quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
One Norwegian police official is referring to this terrorist attack as "Norway's Oklahoma City bombing". (http://news.yahoo.com/gunmans-background-puzzles-police-norway-044701742.html).

Random thought:

Almost every Right-wing terrorist attack in recent years seems to have at it's core the terrorist's belief that he is "saving" his country from his country's Left. For example, the Right-wing terrorist who shot up the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee in 2008 because of his belief that all Unitarians are Leftists and by killing them, he was performing an act of patriotism. (Man admits church shooting, says liberals should die)

quote:

According to the affidavit requesting to search Adkisson's home, the suspect told investigators liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country. Adkisson also blamed Democrats for the country's decline, according to the affidavit. "He felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets," the affidavit said. "Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement ... he would then target those that had voted them into office."

As nephandi mentioned, it is believed that the Norwegian terrorist may have attacked the kids at the camp becuase he believed the camp was training the kids to be liberals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
One Norwegian police official is referring to this terrorist attack as "Norway's Oklahoma City bombing". (http://news.yahoo.com/gunmans-background-puzzles-police-norway-044701742.html).

Random thought:

Almost every Right-wing terrorist attack in recent years seems to have at it's core the terrorist's belief that he is "saving" his country from his country's Left. For example, the Right-wing terrorist who shot up the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee in 2008 because of his belief that all Unitarians are Leftists and by killing them, he was performing an act of patriotism. (Man admits church shooting, says liberals should die)

quote:

According to the affidavit requesting to search Adkisson's home, the suspect told investigators liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country. Adkisson also blamed Democrats for the country's decline, according to the affidavit. "He felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets," the affidavit said. "Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement ... he would then target those that had voted them into office."

As nephandi mentioned, it is believed that the Norwegian terrorist may have attacked the kids at the camp becuase he believed the camp was training the kids to be liberals.

Interesting point. I think it was Aristotle who said everyone acts for what they believe is the good in some respect. I asked on another thread about the appalling butchery of a child if someone could define evil because the word was used a lot. Its a common term but not an easy one to grasp. Its not at all an accepted idea but as far as I can see a British philosopher called Hobbes essentially defined evil, although he didn't quite refer to it as that. He referred to the idea of self-regard, where others may be better in some respect but none are as wise as I. Its a pretty banal ordinary definition to explain some of the most monsterous appalling acts but it seems to fit. Its a bit similar to the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intention". If there is some truth in this then it leads to the disturbing notion that this man, as with left-wing and Islamic terrorists, believed he was doing right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Wow! They just got proved WRONG, in Spades!

quote:


They said it took the Police 1 and 1/2 hours just to get there and then they had to commandeer boats to get to the island!

quote:


Are the Police even armed in Norway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Interesting point. I think it was Aristotle who said everyone acts for what they believe is the good in some respect. I asked on another thread about the appalling butchery of a child if someone could define evil because the word was used a lot. Its a common term but not an easy one to grasp. Its not at all an accepted idea but as far as I can see a British philosopher called Hobbes essentially defined evil, although he didn't quite refer to it as that. He referred to the idea of self-regard, where others may be better in some respect but none are as wise as I. Its a pretty banal ordinary definition to explain some of the most monsterous appalling acts but it seems to fit. Its a bit similar to the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intention". If there is some truth in this then it leads to the disturbing notion that this man, as with left-wing and Islamic terrorists, believed he was doing right.

I don't subscribe to the word "evil", except in quotes, because of its religious implications, but your post brings you full circle to moral equivalency.

quote:


Of course he thought he was doing right (unless insane to the point where he would act either randomly or in direct opposition to what he thought was right). If you didnt believe that your code of ethics/morality was superior then you would change it (except in the instance where you think your different moral code is exactly equal on every point). Since the only tenable position for EVERYONE is that their morals are superior, if you do anything but defend them in every way possible then you dont have the courage to stand up for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

I don't subscribe to the word "evil", except in quotes, because of its religious implications, but your post brings you full circle to moral equivalency. Of course he thought he was doing right (unless insane to the point where he would act either randomly or in direct opposition to what he thought was right). If you didnt believe that your code of ethics/morality was superior then you would change it (except in the instance where you think your different moral code is exactly equal on every point). Since the only tenable position for EVERYONE is that their morals are superior, if you do anything but defend them in every way possible then you dont have the courage to stand up for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Interesting point. I think it was Aristotle who said everyone acts for what they believe is the good in some respect. I asked on another thread about the appalling butchery of a child if someone could define evil because the word was used a lot. Its a common term but not an easy one to grasp. Its not at all an accepted idea but as far as I can see a British philosopher called Hobbes essentially defined evil, although he didn't quite refer to it as that. He referred to the idea of self-regard, where others may be better in some respect but none are as wise as I. Its a pretty banal ordinary definition to explain some of the most monsterous appalling acts but it seems to fit. Its a bit similar to the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intention". If there is some truth in this then it leads to the disturbing notion that this man, as with left-wing and Islamic terrorists, believed he was doing right.

I don't subscribe to the word "evil", except in quotes, because of its religious implications, but your post brings you full circle to moral equivalency.

I understand the problem in using the word evil although many use it in non-metaphysical terms. I don't think its moral equivalency though because I'm not trying to compare one act with another, rather the mindset of such people that choose to carry out such deeds regardless of political or religious persuasion.

quote:


Of course he thought he was doing right (unless insane to the point where he would act either randomly or in direct opposition to what he thought was right). If you didnt believe that your code of ethics/morality was superior then you would change it (except in the instance where you think your different moral code is exactly equal on every point). Since the only tenable position for EVERYONE is that their morals are superior, if you do anything but defend them in every way possible then you dont have the courage to stand up for them.

When people are confronted with the horror of such acts it can be hard to comprehend that the perp thinks they are acting for the good in some respect. I agree that part of the issue is a belief that their code of ethics is superior but it also goes further then merely standing up for them because a certain quite select number of people are willing to commit extreme acts of violence to further their views.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Yes, and usually because their moral code tells them that it is their duty to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
It's sort of funny how conservatives with a history of moral absolutism become relativists when it is a fellow traveler commiting acts of terror.