RightWing Christian Terrorist Attack In Norway

Surprise surprise surprise! It wasn't Muslims that murdered 90+ people in Norway, but a Christian Fundamentalist with Right Wing views. I hope the FBI and Department of Homeland Security take note of this and start going after these death-cults. It's also interesting that congressman with the same ideology want to crash the world economy by refusing to raise the debt ceiling:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html?hp

OSLO — The Norwegian police on Saturday charged a 32-year-old man, whom they identified as a Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections, over the bombing of a government center here and a shooting attack on a nearby island that together left at least 91 people dead.

We are not sure whether he was alone or had help,” a police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised news conference, adding: “What we know is that he is right-wing and a Christian fundamentalist.” So far Mr. Breivik has not been linked to any anti-jihadist groups, he said.

He's probably a Glenn Beck fan.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on July 23, 2011 at 8:39am

A right-wing and a Christian fundamentalist? YES!! FINALLY!!! WOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!

Too bad 91 people had to die to absolutely metaphysically prove our point that Christians and Muslims are the same but shared sacrifice is what it takes. Thinking, too bad Gabrielle Giffords didn't die. We could have had gun control.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Che Pancho Villa on July 23, 2011 at 11:10am

No, no, no, Hillbilly - we don't want gun control - it's only guns that gives the people a chance against government oppression. If the US Government can have a M-1 Abrams Tank, then the people should be allowed to own one - we have all ready let the bastards erode the 2nd Amendment enough.

Just look at the Libyan people's problem with overthrowing Daffy Duck - although they are clearly in the majority - they haven't had the firepower to get-er-done as yet.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by can i change this later? on July 23, 2011 at 1:17pm

I'm not a gun lover, but...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on July 23, 2011 at 2:24pm

All joking aside, one of the most satisfying changes of opinion that I've seen these past ten years has been the angry Left's opinion on gun control. Sure it took Howard Dean running for president but the discussions on DU changed a lot of minds.

I may live to see the day when everyone would agree that self-defense is a God given Natural Right, given before we are born, and not a civil right given to us by the government.

Hearing that the only thing the people on the island could do to save themselves was to swim away is disappointing. Many of those people on the island might still be alive today if just some of them had been armed. The ideology of the killer would not have mattered one bit.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on July 23, 2011 at 7:18pm

I may live to see the day when everyone would agree that self-defense is a God given Natural Right, given before we are born, and not a civil right given to us by the government.

I really don't understand your point here. What's the difference between a civil right and a "God given Natural Right"?

Civil rights aren't given to people by the government. I don't know anybody that thinks they are. Civil rights are protection from the government and anyone else that would infringe upon them. The government has a responsibility to uphold and protect them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on July 23, 2011 at 7:37pm

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, such as constitutional rights, common law rights, and statutory rights, are bestowed under a particular political and legal system; they are relative to specific cultures and governments. Legal rights are enumerated in constitutions, in statutes (by a legislative body), in case law (especially in countries with a common law tradition), in treaties, and in administrative regulations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Action Jeans on July 23, 2011 at 8:04pm

You didn't say "legal rights". You said "civil rights". So far, when you define "God given Natural Rights" I don't see anything to distinguish them from civil rights. Civil rights are self-evident and inalienable.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by can i change this later? on July 23, 2011 at 7:36pm

I'm Change, not Left; and I was never angry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

The fate of the victims is sad. The ideology of the killer is ironic.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on July 24, 2011 at 1:37pm

You've never struck me as a member of the Angry Left. I suspect that you decidedly keep a bit of intellectual difference between yourself and them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Che Pancho Villa on July 24, 2011 at 11:52am

"Retaliation is related to nature and instinct, not to law. Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature."
Albert Camus The pretentious quote of the day

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GodHatesTrash on July 24, 2011 at 10:59pm

God, what a stupid bitch. 45 seconds before she figures out there's someone on a shooting spree. She's too stupid to carry, like most of the people that do.