Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Breiviks masterplan VS his rampage

  1. Jul 29, 2011 #1
    From what ive read, Breiviks goal was to get rid of islam and multiculturalism in europe by 2083. His rampage was intended to maximise media attention for his 1600 page manifest and cause a shock to society. I havent read the manifest (only small parts). He seems like a very thorough person, quite smart, planning years ahead, etc., but i dont get how such an act is going to help his end goal. In some of his writings he says he is good at psycho-analysing people. He has written that he knows nationalists/anti-multiculturalists everywhere will speak out against him. He must understand that masskilling people in the name of a cause, is not going to make that cause popular.

    So how did he figure his acts would eventually work out well for his cause?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2011 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    By provoking the multi-culturalists into a state of panic, these ruling elites would begin, by referring to the Breivik atrocity, to suppress the free speech of people holding views not just murderously anti-islamic, but also moderately islam-critical.
    Thus, these elites, by stripping the legal rights of many of their citizens and begin political persecution, these elites themselves will prove themselves to be the "traitors" Breivik already regards them as.

    And then, a potential for a morally legitimate resistance movement could be unleashed.

    Quite Macchiavellian in its nihilistic war mongering attitude..
     
  4. Jul 29, 2011 #3
    So the multiculturalists will become oppressors and the citizens will revolt.

    Did you get this from the manifest?

    Ive read that norway, unlike many other european countries, doesnt have a substantial political party against islam and multiculturalism. I guess with his act he has diminished the chances of such a party coming into existence or getting big anytime soon.
     
  5. Jul 29, 2011 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Daniel Pipes make some comments along those line in a National Review article, called "Norway's terror in context" or something like that.
    He also comes up with a few quotes from Breivik that may be indicative of this devilish strategy.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/10007/norway-terrorism-in-context


    Actually, Norway has the LARGEST party in Europe that has, in my view, occasionally perfectly legitimate criticism of the worrying trends of Islamization we observe, namely the Party of Progress.

    As for Islamization, as evaluated along several parameters, like sex segregation, veiling of women, genital mutilation, polygamy, honour killings, assault rapes of Muslim-on-nonMuslim women, invitation of extremist preachers, bullying of non-Muslim children in kindergartens&schools, that Islamization IS a real phenomenon in Europe.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Breivik, in his evil, twisted mind finally saw in this an excuse to sate his already murderous cravings.
    There can never be an excuse for such actions.

    His murderous rampage is more about personal self-glorification than any rational form of political debate.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  6. Aug 1, 2011 #5
    Man, do I disagree with you. Christian history is full of atrocities too. There really is no need to be anti-Islam, anti-Jew, or anti-any-religion. It is just bigot fear.

    That's what is what I have against it. Breivik is just as normal a terrorist as any Jihadist is. Even his attack is fully normal for a terrorist, they normally attack their own society too. Sure he could have wasted some muslims. But that wouldn't serve his purpose, right? In the public view it would have been outrageous, people would feel sorry for muslims, the opposite of what he wants. So like all terrorist he attacks the system; and particularly heinous, he attacks the future of the system, the leftwing children. How sick can a person be?

    Most people want to peacefully co-exist and most muslims give a rats behind about extremists, just like we give a rats behind about extremist Christian view.

    You know what all that rhetoric of Breivik is? Our grand leader of the populist rightwing preaches it too. He's a fervent visitor of Israel and an active supporter of them; the rhetoric isn't even his own: It is an invention (result) of the Israel/Palestinian conflict by orthodox jews.

    Preaching that rhetoric in the Netherlands can only have only predictable effects:
    0) a deepening of divides
    1) segregation of muslims (they huddle together, moreover, ghettos will emerge since whites are driven out of muslim quarters since they worry about house prices.)
    2) an increase of 'muslim' crimes since we stick them in a hole they won't be able to get out off
    3) Jihadists on the muslims side and Knights Templars on the white side
    4) gang wars, ideological violence, possibly ending in bombings.

    And that in a setting where we started in a position where the worst we could say about muslims is that some of their kids were mostly involved in petty-thieving.

    It's like returning to the states of the fifties regarding blacks. Anyone in the US now want to claim that returning to that is a good idea? Anyone want to explain to the poster how difficult it is to get rid of the bigotry, the ghettos, and the gang war violence? Does anyone in the US respect people preaching South-African 'apartheid'?

    It is war-rhetoric which deepens divides and has no rational basis.

    The way out is continuous pressure on everybody that we all strive for peace and equal opportunities.

    I find the leader of the our rightwing a complete moron: He's importing the Gaza conflict and doesn't even know it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2011
  7. Aug 1, 2011 #6
    I am so angry that I am going to respond to an argument you didn't post yet: "Just look at the statistics, everything is increasing!"

    As I stated before: Social darwinism is a compelling argument. You need to kick most people, especially the military, several times in the head for them to see the fallacy of the argument.

    I am not going to go into any bigot 'anti-Islam' arguments, but into one comment which was given here [somewhere on a forum] "Whites will be the minority in the US in a few decades."

    It is a meaningless observation on demographic trends. We are all the product of several cultures, and our offspring will also be. I.e., the offspring in several generations of that commenter will be mixed race. Who here really cares?

    Does anybody want to start a movement to defend 'the superior WASP manner of life'? Prove the inferiority of other races with 'rationalizations'? Introduce hate and violence, ghettos? Or would you rather live in a peace and have your children live in a peace?

    It's idiocy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2011
  8. Aug 2, 2011 #7
    Hitler was bad, but so was Stalin. How is one evil an excuse for the other? The inclusion of the word "history" (of christianity) indicates that you are aware that those atrocities lay mainly in the past.

    If an idea is hateful, then i think it should not be tolerated in society (religion or not), or at least discouraged and kept to a minimum (of course, not the way Breivik did it). I will leave it up to yourself to decide if this applies to islam, but lets just say that i am against racism, sexism, beating of women and violence against anyone who has a different opinion, and so i am absolutely against islam. I dont know why you brought the "white race" thing up, as islam is not a race, it is a collection of ideas. I dont care if those ideas are held by a different race, culture, religion or minority. None of those are excuses for racism, sexism, violence and intolerance and none of them are reasons we should accept their spread into society.

    I think the flaw many make is that they think criticism of islam equals criticism of muslims. But the latter is a somewhat hollow term, as most muslims (at least in the netherlands) luckily have never read (much of)the quran and have only a vague idea about their religion. This is hopeful, but they should not feel accused when islam is being criticised. Similarly a person may be "born" as a catholic, yet not know a thing about christianity. The term "christian" then is an almost hollow term and that persons ideas and behaviour are in no way a defence of the unrelated core ideas of the actual religion (as described in the holy texts and acted on by its founders).
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011
  9. Aug 3, 2011 #8
    I bring up the racial distinction because it shows how the US evolved from bigot fears towards accepting that blacks are nothing different than whites. I fail to see any connection between religion and cultural practices.

    As (mostly) Christians, we have evolved too from marrying fourteen year old women, beating women (or sometimes kids/men) into obedience, and starting religious wars. Every reproach stated into the direction of Islam has a cultural equivalent in Christian historic practice. As a culture, we just grew out of it.

    Religion adapts to culture, not the reverse.

    Of course when you are anti-Islam muslims feel offended. I would too, and sometimes do, when our culture is described as backward. (Which it is, according to extremist muslims.)

    [ Which I find the fallacy in the current debate. Being anti-Islam serves no purpose, and can only deepen the divides in both directions. If you're against beating women, state that. If you're against capital punishment, state that. If you're against 'an eye-for-an-eye' practices, state that. But don't bring up 'rationalizations' that Islam has anything to do with it - that will incite hate. It is a religion and just follows whatever cultural practices are the norm.

    There are perfectly peaceful muslim societies.

    If anything, my proposition would be that we should embrace and tolerate Islam and use that as a 'vehicle' to grow moderate imans which will export peace. (Although I doubt it will make a lot of difference.) ]

    [ I am also not naive. If there are conflicts in the world involving ideological debates then some of the ideological violence will 'piggyback' on Islam into the west. But I've said it before, it makes little sense to start a second Gaza conflict in the Netherlands. The sensible thing is to explain the process to the public, decouple the Islam from those conflicts, and hope that the conflicts will be stopped. ]
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2011
  10. Aug 3, 2011 #9
    I think an honest question produces an honest answer. IMO - the US is still a melting pot. I think you'll find most Americans are against terrorism and violence and crime - not any religion or group of people. When someone describes a person as a "Muslim terrorist" or "Nazi skinhead", or "gangbanger", or a "biker gang" - it's not an attack on a religion or a racial group - it's a classification of the criminal.
     
  11. Aug 3, 2011 #10
    There are major differences between islam and christianity, just as there are between buddhism and christianity. It wouldnt be accurate to lump it all together as equals. For example, the quran calls for wifebeating in some instance, and its central character (who is for all muslims THE example on how to live) had sex with a child, engaged in war and slavery, beheaded hundreds of people, and called for violence against anyone who wasnt muslim. Compare that with the central character of christianity or buddhism. The book is also written as if god adresses you directly, as opposed to the often vague metaphorical and historical description of events from the bible. This is like the difference between telling a child "in worldwar 2, people killed jews" (historical description) and "go out and kill jews" (being adressed directly). The latter also has a timeless sense to it.

    I do not agree with the thought that culture only influences religion and not the other way around. For one, the religion itself sprang into existence from a desert culture. Secondly, both culture and religion are just sets of ideas and as such interact both ways. If a region becomes islamised then it will affect culture there. For example, verses about women not being allowed to look men in the eye and having to hide their beauty and wear veils, are going to have an impact on how women act and dress and how men behave towards them. The distinction between religious and culturally inspired behaviour is also going to be blurry. A simple verse dictating that women must guard their modesty, combined with strong familial ties, can have all kinds of unforeseen consequences, from honor killings to circumcision.

    Islam has to do with it because it is written black and white in the quran, which is the essence of islam. I dont think it will help to say that one is against wifebeating, racism, etc., but deny that islam has anything to do with it. I think it would be more helpful to educate people about the dark side of islam. Show them the good, bad and ugly part of it. Right now all many ever hear is a rather biased story from their parents about it being pure goodness. Show them the ugly parts and they will understand the criticism better and warn their kids about it too. I think it would work better than telling them nothing is wrong with the religion and that all the criticism is uninformed xenofobia.
     
  12. Aug 3, 2011 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    (Islam) added by me to clarify.*

    Not true, for the Middle East, Islam not only mandates the cultural practices, it is also the Government and the law in many cases.

    As for the many ways it affects culture

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_culture

    The major religions defintiely influence the culture. Obviously I'm not going to list every single religion in every part of the world they are practiced, I'm hoping people here have some world knowledge, if not, it's not hard to google. I posted the link for Islam.

    *
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2011
  13. Aug 3, 2011 #12
    Christianity, as it is mostly explained, is opposed to violence and adultery. We subsequently ended up with a culture where, to some extent, both are glorified. How do you explain that relation with the Bible? Or colonialism, the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, condemnation of homosexuality, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments. More than that, you comment on the life of Muhammed; that makes me laugh given the amount of pedophile cases at the moment in the Catholic Church.

    The life of Muhammed is also criticized from within Islam culture for centuries, and moderates explain it as that should be seen with respect to the manners of that time. I think most muslims would laugh at your description, whatever he did has little bearing to them.

    There are just as many verses, if not more, that other cultures should be treated with respect. Moreover, there have been many accounts in history were muslim nations were the dominant culture and other religions were treated with respect.

    Why do you describe it as a desert culture, why is that relevant? As far as I know Judaism and Christianity came from the same region? Would it be different if it would have sprung from a mountain culture? Forests?

    What does it mean for a culture to become 'islamized'? Do you think it has a lot to do with religion? If anything, like our Christening of other cultures, I would give to you that it more involves imposing the morals of one culture on another, and that that has little to do with a specific religion.

    If women wearing veils is the worst of Islam, I don't know what you're afraid about. Moreover, there are muslim cultures where the reverse is even true: men wear veils and women don't.

    And everything is written black on white in the Bible too. In my country, in the Bible belt, that means that women cannot hold positions of authority, shouldn't vote, and have a modest life. They also hear a biased form that everything is nice and dandy. I don't see the difference.

    According to the Quran, you can beat a woman in circumstances as long as it doesn't hurt.

    The argument that Islam is racist is new to me. As far as I know, all races visit Mecca.

    There is something wrong with all religions, and all religions are as opportunistic as politicians. If anything, I rather expect tattooed muslimas sunbathing topless on our beaches in a few decades than anything else [if that fool of ours doesn't shut up and drives everybody into radicalism]. And imams will cry out because of that, and subsequently cave in. It is the same struggle as we had with the Catholic church.

    Moreover, I give it to you that Christianity at the moment is only in a peaceful state (from our perspective, others would laugh at that notion), since it is the dominant manner of living for a few decades and most Christians lived in relative wealth. If it would be the reverse, we would be seen as the threatening, violent, and expansion-driven ideology.

    (I would give to you the Serbian/Kosovo conflict. Who's the agressor exactly? Would you allow muslims to generalize from that, and derive anti-Christianity ideologies from that?)
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2011
  14. Aug 3, 2011 #13
    I just realized you're new to PF - welcome!

    I imagine "tattooed muslimas sunbathing topless on our beaches in a few decades" is actually possible now - in places where Islamic law is not enforced and topless bathing is legal.

    As for the the comments about "Christianity at the moment is only in a peaceful state " and "it would be the reverse, we would be seen as the threatening, violent, and expansion-driven ideology" - why don't you support with facts from (how about 10 x the length of time yopu've cited) 200 years to support your post - please be precise and relevant in your response.

    If youy step back and look at the big picture, I think you'll find there are 3 basic arrangements between governments and religion; 1.) the religion runs the state (Iran), 2.) separation of church and state (US), and 3.) no religion allowed (former USSR). If you take this basic template and apply it to some of your major points - you might find clarity in this matter?
     
  15. Aug 3, 2011 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    1. "The life of Muhammed is also criticized from within Islam culture for centuries,"
    That is factually incorrect.

    2. "and moderates explain it as that should be seen with respect to the manners of that time. I think most muslims would laugh at your description, whatever he did has little bearing to them."
    Read up on the concept of sunna, and how lists of things ranging from "halal" to "haram" is put onto that list.
     
  16. Aug 3, 2011 #15
    From Wikipedia:

    Hadith are Muslim traditions relating to the Sunnah (words and deeds) of Muhammad. They are drawn from the writings of scholars writing between 844 and 874 CE, more than 200 years after the death of Mohammed in 632 CE.[34] In general, for Muslims the Hadith are second only to the Qur'an in importance,[35] although some scholars put more emphasis on the perpetual adherence of Muslim nation to the traditions to give them credibility, and not solely on Hadith.[36] Most of the knowledge about the life of Muhammad comes from the Hadith, many of which were biographies of Mohammed. Many Islamic practices (such as the Five Pillars of Islam) are drawn from the Hadith.

    However, there is criticism of the historical reliability of Hadith.
     
  17. Aug 3, 2011 #16
    While Wiki can be a useful tool - it's subject to revision - do you have any additional support?
     
  18. Aug 3, 2011 #17
    My point is that religion will adapt to culture, not the reverse. Since muslims are a minority in Dutch culture, their religion will adapt to the dominant culture, not the reverse. Of course, there will be ongoing pressure from other Islam nations, but I still expect pressure back from our culture. Irshad Manji is an example of that.

    Impossible, I cannot change history. I can only point out that there are also 'acts of aggression,' or can be explained as that from their point of view, going from Christian-based cultures into the direction of Islam-based cultures. The colonization of many muslim nations, the start of the Israel nation, genocide of muslims in Kosovo, an invasion of Iraq, and an invasion of Afghanistan. I don't want to comment on the ethical justness of any of those acts, just that they can be seen as acts of aggression from their side.
    (As far as their part exists, some muslims will not agree that even something as an Islam world exist. Just a collection of states which feel little internal coherence but do abide to Islam.)

    What clarity? We also had Christian nations? And one can also state that separation of church and state can also be seen as a red-herring; does it matter a lot if you separate church and state when the judicial ethics is the Jewish/Christian tradition? (Though I don't really buy into that argument too and prefer separation and see that as an advantage to 'progress'. But you can't compare an emerging Islam nation to the western world, I think it is a struggle they will have to go through.)

    Not all muslim states implement sharia, Albania and Turkey come to mind.
     
  19. Aug 3, 2011 #18
    Starting from your point (and earlier assertion that religions (to summarize) seek to fill voids) - there will be 3 possible outcomes - as I stated.

    Eventually, the religion will either become law, co-exist separate from the state, or be outlawed.
     
  20. Aug 4, 2011 #19
    I dont know if you are familiar with the term "abrogation", but in the bible the new testament overrules (abrogates) the more violent old testament. The quran states that later dictates of mohammed overrule the earlier ones. As his life became more violent and he started waging wars, so too does the quran get more violent and intolerant. As for racism in the quran, look at what it says about jews. I dont really understand how people who are opposed to racism and neonazism, can think islam is ok.

    Childmarriage and sex with children: sure, it has happened in christian-majority countries also. But with islam it is a problem of the religion itself. It is deemed morally acceptable by many muslims since mohammed did it also. Childsex by christian priests was never considered morally acceptable, which is why they did it secretly. It is the same as the difference between a criminal killing innocent people for their money, and having a state ideology of killing innocent people.

    The idea that mohammeds life and words are outdated and manners of past times, is rather the opposite of islam, which holds that his ideas are actually the perfect and timeless words of god.

    When a region becomes islamized, of course it has to do with islam. By definition.

    Women weiring veils, burqas, being locked indoors, being beaten, sexually abused, childabuse, honor killings, genital mutilation, etc. Of course i consider these problems. Many think the problem of the veil is a silly and insignificant one. That its just a piece of clothing and nonmuslim old women also sometimes have headscarfs. However, its not the clothing that is the issue, but the idea behind it. What would they think if masses of people started wearing "white power" symbols, or swastikas? Should teachers be allowed to wear them in class? How about judges, police, government officials, etc. How would a black person feel when a bunch of white power cops and judges deal with his issue, or when his schoolteachers and classmates wear white power symbols?

    I do not think it makes sense to blame it all on "culture", as many of it is written black and white in the quran, hadith and sharia law (all of which are part of islam). Not just that, but the perpetrators often openly admit that they behave that way because of their religion. Both culture and religion are sets of ideas. When people have certain ideas, it influences their behavior. A religious idea can influence behavior as much as a cultural idea can. Suppose someone had written a book 1000 years ago, claiming it was gods book, containing the passage "black people are evil and must be punished". Now suppose that billions of people started actually believing that book. You think it would not affect their behavior, not cause problems between them and black people? Will it all be "culture"? Now lets get back to reality and look at what the quran/hadith/sharia says about jews, gays, women, non-muslims, etc.

    Yes the bible belt, thats not what i would like to see spread either. But as for the difference, compare it with the quran belt in the middle east and regions of africa and asia. Even the worst bible belt part is like disneyland compared to the quran belt.

    I think this might happen yes, but not if we are going to consider criticism of islam a taboo and decouple islam from its symptoms. The criticism should be hard, direct to the point, and it should be clear what is and is not acceptable. I do not think western culture/morals are automaticly going to "win" from islamic ones. Looking at what is happening in cities in for example england, france, the netherlands, the signs arent hopeful. Jews and gays are attacked and insulted in the streets, driven from their homes. Women who dont weir veils are called whores. Sharia law is practiced. Women are murdered. Segregation of sexes is returning. Criticists of islam are attacked and murdered. Politicians who criticise islam are called far-right extremists. They have to live in safehouses. Artists are afraid to make art involving mohammed. Musea and other cultural centers are afraid to display anything involving mohammed. It has become taboo to show certain cartoons. People who do draw cartoons or make such art are considered evil provocateurs, not just by many muslims but also by many nonmuslims.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2011
  21. Aug 4, 2011 #20

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And how, exactly, is this in any way relevant to
    a) Supporting your (utterly false) claim that Muhammad's life has been criticized throughout the centuries??
    It has not.
    He has been, and is, regarded as the model of human behaviour, whereas criiticism of him on moral grounds is considered blasphemy.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook