual punishment-punishment - e.g., keeping him alive for as long as possible while torturing him. As for three-strikes-society-removes-you, that's probably my favorite part of the justice system in the US.
rectang 5y ago
The headline of the English translation is "The Terror Attacks That Changed Norway". Did anything actually change? In the US, we're accustomed to mass killings not changing anything, and I'm curious if Utoya was different.
- BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
  It changed the Labour party, otherwise I don't see any evidence it changed Norway much.
- donquichotte 5y ago
  Maybe nothing needs to change -- it appears that this event was a statistical outlier, and making everybody's life worse to prevent low-probability events (e.g., flying after 9/11) is not necessarily a cost that a society is willing to bear.
mario_lopez 5y ago
"They tell Breivik to lie on the ground, and handcuff him. The terrorist tells them that one of his fingers hurt, and asks for a band aid." Wow. As chilling as this all is, I appreciate you sharing.
refurb 5y ago
Humans break sometimes and get violent. Just the other day a 16 year old student in Singapore used an axe to kill a 13 year old in a bathroom at school. They had never met.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  This was a crime planned for months, carried out with care, and based in ideology. Comparing it to a random act of violence is disingenuous.
  - refurb 5y ago
    You think some 16 year just randomly decided to bring an axe to school and kill someone? None of these are spontaneous.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      My school had an ax in the fire equipment locker, and even if a kid's bringing a weapon from home, it's hardly comparable to a multi-month construction of a bomb followed up by a multi-location terror attack on a political party with a whole-ass manifesto playing a role.
      - refurb 5y ago
        Not sure how your school is relevant, but this kid apparently bought it weeks before. Again, we’ll planned and probably considered for months.
Maphistow 5y ago
I don't understand why they mention the terrorist so much in this in memorial, also photos of him in combat gear. The majority of comments here are about him and his deeds; this is exactly the kind of thing these people want, to be remembered. Discussion about motives, political background are warranted but these people really should not be remembered by name or face.
- voisin 5y ago
  I concur. I have great respect for the PM of New Zealand and the media that subsequently followed who refused to name the shooters in the Christchurch mosque massacre. Also, the Canadian media that refused to name the Nova Scotia shooter.
foolinaround 5y ago
When ideologies are suppressed, they get pushed to the edges, where there is always some scum of society, who are disaffected and will latch on to it. The best way is to identify the roots behind what attracts the followers of these ideologies, address any root issues, and attack the premises behind the ideologies itself. Not talking to these incidents, but all over the world, people tend to violence when they feel that the system does not hear them.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  So what should the "system" have "heard" in this case? "I don't want Muslims in 'my' country"? What's the root issue that needs addressing here?
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    > what should the "system" have "heard" in this case? I have no dog in this fight, don't know much to be prescriptive of solutions for this case. A generic statement I made which holds true as such, is being downvoted. Just because I make this case, does not mean I know the solutions?
unixhero 5y ago
The guy was an incel (before the term existed) and also evolved to become raging mad (but not clinically insane).

119 points by xaner4 5y ago

Here's the page in English: https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/english/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/english/

neither_color 5y ago
“APPROX. 18:30: The son of Trond Berntsen (the security guard and police officer who was among the first to be killed) is standing in the sea on the southern tip when he comes face to face with Breivik. The terrorist shoots and kills five people in front of him. ‘Don’t shoot me!', the boy shouts, doing all he can to demonstrate to the gunman how small he is. Breivik does not shoot the ten year-old. According to the testimony he will later give in court, Breivik decided not to shoot Berntsen because be believes that 'it is wrong to kill children'. When interrogated, Breivik will say that he spared the lives of the smallest children because they were too young to have been 'indoctrinated by the Labour Party” What kind of messed up mental gymnastics is that? I had no idea this whole rampage was about a political party; That makes it scarier because you can see this happening in any country where the fringes are being radicalized against each other.
- dudul 5y ago
  Not sure I see the "mental gymnastics" here. Isn't it a usually accepted thing that young children have no clue? It makes "sense" (at least in the scope of Breivik's craziness) to consider that these kids were "victims" brought there by their parents or something. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "mental gymnastics". I think this expression usually applies when 2 contradicting /paradoxical statements are made in the same sentence.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Might be that he killed 33 children that day.
    - roel_v 5y ago
      I'm obviously not defending him, but those were 16-18 year olds who were already party members. My point is: it's easy to find flaws in the reasoning of extremists, and use that to show how "crazy" and "illogical" and "insane" they are, and thereby distance ourselves (mentally) far from them. What we need to do however is face the much more scary truth that even the people who commit atrocities are for the most part reasonable and (somewhat) intelligent people, with some sort of roots in "normal" society, who for some reason just get one idea in their head very strongly (and act on it), and this can happen to many (I won't say "all", but I would say "most") people. This sort of cases is not about isolated loners that we cannot possibly understand; freaks of nature who are not like the rest of us "normal" people. They can show up anywhere for reasons and through processes we just don't quite understand. But we have to not delude ourselves and see them as an "out group" - radicalization can happen to many people you would bump into in your street, every day.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Two 14 year olds, seven 15 year olds, eight 16 year olds, sixteen 17 year olds. I wasn't counting folks eighteen and over. He killed 33 children.
        roel_v 5y ago
        OK, 33 14-17 years olds who were already party members then... That doesn't materially change the point I made.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        The point you made seems to be remarkably overlapping with that it is ok to shoot children that are members of some political party, which I hope was not what you intended. You're 'obviously not defending the guy' with words that are pretty close to if not already across that border. When you step into the breach for some monster weigh your words a bit more carefully please.
  - neither_color 5y ago
    He was attacking a youth camp and shot many young teens(I didn’t read every slide but one example I saw was a 14 YO girl hit four times) so I don’t see a difference. I guess I’m just shocked at seeing a weird attempt at “ethics” from someone who would do something like that.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      In the ethics of evil, one can see that even evil acts are done for some false sense of ‘good’ by the doer.
    - meowface 5y ago
      Breivik likely saw himself as a very ethical and virtuous individuals. His reasoning there doesn't surprise me. He and some other mass killers may even feel as though they have a stronger personal code of ethics than most people. Their ethical philosophies and stances are just unfathomably twisted and corrupted, not unlike how cancer cells behave as if they're functioning rightfully.
    - magicalhippo 5y ago
      What he did was horrible and evil, but it was also extremely calculated and carefully planned. He knew full well what he did. For example, he researched which drugs he could take that would make it easier for him to shoot the kids[1]. He was not insane. He wasn't on a wild rampage. He had a specific goal in mind: to destroy the future of the labour party. [1]: https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/QJRjP/behring-breivik-var-paavirket-av-rusmidler https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/QJRjP/behring-breivik-var...
    - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
      He believes it's wrong to kill children, not teens. The age of 12 is approximately when people go from childhood to adolescence.
  - bitcurious 5y ago
    Historically 14 year olds were considered adults, though young. Look at the very many rites of manhood for an context - they used to mean something. Although not aligned with the contemporary definitions of child/adult, it’s not far fetched that a radical right-wing extremist would look to the past for his definitions, and thus see a difference between a 10 year old and a 14 year old.
- unixhero 5y ago
  The terrorist also chose to not shoot one guy because "he looked like a right-wing person, due to their clothing etc and that he saw a little bit of himself in the guy"[0][1]. Raging madness. 0, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://www.tv2.no/a/13356020/ https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https:/... 1, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/WbyJ2/breivik-gjorde-en-tabbe-ved-aa-spare-meg https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=https:/...
- skrebbel 5y ago
  How entire goal was to eradicate the most promising young people of the Labour Party, ie the country's likely future leaders. Iirc his idea was when the most promising political talents are dead, the party has to settle for less and will lose votes. So it wasn't really mental gymnastics, it was a conscious attempt to curb a particular party's future. It's evil and it's nuts, but it makes logical sense. It's not dissimilar from genocide motives in that sense, just on a smaller scale.
  - BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
    And it largely worked. His party went on to win elections.
dang 5y ago
Changed from https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/ https://www.vg.no/spesial/2021/22-juli/. Thanks! Submitters: We have deep respect for other languages, but this is an English language site so please submit articles in English. It's hard enough to get readers to read the articles even when they are...

goldenkey 5y ago

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

ceejayoz 5y ago

Warning: There are some fairly graphic photos in here.

ccakes 5y ago
I can't help but think that if the actual impact of gun violence (and violence in general) was shown in the media, we'd have a lot less of it to deal with...
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Probably not though, gun violence is not caused by people not being aware of the consequences or the shock thereof. It's not even caused by gun ownership itself. There's a whole slew of issues behind gun violence in the US.
  - tk75x 5y ago
    It could cause people to take action around laws or other issues that contribute to gun violence - because they want less of it to occur.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Maybe, but it seems like people largely don't care enough to take action unless it has impacted them locally. Even then, many people have personal problems that affect them more directly that they tend to focus on. For example, genocide in Sudan was pretty heavily covered, including some graphic content. Yet we didn't do much of anything to fix it. There were not many people saying "send me over there so I can stop it". Most people always want someone else to fix the issue for them rather than take direct action themselves. We know that socioeconomic issues are the main drivers of gun violence and violence in general. Most people are not willing to address those issues through paying higher taxes (it's always tax some other person), volunteering, or even being neighborly. Many of the better off people do not live in the areas affected most by gun violence.
- giantg2 5y ago

iratewizard 5y ago

The UX on this page is awful. The text fades in way too slowly and not at all in a useful or aesthetic way. It could win an award for creatively poor UX.

roschdal 5y ago

This massacre was a protest against multiculturalism and the spread of islam to Norway.

ceejayoz 5y ago
"Protest" is very much the wrong word here.

neonnoodle 5y ago

Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.
- praptak 5y ago
  The paradox disappears when you treat tolerance as a peace treaty rather than a universal moral obligation.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  For context Karl Popper's quote on the paradox of tolerance: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." [0] [0] K. Popper (1945) 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'
  - smcl 5y ago
    Amazing that he anticipated "So much for the tolerant left" about 70 years before it became a widespread complaint

croes 5y ago

I remember how most were sure it was an islamistic assault. In the aftermath the press gave him to much room with pictures of him and citations from his "manifest". Even the attacker of the Christchurch mosque massacre referenced him. Ban his name and pictures, remember his victims instead.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
And in the news this morning it was called a "drama" or "tragedy", not a "right-wing terrorist attack" as it would have been called if it was done by muslims.
- valdiorn 5y ago
  Not defending it, but I'm not sure the concept of "right-wing terrorism" was a commonly known concept at the time. People commit acts of terror for all types of reasons; holy wars, separatist movements and other political movements, etc. There had been attacks and events in the US for similar right wing reasons, but there wasn't really an umbrella term for this type of event at the time. The fact that this motive is now as commonly known as jihad terrorism is, is rather worrying.
  - croes 5y ago
    There is a long history of right wing terrorism, Timothy McVeigh committed the deadliest act of terrorism in the US until 9/11. In Italy right wing terrorists from the stay behind army Gladio committed several false flag attacks to prevent the rise of communist parties. 1980 a right wing extremist bombed at the Oktoberfest in Munich. Before 9/11 it was one of the dominant forms of terrorism. The movie The Sum of all fears is bases on the book of the same name. In the book the terrorists are muslim extremists, but they deemed the scenario as too unrealistic so they changed it to Neo Nazis for the movie.
vixen99 5y ago
Banning his name and pictures? On what basis? I guess you're not also asking for Stalin and Hitler plus a whole galaxy of mass killers who've massacred their way across the 20th century to join the list of banned killers? Or do they not qualify for banning because they killed orders of magnitude more people than the appalling Breivik? Should Breivik have killed more to qualify for banning. Yes, a ridiculous suggestion as with the idea of banning mention of him. There is probably even more work to do on Stalin's legacy not to mention the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Great_Purge_victims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Great_Purge_victims

foreigner 5y ago

Weapons purchased completely legally.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
This is not about gun control.
foolinaround 5y ago
Just state your point explicitly? As a thought experiment, do you think there would be so many casualities if this island was located in Texas, USA where socialists/labor party is also not very popular?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Very possibly. Even in Texas, a bunch of kids on a youth camping retreat probably aren't heavily armed and ready to do battle. The element of surprise helps, too. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shoo... (it is probably a safe assumption that a Baptist church in a small town in Texas had at least a couple armed congregants)
  - foolinaround 5y ago
    The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage. It would be great to have no bad guys, but they will always exist, and will not follow the laws no matter what. Laws should be written to enable good guys to protect themselves.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > The logical statement is that more the good guys have guns, the lesser chance the bad guys have to inflict damage. I don't find this as logical as you do, I think.
    - sofixa 5y ago

iamshs 5y ago

The fact that Breivik cited Hindu Nationalism in his manifesto went under-reported totally. The guys he cited are today on Twitter spewing the same hatred day after day. Hindu Nationalism now rules over India and they aren't going anywhere. World has changed so much within a decade.

ashtonkem 5y ago
Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. The body count it's racked up so far is genuinely shocking. One riot[0]in 2002 (some argue it was a pogrom) killed at least 1,000 people. Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing, since he was the chief minister of the area at the time. I only know about this because of "Behind the Bastards", I've never heard a lick about this stuff in my regular news channels. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots
- sinyug 5y ago
  > Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. Was the Godhra train arson[1] where 100+ Hindu pilgrims including women and children were deliberately set afire by a Muslim mob ever covered by the Western press? This is what triggered the riots. > killed at least 1,000 people. So no Hindus were killed in the riots? Only Muslims? > Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing These people are Hinduphobes who deliberately lie about and malign Hindus, their religion, their culture and their leaders on every platform they can find. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > Was the Godhra train arson[1] where 100+ Hindu pilgrims including women and children were deliberately set afire by a Muslim mob every covered by the Western press? That's a pretty easy answer: the very first item in the bibliography of that Wiki article is from BBC News, and the Indian government says it wasn't arson. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm "We killed 1k people because you killed 50" isn't a great defense, even if it was arson.

haasted 5y ago

Anyone know what Norway will do when Breivik's 21 year prison sentence [0] is up in 10-12 years? Difficult to imagine him being released back into society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivi...

pimterry 5y ago
It's 21 years because that's the longest formal imprisonment sentence allowed for crimes (other than war crimes) in Norway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway. It doesn't mean that such prisoners are definitely released with 21 years - it can (and likely will) be extended indefinitely for as long as a prisoner remains dangerous to society: > If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the detention can be extended by five years at a time. Renewal of the detention every five years can in theory result in actual life imprisonment.
- agency 5y ago
  It’s fascinating getting glimpses of other justice systems like this. Meanwhile in the US many states have three-strikes laws where you can get a mandatory life sentence for repeat offenses, even if the last offense is relatively minor or non-violent. Insanity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockyer_v._Andrade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_L._Tyler https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_L._Tyler
  - sershe 5y ago
    Why exactly is it insanity? I like the 3 strikes better (my only concern is drug crime and other non-crime) - 3 separate occasions of disregarding others' most basic rights establish a clear pattern; the society reciprocates by not respecting the rights of the criminal as it protects itself from them. It's only incidentally a punishment, it's really removal - in fact, humanistic removal, the more cost-effective one would be execution. Now, in case as unique and clear-cut as that of Breivik, I would advocate for an extremely rare application of actual punishment-punishment - e.g., keeping him alive for as long as possible while torturing him. As for three-strikes-society-removes-you, that's probably my favorite part of the justice system in the US.

rectang 5y ago

The headline of the English translation is "The Terror Attacks That Changed Norway". Did anything actually change? In the US, we're accustomed to mass killings not changing anything, and I'm curious if Utoya was different.

BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
It changed the Labour party, otherwise I don't see any evidence it changed Norway much.
donquichotte 5y ago
Maybe nothing needs to change -- it appears that this event was a statistical outlier, and making everybody's life worse to prevent low-probability events (e.g., flying after 9/11) is not necessarily a cost that a society is willing to bear.

mario_lopez 5y ago

"They tell Breivik to lie on the ground, and handcuff him. The terrorist tells them that one of his fingers hurt, and asks for a band aid." Wow. As chilling as this all is, I appreciate you sharing.

refurb 5y ago

Humans break sometimes and get violent. Just the other day a 16 year old student in Singapore used an axe to kill a 13 year old in a bathroom at school. They had never met.

ceejayoz 5y ago
This was a crime planned for months, carried out with care, and based in ideology. Comparing it to a random act of violence is disingenuous.
- refurb 5y ago
  You think some 16 year just randomly decided to bring an axe to school and kill someone? None of these are spontaneous.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    My school had an ax in the fire equipment locker, and even if a kid's bringing a weapon from home, it's hardly comparable to a multi-month construction of a bomb followed up by a multi-location terror attack on a political party with a whole-ass manifesto playing a role.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Not sure how your school is relevant, but this kid apparently bought it weeks before. Again, we’ll planned and probably considered for months.

Maphistow 5y ago

I don't understand why they mention the terrorist so much in this in memorial, also photos of him in combat gear. The majority of comments here are about him and his deeds; this is exactly the kind of thing these people want, to be remembered. Discussion about motives, political background are warranted but these people really should not be remembered by name or face.

voisin 5y ago
I concur. I have great respect for the PM of New Zealand and the media that subsequently followed who refused to name the shooters in the Christchurch mosque massacre. Also, the Canadian media that refused to name the Nova Scotia shooter.

foolinaround 5y ago

When ideologies are suppressed, they get pushed to the edges, where there is always some scum of society, who are disaffected and will latch on to it. The best way is to identify the roots behind what attracts the followers of these ideologies, address any root issues, and attack the premises behind the ideologies itself. Not talking to these incidents, but all over the world, people tend to violence when they feel that the system does not hear them.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
So what should the "system" have "heard" in this case? "I don't want Muslims in 'my' country"? What's the root issue that needs addressing here?
- foolinaround 5y ago
  > what should the "system" have "heard" in this case? I have no dog in this fight, don't know much to be prescriptive of solutions for this case. A generic statement I made which holds true as such, is being downvoted. Just because I make this case, does not mean I know the solutions?

unixhero 5y ago

The guy was an incel (before the term existed) and also evolved to become raging mad (but not clinically insane).