Who influenced Breivik to commit his heinous act?

  • News
  • Thread starter Willowz
  • Start date
In summary, the video discusses Breivik's acquaintance's theory that Breivik was brainwashed by right wing extremists. It also discusses some of the possible reasons behind his act. The reporter seems to be overreaching in some of their conclusions, but the information is still informative.
  • #1
Willowz
197
1
I just saw this video about some acquaintance Breivik had and I'm lost as to why he did what he did. Earlier I thought he was just plain crazy. But, now I'm not so sure.

Just to be clear. I'm not willing to understand why he did it as the act itself is beyond any sensible analysis. Just who or what compelled him to do it.


The video should explain what I'm getting at. In it his acquaintance hints that there may have been some group of people behind this that brainwashed him? If you look at things this way then these people should also be culpable (to a similar degree) for Breiviks actions. Furthermore, these groups that exist in Oslo should be dealt with in a mannerly fashion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I've never been approached by any such groups, but I live in central Oslo.

This guy is just speculating, but that is allowed.
 
  • #3
It sounds like the fellow in the interview new him about 25 to 30 years ago? The reporter was over-reaching a bit - IMO.
 
  • #4
But then again, I have my own circuit and habitual places in Oslo that might be free of these pests.
 
  • #5
The way I understood his motivations is like this: Breivik had lost his belief in democratic process, but was still politically active. He then made the decision, that since he cannot influence the society through democracy, he might as well start influencing it through terror.

Understanding criminals' motives and thinking can be controversial, because "understanding" is easily confused with "accepting". But I think I just succeeded in explaining Breivik's thinking in brief and neutral fashion?

For the preemptive point of view, I would assert that if Breivik had believed that he can achieve something through democratic process, he would have stayed away from terrorism.

Why then did he lose his faith in democracy? That's the mystery.

----

One news article revealed, that the manifest revealed, that Breivik had been beaten by a Pakistani gang when he was young. That incident could have shaped his world view.
 
  • #6
jostpuur said:
Why then did he lose his faith in democracy? That's the mystery.

Not so much a mystery if you want to start flicking through his http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89a_1311444384" on the problems with Europe, multiculturalism and how to deal with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
ryan_m_b said:
Not so much a mystery if you want to start flicking through his http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89a_1311444384" on the problems with Europe, multiculturalism and how to deal with it.

Oh well, I guess that's obvious in the end.

Back to the original topic: I don't believe in the hypothesis that some right wing extremist group would have "manipulated" Breivik into to committing the terrorist act.

They way I understood this is that Breivik did have some connections to some groups or parties, but apparently he decided to abandon these groups, because for some reason he became disillusioned by them.

So, to me it seems that the right wing groups were too "moderate" for Breivik...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Perhaps he stopped believing in the power of the democratic process because he didn't want to believe in it, having a romantization of violence as the ultimate political tool.
 
  • #9
We could also ask "what made him do it"? This is pure speculation, because an amateur cannot make a medical diagnosis through Internet, but I'm just telling what I think:

http://static.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/breivikkauneusjuttu2807JL_503_ul.jpg (On the right is a photograph taken on Monday. On the left is some older posing picture.)

Considering the way he looks from front now, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy has got a tumor in his head.
 
  • #10
jostpuur said:
We could also ask "what made him do it"? This is pure speculation, because an amateur cannot make a medical diagnosis through Internet, but I'm just telling what I think:

http://static.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/breivikkauneusjuttu2807JL_503_ul.jpg (On the right is a photograph taken on Monday. On the left is some older posing picture.)

Considering the way he looks from front now, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy has got a tumor in his head.
Or, a person looks quite differently when they are in their early 20s and their early 30s.

Those "boyish" Anders pictures are those he himself has chosen to represent himself to the world with.
 
  • #11
arildno said:
Or, a person looks quite differently when they are in their early 20s and their early 30s.

Yes, but IMO he looks like he's above 40.

This is how I would put some stuff together:

Fact: Breivik has committed an act that is incomprehensible for ordinary folks.

Fact: His eye balls point at different directions. (I haven't encountered evidence, that they have always pointed so.)

Fact: He has admitted using anabolic steroids.

Hypothesis: Possibly he has also abused anabolic steroids, since he isn't a serious bodybuilder who would know what he's doing.

My opinion: He looks like at least 10 years older than what he really is.

Considering the factors mentioned above, I would come up with:

Hypothesis: He has a tumor in his head.

Not a rigorous deduction, but I'm just telling that that would make sense. I can admit that I hope he has a tumor in his head, because then all this would make more sense.
 
  • #12
I find it interesting that on TV, in conversations and even here on PF people are rationalising Breiviks behaviour with all sorts of hypothesis such as he's mentally ill, he's ****ed up on drugs, he's got a brain tumour etc. I can't help but think that if he had been a radical muslim people wouldn't be questioning that he committed the crimes in the name of his religion.

Personally I think he did all this because he fervently believes in his ideology, the fact that he hasn't used the word "god" has thrown people off the automatic free-passes that religion usually get's an allowed people to view how mental his ideologies really are.
 
  • #13
The islamic terrorism makes lot more sense that Breivik's act. The western world has been running oil crusades against the islamic world, and imposed imperial policies with violence, so it is no wonder that the islamic militants have responded to the war with a war.

Breivik's act is lot more horrendous than the terrorist acts of the islamists.
 
  • #14
jostpuur said:
The islamic terrorism makes lot more sense that Breivik's act. The western world has been running oil crusades against the islamic world, and imposed imperial policies with violence, so it is no wonder that the islamic militants have responded to the war with a war.

Breivik's act is lot more horrendous than the terrorist acts of the islamists.

I'm not going to play terrorist top trumps but the defining difference here is that for Islamic terrorists (and I am using this definition to mean terrorists who commit terrorism in the name of Islam not terrorists who commit terrorism and happen to be Islamic) are embarking on a holy war. Their ideology is focused around the idea of a God, Breivik's ideology wasn't.

NOTE: I am aware however of the Christian influence and ideas inherent within Breivik's ideology i.e. returning Europe to a culturally Christian state but IMO given what we know now he was not motivated because of religious ideology but because of political ideology.
 
  • #15
jostpuur said:
The islamic terrorism makes lot more sense that Breivik's act. The western world has been running oil crusades against the islamic world, and imposed imperial policies with violence, so it is no wonder that the islamic militants have responded to the war with a war.

Breivik's act is lot more horrendous than the terrorist acts of the islamists.
There is no room for analysis/rationalising in ideologies.
 
  • #16
It was not my intention to speculate that some tumor could have caused this all. Surely his conservative knights templar ideology and a struggle against "cultural marxism" played a key role. I was merely thinking that the final cause could have been a combination of non-mainstream ideology and a medical condition.

I'll just emphasize what I said, and hopefully succeed in not making stuff more complicated:

I can admit that I hope he has a tumor in his head, because then all this would make more sense.
 
  • #17
Stuff from Scandinavian media:

I just read that in Norway a defendant has right to refuse from psychiatric examination, and so far Breivik has used this right. His lawyer has explained, that Breivik doesn't trust Norwegian psychiatrists, and has demanded foreign ones.

It is not clear to me if this psychiatric examination means all medical examination in this context.

It seems that this is a topic of which we'll hear more later.
 
  • #18
jostpuur said:
Stuff from Scandinavian media:

I just read that in Norway a defendant has right to refuse from psychiatric examination, and so far Breivik has used this right. His lawyer has explained, that Breivik doesn't trust Norwegian psychiatrists, and has demanded foreign ones.

It is not clear to me if this psychiatric examination means all medical examination in this context.

It seems that this is a topic of which we'll hear more later.
ABB is fairly well-informed about Norway, and probably knows what foreigners do not, namely the extreme authority psychiatrists have in determining whether a person is fit to go on trial, or is to be judged capable of standing trial.
In many other countries trials are held even if the defendant is a raving lunatic, and the psychiatrists' judgments are only brought in once a verdict is fallen.

In Norway, the psychiatrists can close a trial before it is held, and as the publicity beast ABB is, I'm sure he desperately wants a full, open trial of him.

Thus, this might possibly be a tactic from ABB to ensure that his lawyer does not influence the psychiatrists in judging him insane, which probably would be easier if they are fellow Norwegians.
Geir Lippestad is a brilliant lawyer, and a conscientious one as well, and his remarks to the press that he personally regards ABB insane is probably a fishing tactic to see if he can get his client into less austere conditions at a mental hospital than ABB will face in a prison cell.

Of course, "austerity" is a relative term, Norwegian prisons are quite luxurious, by American standards.Apart from this tactical duel with his own lawyer, it might be that ABB wants a foreign psychiatrist so that this psychiatrist will provide a better vehicle in his home country (say, the US) for ABBs ideas and personality, i.e, "spreading the word", so to say.
Anders Behring Breivik is a narcissist, and wants to maximize publicity about his acts and intentions.
What he does NOT want is to be swiftly relegated to the loony bin and pass into the memory hole for the world outside.Another possible point might be that ABB perfectly well knows that there are no psychiatrists in Norway who have first hand experience with serial killers like himself.
He wants, perhaps, be judged sane by a top international expert, rather than insane by some local shrink. (Obviously, he regards himself as sane..)
 
Last edited:
  • #19
This is sad, Arildno. The gaming of Norway's legal system is just icing on the cake of ABB's savage acts. Is this guy going to be held in luxury for the rest of his life, even if the judiciary feels that he is an ongoing threat and can extend his sentences?
 
  • #20
turbo said:
This is sad, Arildno. The gaming of Norway's legal system is just icing on the cake of ABB's savage acts. Is this guy going to be held in luxury for the rest of his life, even if the judiciary feels that he is an ongoing threat and can extend his sentences?
Well he's clearly insane and delusional. There's no point in torturing him.
 
  • #21
Willowz said:
Well he's clearly insane and delusional. There's no point in torturing him.
Torture? This guy is going to be living in luxury the rest of his life in contrast to what probably billions of people have.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Evo said:
Torture? This guy is going to be living in luxory the rest of his life in contrast to what probably billions of people have.
Ok. Then, tell us what kind of punishment do insane people deserve? I think what you call luxurious surrounding may be in reality an asylum.
 
  • #23
Willowz said:
Ok. Then, please tell us what kind of punishment Brevik deserves? (open question)
I can't say because it would violate forum rules.
 
  • #24
ryan_m_b said:
I find it interesting that on TV, in conversations and even here on PF people are rationalising Breiviks behaviour with all sorts of hypothesis such as he's mentally ill, he's ****ed up on drugs, he's got a brain tumour etc. I can't help but think that if he had been a radical muslim people wouldn't be questioning that he committed the crimes in the name of his religion.

I agree that it is quite hard to call him insane in a "my brain made me do it" way. That he could focus on a plan for so many years, that he seems from his writings to have a fairly balanced view of himself, that he could carry out the plan to its conclusion, that he gave himself up at the end...this is going to be very difficult to explain with the usual labels, even psychopathy, narcissism, asperger's, that people are throwing around.

He seems more like a conventional terrorist/religious/political fanatic - someone who really just believes in a cause and will go to any extreme in a systematic fashion because of that.

The difference is that such a mindset usually needs a strong social context. Which is where extremist political or religious beliefs come in. But also most terrorists turn out to be strongly socially connected. They grew up in the same village or attended the same university. So candidate terrorists might be everywhere in some society, but it takes a group to work each other up to the level of acting on beliefs.

Breivik clearly acted alone. But in this modern age, with the internet and computer games, etc, perhaps he became stoked up via this virtual community. He could spin a justifying web of ideas from the "weak connections" that the internet encourages.

So it is not that Breivik is brain mad (though clearly he could be autistic spectrum, a wee bit psychopathically detached in the connectivity of his ventromedial prefrontal cortex and amygdala, a trifle narcissist). But he could be an example of the internet's ability to amplify known social constructionist phenomena (like the manufacture of willing terrorists), coupled to the means to act (his access to recipes for fertiliser bombs, to guns to do the job).

His writings do seem to rule out any simple insanity plea.

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Breivik-describes-his-personal-interests.html


Norway shooting: Anders Behring Breivik describes his personal interests
In a section of his 1500-page 'war plan' setting out a massacre of nearly 100 people, Anders Behring Breivik answers in miniscule detail questions about his personality.


Q: Can you describe your strengths and flaws as an individual?

I consider myself to be a laid back type and quite tolerant on most issues. Due to the fact that I have been exposed to decades of multicultural indoctrination I feel a need to emphasise that I am not in fact a racist and never have been. My Godmother (being baptised when I was 15 years old), Amelia Jimenez and her husband, came to Norway as political refugees from Chile. In retrospect I understood that they were Marxist political activists but I didn’t comprehend these issues at the time.

Our two families have been very close throughout my childhood and youth. I’ve had several non-Norwegian and Muslim friends. I spent a lot of time with Onor, a Turk, Jonathan an Eritrean, Raol and Natalie from Chile, Arsalan Ahmad Sohail, Faizal and Wazim from Pakistan. I’ve had dozens of non-Norwegian friends during my younger years, Bashir from Somalia, Pablo from Chile, Odd Erling – adopted from Columbia, Lene – adopted from India have been good friends and a couple of them still are today.

Q: Can you describe your strengths and flaws as an individual

A: I’m an extremely patient and a very positively minded individual. I have obviously changed my ways over the years and am now driven by idealistic goals and work for the interests of my countrymen and all Europeans. Most people would not acknowledge the work yet (nor are they likely to appreciate it during my lifetime) but this is an irrelevant fact for me. With time they will understand what is going on around them and that what we are trying to accomplish will benefit not only them, but most importantly their children and grandchildren.
Related Articles

As for current flaws in my personality I guess have many stereotypical flaws. F example; I sound quite self righteous at times and I don’t like admitting it when I’m wrong, although I usually do. I still have a relatively inflated ego, with a constant need to feed on an intellectual level.

This is a quite common flaw and I try to suppress it although know I fail as most people do. Also, over the years I’ve generally been perceived as quite arrogant (even downright unpleasant at times, the last few years). This is likely due to the fact that I do not care as much as I did for creating or preserving social relationships due to my life choice. I guess it is also due the way I choose my rhetorical approaches, which is to a certain degree only an indirect defensive mechanism.

I, as most people, like to think I have a superb self confidence. But people who show signs of arrogance usually often use deliberate defensive manifestation to camouflage intellectual or social insecurity or perhaps they just don’t care. I guess the root to a majority of human flaws is linked to mans fundamentally flawed nature. We want acknowledgment, appreciation and/or love so we strive to be as perfect as we can be.

These human instincts often undermine the need for a pragmatical mindset. As for social skills or skills facilitating interaction and communication with oterhs; I know I mastered them a lot better before I started my self-engulfing studies several years ago. Social skills is an art form that requires continuous practice, and many of the people I know are masters at it. I know I could be as well but it would require a different lifestyle.

I do not accept or acknowledge many of the established “social rules” as I view it as irrelevant noise which takes us away from what is needed of us at this point in time. In any case; a majority of devout intellectuals have significant social flaws due to the fact that their choice of life (theoretical analysis) usually results in a scenario where they are “unplugged” from the “game” for too long.

At which point they would need at least a year or two studying/updating the fundaments of social rhetorical engagement). In depth analysis and theoretical studies doesn’t exactly go hand in hand with advancing your social skills which is more related to the skills of interaction and communication; sales, entertainment and manipulation. Unfortunately, many of my friends who are masters at it are apolitical and usually end up wasting their superb social skills on manipulating women into one night stands. If I were to focus on the social aspects of the conservative revolution (instead of the intellectual) I would rather use these abilities for something useful; for political consolidation/recruitment purposes.

However, it is very hard to be a master at theoretical analysis and master social skills as it is in many ways the anti-thesis of each other. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a flaw but the area of social skills I have neglected the most is; “Game” interaction - PC small talk, entertaining skills/PC humour. I simply do not want to waste my limited time on BS or irrelevant social noise.

And an example of how organised he was (not a usual trait of the criminally insane) is how he inserted disclaimers that his manifesto was just a work of imagination.

3. A Declaration of pre-emptive War (book 3)
LEGAL DISCLAIMER (for certain chapters in Book 2 and Book: 3. A Declaration of pre-emptive War):
Book 3, “A Declaration of preemptive War” and certain chapters in book 2 in this compendium, titled “2083”, and all related research files describes a hypothetical response to a perceived threat (so called cultural Marxist/multiculturalist atrocities and the threat of Islamisation). As such, it is a fictional description regarding how it could be like if Islam would be dominant in Europe. The concept of the story/plot is based on what it would be like if certain Christian/conservative/nationalist resistance groups/individuals chose to oppose these so called perceived threats and enemies. It describes in shocking detail how they would most likely rationalise/think/justify/argue and behave towards these perceived threats/enemies. This books chapter 3 describes how a “fictional” resistance group is emerging and how it would operate from the so called “Phase 1 through Phase 3” in order to prevent these perceived threats and atrocities from futher manifesting and to prevent an alleged future Muslim takeover. It also describes specifically how this hypothetical fictional group, “PCCTS, Knights Templar”, would choose to respond towards the so called ”enablers” or the so called “cultural Marxist/multiculturalist” elites that are allegedly allowing millions of Muslims to enter Europe.The book contains detailed strategies (guerrilla tactics, instructions to execute, political campaigns etc.) which normally would be partly incriminatory to anyone who published or distributed the book (had it not been fiction). It also describes indirect and direct armed and non-armed strategies towards these so-called “traitors” – referred to as the cultural Marxists/ multiculturalists. The motivation for this “fiction-writer-approach” is to contribute to create a new type of innovative writing style. By defining, in a horrifically detailed way, a fictional scenario, the reader will be shocked due to the “hopefully” credible and extremely detailed elaborations. It should be noted that the author, as a sci-fi enthusiast, wanted to bring and create a complete new writing style that has the potential to shock the reader with an incredibly credible fictional plot (written in first, second and third person narrative). T
 
  • #25
Willowz said:
Well he's clearly insane and delusional. There's no point in torturing him.

Clearly insane? Nonsense. He is a smart man who has planned this well ahead of time and knew EXACTLY what he was doing. His believed that what he was going to do was the correct course of action. I can easily see how he could sacrifice himself given such beliefs. The motives may be different from religious fanatics, but the power of belief is equal.
 
  • #26
Ok, then he is not so clearly insane. But, insane in-deed.
 
  • #27
Oh and this is from Breviks lawyer.

Breivik sees himself as a warrior and savior of the Western world, and is likely insane.

Anyway, you can do your own armchair psychoanalysis.
 
  • #28
Willowz said:
Ok, then he is not so clearly insane. But, insane in-deed.

From wikipedia on Insanity:

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including becoming a danger to themselves and others, though not all such acts are considered insanity.

Also:

Most courts accept a major mental illness such as psychosis but will not accept the diagnosis of a personality disorder for the purposes of an insanity defense. The second question is whether the mental illness interfered with the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong. That is, did the defendant know that the alleged behavior was against the law at the time the offense was committed.

He knew it was illegal. He knew how to tell right from wrong in a legal sense. He had full control over himself. He is not insane in the slightest.

Oh and this is from Breviks lawyer.

Breivik sees himself as a warrior and savior of the Western world, and is likely insane.

Anyway, you can do your own armchair psychoanalysis.

Doesn't matter how he sees himself in my opinion. If you can understand the difference between right and wrong in a legal sense, and you have control over yourself, then you are not insane. (All in my own opinion of course)
 
  • #29
Funny, murderers in the US *want* to be found insane and incompetant to stand trial so they can go to a hospital instead of prison.

Things are either so alien in Norway that it's hard for people in the West to comprehend, or this guy has some really bizarre notions. A psychiatrist from another country is not going to matter as far as the opinion that the world has about him. I guess I would need to read more about what he thinks the advantage to him would be.
 
  • #30
It seems that Norway is very different from the USA.
 
  • #31
This man is not insane in the slightest... and he would not want to be declared insane. He wants publicity in order to highlight his 'revolution' against Islam. If he gets declared insane, it undermines his position (slightly, the type of people that will listen to him and follow won't probably care) but it'll limit the amount of time he has in the spotlight.

If it's a full trial he has time to give speeches etc. etc.. AFAIK though the police are moving to get the judge in making the trial not public? Have the succeeded? I hope so.

I'm not entirely sure why people are jumping the gun to declare he's insane but anyways if any persons on this forum would like to argue that he IS mentally ill then by all means go ahead. You can use any level of disease but they have to be medically valid. Saying "clearly he's batgarbage crazy he shot kids" isn't going to work, I don't know of any mental illness which causes specifically people to shoot kids and blow up buildings, but I do know that many people are capable of these things being perfectly sane.

If you don't know what types of mental illness there are try looking up the "DSM" (APA) or "ICD-10" (WHO) You will find a comprehensive list of all of what is considered to be a mental disorder. Then take this definition and apply it to the case on why the disease would be severe enough to exclude him from a trial.

As a side note, I'm not definitive that this man is not mentally ill but from what I've read and relative to my studies I will say based on that I do not think he is insane.

Also, give it up with this ridiculous notion that he's going to be living in luxury. Have you talked to the judges Evo? Somehow convinced them to give you an opinion on what they'll do to him once they find him guilty. Good to know.
 
  • #32
zomgwtf said:
Also, give it up with this ridiculous notion that he's going to be living in luxury. Have you talked to the judges Evo? Somehow convinced them to give you an opinion on what they'll do to him once they find him guilty. Good to know.

In fact, it is true that Norwegian prisons would seem luxurious in contrast to the US. But that is another sign that Norway is about the world's most enlightened nation (it helps they have all that oil money, but they use it wisely).

The US is a famously punitive society. It is not a "Western" nation if you check its incarceration rates. It beats off Rwanda and Russia to be the biggest locker-upper by a country mile.

http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate

Here anyway is a comment on prison conditions comparing the two countries.

COMMENTING on a shared link to a Time slideshow offering a tour of Norway's Halden prison, the "world's most human prison", one of my Facebook friends says, "If you prefer comfort to liberty, go to Norway and commit murder. You could get 21 years in what looks like a nice dorm." A good number of Americans, it seems, are agitated by the possibility that Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass-murderer who gunned down scores of kids at an isolated summer camp, might end up at such a luxe detention facility. In this segment on Norway's "heavenly prison", the folks at Fox News seem sort of boggled by the idea that prisons might be anything other than the squalid overcrowded rape pens where human offal in America is sent to fester out of sight.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/demo...=3&fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/plushandunuslapunishment
 
  • #33
Many of you are steadfast that this man is not insane. I did not believe that too at the beginning of this thread, but now I think he is.

If he isn't insane what is he? Another unibomber?
 
  • #34
Willowz said:
If he isn't insane what is he? Another unibomber?

I didn't know this about the Unabomber!

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

He also participated in a multiple-year personality study conducted by Dr. Henry Murray, an expert on stress interviews.[10] Students in Murray's study were told they would be debating personal philosophy with a fellow student.[11] Instead they were subjected to a "purposely brutalizing psychological experiment"[11] stress test, which was an extremely stressful, personal, and prolonged psychological attack. During the test, students were taken into a room, strapped into a chair and connected to electrodes that monitored their physiological reactions, while facing bright lights and a two-way mirror. Each student had previously written an essay detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations: the essays were turned over to an anonymous attorney, who would enter the room and individually belittle each strapped-down student based in part on the disclosures they had made. This was filmed, and students' expressions of impotent rage were played back to them several times later in the study. According to author Alston Chase, Kaczynski's records from that period suggest he was emotionally stable when the study began. Kaczynski's lawyers attributed some of his emotional instability and dislike of mind control to his participation in this study.[11][12] Indeed, some have suggested that this experience may have been instrumental in Kaczynski's future actions.[13]

When it comes to insanity, yes, you can wonder about societies.

Kaczynski sounds lucid enough in this comment...

When asked if he was afraid of losing his mind in prison, Kaczynski replied:
No, what worries me is that I might in a sense adapt to this environment and come to be comfortable here and not resent it anymore. And I am afraid that as the years go by that I may forget, I may begin to lose my memories of the mountains and the woods and that's what really worries me, that I might lose those memories, and lose that sense of contact with wild nature in general. But I am not afraid they are going to break my spirit.
 
  • #35
Willowz said:
Many of you are steadfast that this man is not insane. I did not believe that too at the beginning of this thread, but now I think he is.

If he isn't insane what is he? Another unibomber?

Well I've told yo two sources, go through them they are available with many, many definitions.

YOU say that you 'think he is' insane... what exactly makes you think this? You just have a hunch? Obviously something has convinced you to change your mind (as you state in the quoted post) so just explain that to me.

All ears... well eyes.
 
<h2>1. Who influenced Breivik to commit his heinous act?</h2><p>Anders Behring Breivik was a self-proclaimed right-wing extremist who committed a mass shooting and bombing in Norway in 2011. He claimed to have been influenced by a variety of individuals and organizations, including the Knights Templar, a supposed secret society that he claimed to be a member of. He also cited anti-Islamic bloggers and writers as well as historical figures such as Winston Churchill and Charles Martel as influences.</p><h2>2. Did Breivik have any mental health issues that may have influenced his actions?</h2><p>Breivik underwent several psychiatric evaluations, with conflicting results. One evaluation found him to be sane and criminally responsible for his actions, while another found him to be psychotic and suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Ultimately, he was found to be sane and was convicted of his crimes.</p><h2>3. Were there any warning signs or red flags that could have indicated Breivik's intentions?</h2><p>There were several warning signs that may have indicated Breivik's intentions. He had a history of extremist and anti-immigrant views, as well as a fascination with violence and weapons. He also wrote a manifesto outlining his beliefs and plans for the attack, which he shared with others before carrying out the attack.</p><h2>4. Did Breivik have any accomplices in his attack?</h2><p>Breivik acted alone in his attack, and no evidence has been found to suggest that he had any accomplices. However, he did have a network of like-minded individuals who shared his extremist views and may have influenced him in some way.</p><h2>5. How has Breivik's attack and his motivations impacted society?</h2><p>Breivik's attack has had a significant impact on society, particularly in Norway. It sparked debates about immigration, extremism, and mental health. It also led to changes in security measures and increased awareness of the potential for lone wolf attacks. Breivik's motivations and actions have also raised questions about the role of the internet in radicalizing individuals and the responsibility of individuals and organizations in promoting extremist ideologies.</p>

1. Who influenced Breivik to commit his heinous act?

Anders Behring Breivik was a self-proclaimed right-wing extremist who committed a mass shooting and bombing in Norway in 2011. He claimed to have been influenced by a variety of individuals and organizations, including the Knights Templar, a supposed secret society that he claimed to be a member of. He also cited anti-Islamic bloggers and writers as well as historical figures such as Winston Churchill and Charles Martel as influences.

2. Did Breivik have any mental health issues that may have influenced his actions?

Breivik underwent several psychiatric evaluations, with conflicting results. One evaluation found him to be sane and criminally responsible for his actions, while another found him to be psychotic and suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Ultimately, he was found to be sane and was convicted of his crimes.

3. Were there any warning signs or red flags that could have indicated Breivik's intentions?

There were several warning signs that may have indicated Breivik's intentions. He had a history of extremist and anti-immigrant views, as well as a fascination with violence and weapons. He also wrote a manifesto outlining his beliefs and plans for the attack, which he shared with others before carrying out the attack.

4. Did Breivik have any accomplices in his attack?

Breivik acted alone in his attack, and no evidence has been found to suggest that he had any accomplices. However, he did have a network of like-minded individuals who shared his extremist views and may have influenced him in some way.

5. How has Breivik's attack and his motivations impacted society?

Breivik's attack has had a significant impact on society, particularly in Norway. It sparked debates about immigration, extremism, and mental health. It also led to changes in security measures and increased awareness of the potential for lone wolf attacks. Breivik's motivations and actions have also raised questions about the role of the internet in radicalizing individuals and the responsibility of individuals and organizations in promoting extremist ideologies.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
787
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Back
Top