4 ms·

A better way? Easy: what Norway did after Breivik. If a country is aping the Israelis, it's failed as a democracy.

by ucee054 13y ago

rmc 13y ago
That was one lone crazy person. Are there other members of Breivik's gang out there? Totally different from an organisation of many people (possibly growing).
- berntb 13y ago
  ucee054 made the same claim re Breivik a year ago when I posted the same argument -- he didn't answer that same point then either. ucee054 earlier also argued for jewish conpiracy theories, etc. Here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4059752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4059752 Edit: Brevity, spelling error, link.
- ucee054 13y ago
  Breivik was a zionist nut job, there are many others out there that fit that classification, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League. Similarly, Tim McVeigh was a militia nut job, there are many others like him out there, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Republican_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Republican_Army However, these are white people, so when they blow something up they are just "one lone crazy person". When 19 brown people bring down a couple of trade towers, suddenly it becomes "totally different"? To be consistent with your logic, the Clinton administration should have carpet bombed Elohim City and suspended human rights in Oklahoma, including keeping innocent people locked up without trial, until they got every last Klan nut/ Church nut/Gun nut out there.
  - berntb 13y ago
    Breivik was a single crazy -- not a set of organized terror groups with thousands of members (and hundreds of millions of dollars in finances) which regularly execute complex simultaneous bombings, etc, etc. That makes the existing alQ 2001 at least a million times larger problem than Breivik in his cell 2013. AGAIN, Breivik is only a member of a group in his own mind -- and in your mind. (I seriously wonder if there are more similarities.) Usually at this point, I write "But you know that you're arguing nonsensically, troll". I can't do that in your case, so instead: I hope you're just a sad loser failing to troll and not such a hatemonger that you make bad arguments just to get some support for your conspiracies. Edit: Clarity.
    - ucee054 13y ago
      You assert Breivik was a single crazy but you ignore the fact that his kahanist buddies in outfits like the JDL are well funded organized groups. You also ignore that in terms of the domestic terror threat, according to the FBI organized jewish loons are a larger threat than yemeni moslem loons - and that jewish loons aren't being locked up indefinitely http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-2135229.html http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-2135229.html You also ignore that when the US was in a similar situation, during the McVeigh episode, the US did not respond towards the militiamen by locking them up without trial. They used normal law enforcement procedures. And McVeigh was not a lone wolf. That lot are organized and well funded But if you didn't ignore these parallels, you'd be forced to see that there is an alternative called "the rule of law". And you wouldn't like that. You prefer the policy "lock up the towelheads and throw away the key". And you call me a hatemonger.
      - berntb 13y ago
        Just so I get your position right: 1. Al Qaeda can be described as 19 brown people -- not thousands of members (and hundreds of millions in finances) with repeated attempts at mass murder through terrorism. 2. If the Western world wasn't racist -- Breivik should have gotten as much attention as al Q, despite his whole gang (he, himself) being in jail. 3. This attention of Breivik is merited because: Two groups of crazies in USA, which did some terror a few decades ago, might have similar opinions as Breivik (according to you). (One of those groups even have a different religion and the other group's members could hardly find Norway on a map.) I'm sorry, my position is still that you're either a really pathetic troll or some sick hatemonger. But I did stop laughing, your existence is too depressing.
        ucee054 13y ago
        No you idiot. I was replying to rmc when he said Breivik was a lone nut job. I gave another example of McVeigh, who was definitely not a lone nut job, and pointed out that the same rule applies. And so the McVeigh example invalidates rmc's point by itself. Are you really that stupid that you keep missing the point?
- ucee054 13y ago
  By the way, I grew up in London in the 80s. The IRA were bombing Britain all the time. There are still no trash cans in the London subway system today; they were taken out because the IRA might leave bombs in them. The IRA even hit Downing Street and one of Thathcer's political conferences. There might have been stepped up security in Northern Ireland itself, but security in London during that period was far less than during this stupid "War on Terror", and there weren't all these stupid "anti-terror" laws. The regular police didn't even carry guns back then. Thatcher tried to use a regulation banning the voices of Sinn Fein from being put on air because they were advocating terror. The BBC just played the footage and used voice-over artists to say their words. And this was how 80's Britain responded to the IRA, which was a large and well funded organization. So I have an existence proof that you don't have to turn into a police state as a response to terrorism, because I grew up in a country that chose another option.
  - berntb 13y ago
    This is the third time this is posted to you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts
    - ucee054 13y ago
      For the last time in the 80s it did not work like you are implying. During the "War on Terror" an old man and anti-Nazi RAF veteran was arrested under "anti-terror" laws for holding an anti-Blair placard at a demonstration. During the IRA years, well ... Find me an example of "security" that egregious during the period I mentioned, I double dog dare you. Stuff was blowing up all the time but the people simply did not get all paranoid. Business as usual. By the way, your wiki link refers to laws that were put in place in the 70s. If I recall correctly, Britain tried full scale internment in the 70s and got bitch slapped in court by Ireland, and then stopped. That may be the reason Britain was acting in a saner way in the 80s, but I wasn't debating the history of it. I was simply saying that 80s Britain was an existence proof of a society not responding to terrorism by turning into a police state. The IRA terrorism hadn't stopped in the 70s, by the way - it continued into the 90s making it far longer-lasting than Afghanistan. And finally, the topic was Guantanamo Bay, where people have been held without trial for more than a decade. You are trying to compare that to British emergency powers that held people for one week? You can post that wikipedia page a fifth and sixth time, it still won't change anything. It will just make you look stupider and more of a liar.
gitmothrow 13y ago
Breivik? You mean the nationalist ethnic Norwegian domestic terrorist? Yeah that's the same situation as Islamist Saudi and Jordanian nationals flying planes into buildings. So brave.

A better way? Easy: what Norway did after Breivik. If a country is aping the Israelis, it's failed as a democracy.

by ucee054 13y ago

A better way? Easy: what Norway did after Breivik. If a country is aping the Israelis, it's failed as a democracy.

rmc 13y ago

That was one lone crazy person. Are there other members of Breivik's gang out there? Totally different from an organisation of many people (possibly growing).

berntb 13y ago
ucee054 made the same claim re Breivik a year ago when I posted the same argument -- he didn't answer that same point then either. ucee054 earlier also argued for jewish conpiracy theories, etc. Here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4059752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4059752 Edit: Brevity, spelling error, link.
ucee054 13y ago
Breivik was a zionist nut job, there are many others out there that fit that classification, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League. Similarly, Tim McVeigh was a militia nut job, there are many others like him out there, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Republican_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Republican_Army However, these are white people, so when they blow something up they are just "one lone crazy person". When 19 brown people bring down a couple of trade towers, suddenly it becomes "totally different"? To be consistent with your logic, the Clinton administration should have carpet bombed Elohim City and suspended human rights in Oklahoma, including keeping innocent people locked up without trial, until they got every last Klan nut/ Church nut/Gun nut out there.
- berntb 13y ago
  Breivik was a single crazy -- not a set of organized terror groups with thousands of members (and hundreds of millions of dollars in finances) which regularly execute complex simultaneous bombings, etc, etc. That makes the existing alQ 2001 at least a million times larger problem than Breivik in his cell 2013. AGAIN, Breivik is only a member of a group in his own mind -- and in your mind. (I seriously wonder if there are more similarities.) Usually at this point, I write "But you know that you're arguing nonsensically, troll". I can't do that in your case, so instead: I hope you're just a sad loser failing to troll and not such a hatemonger that you make bad arguments just to get some support for your conspiracies. Edit: Clarity.
  - ucee054 13y ago
    You assert Breivik was a single crazy but you ignore the fact that his kahanist buddies in outfits like the JDL are well funded organized groups. You also ignore that in terms of the domestic terror threat, according to the FBI organized jewish loons are a larger threat than yemeni moslem loons - and that jewish loons aren't being locked up indefinitely http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-2135229.html http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-2135229.html You also ignore that when the US was in a similar situation, during the McVeigh episode, the US did not respond towards the militiamen by locking them up without trial. They used normal law enforcement procedures. And McVeigh was not a lone wolf. That lot are organized and well funded But if you didn't ignore these parallels, you'd be forced to see that there is an alternative called "the rule of law". And you wouldn't like that. You prefer the policy "lock up the towelheads and throw away the key". And you call me a hatemonger.
    - berntb 13y ago
      Just so I get your position right: 1. Al Qaeda can be described as 19 brown people -- not thousands of members (and hundreds of millions in finances) with repeated attempts at mass murder through terrorism. 2. If the Western world wasn't racist -- Breivik should have gotten as much attention as al Q, despite his whole gang (he, himself) being in jail. 3. This attention of Breivik is merited because: Two groups of crazies in USA, which did some terror a few decades ago, might have similar opinions as Breivik (according to you). (One of those groups even have a different religion and the other group's members could hardly find Norway on a map.) I'm sorry, my position is still that you're either a really pathetic troll or some sick hatemonger. But I did stop laughing, your existence is too depressing.
      - ucee054 13y ago
        No you idiot. I was replying to rmc when he said Breivik was a lone nut job. I gave another example of McVeigh, who was definitely not a lone nut job, and pointed out that the same rule applies. And so the McVeigh example invalidates rmc's point by itself. Are you really that stupid that you keep missing the point?
ucee054 13y ago
By the way, I grew up in London in the 80s. The IRA were bombing Britain all the time. There are still no trash cans in the London subway system today; they were taken out because the IRA might leave bombs in them. The IRA even hit Downing Street and one of Thathcer's political conferences. There might have been stepped up security in Northern Ireland itself, but security in London during that period was far less than during this stupid "War on Terror", and there weren't all these stupid "anti-terror" laws. The regular police didn't even carry guns back then. Thatcher tried to use a regulation banning the voices of Sinn Fein from being put on air because they were advocating terror. The BBC just played the footage and used voice-over artists to say their words. And this was how 80's Britain responded to the IRA, which was a large and well funded organization. So I have an existence proof that you don't have to turn into a police state as a response to terrorism, because I grew up in a country that chose another option.
- berntb 13y ago
  This is the third time this is posted to you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts
  - ucee054 13y ago
    For the last time in the 80s it did not work like you are implying. During the "War on Terror" an old man and anti-Nazi RAF veteran was arrested under "anti-terror" laws for holding an anti-Blair placard at a demonstration. During the IRA years, well ... Find me an example of "security" that egregious during the period I mentioned, I double dog dare you. Stuff was blowing up all the time but the people simply did not get all paranoid. Business as usual. By the way, your wiki link refers to laws that were put in place in the 70s. If I recall correctly, Britain tried full scale internment in the 70s and got bitch slapped in court by Ireland, and then stopped. That may be the reason Britain was acting in a saner way in the 80s, but I wasn't debating the history of it. I was simply saying that 80s Britain was an existence proof of a society not responding to terrorism by turning into a police state. The IRA terrorism hadn't stopped in the 70s, by the way - it continued into the 90s making it far longer-lasting than Afghanistan. And finally, the topic was Guantanamo Bay, where people have been held without trial for more than a decade. You are trying to compare that to British emergency powers that held people for one week? You can post that wikipedia page a fifth and sixth time, it still won't change anything. It will just make you look stupider and more of a liar.

gitmothrow 13y ago

Breivik? You mean the nationalist ethnic Norwegian domestic terrorist? Yeah that's the same situation as Islamist Saudi and Jordanian nationals flying planes into buildings. So brave.