Anders Behring Breivik

Update: 20th April 2012 picture of Breivik on the BBC.
Do you think this is just a random pic and not specifically chosen
to try and influence your opinion of him?

I  want to make this is a separate post for matters Breivik. Elsewhere I (kind of) said:

MAIN POST: I really doubt Breivik is insane. He’s following up on his convictions. He did an evil act because he thought it was necessary and would strengthen his political ideology.

 

It would be interesting to hear the “rational” as to why Bush, Blair John Howard (+Aznar) were NOT mentally disordered having decided to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, yet Breivik wasn’t.

A reply from sjamieson was:

As for Bush/Blair – I have no response to that.  Do they feel remorse? One would hope so but there is a difference in the ability to dole out death by proxy as they did and a person who decides themselves – as a lone wolf – to commit mass murder.  Bush and Blair would have found it easy to disassociate themselves – particularly as there were parties who were convincing them they were morally right.

I don’t see it like that that at all. I see no distinction. The decision to go to war especially on a crock of lies is actually worse because they themselves would not be the ones to face the consequences, meaning they have a far greater responsibility to ensure the decision to take peoples lives was that absolute ultimate decision of last resort with no other avenues open.

At least the swine Breivik put himself in the front line, which although hard to give the killer any credit at all is peculiarly and uncomfortable honorable, although of course such ‘honour’ is almost immeasurable in that he didn’t stand any significant chance of coming to harm against unarmed peaceful humanitarians. P.S. if you find the ‘honour’ thing offensive, you have simply not understood the point.

What deathmeistrs BuSh, Tony the Terrible, Howard and Aznar did is spineless. They knew it was a lie. Breivik actually believes in what he’s doing.

–

Why the insane claim in the first place?

If a person of darker hue did such an atrocity, you can bet your bottom (fiat)dollar that questions of sanity and findings of insanity are in all probability NOT going to arise. Because “clearly” non-whites are savages all they know is killing and uncivilized behavior, but Breivik ‘s a white European…. aaaah…. clearly as he’s NOT a savage – because he is white – he must have a ‘legitimate’ excuse, i.e. his ‘insanity’ made his a victim of his condition. Whites are only ever portrayed as well, white knights, a standard of righeousness and can do no harm, like Dante’s crusaders in his story Inferno, when in actual fact, the white race is responsible for more killings by far than any racial group. Difference is it must be ‘hidden’ from view for the illusion to work. When it’s openly exposed it must be husshed up ergo, he’s insane.

Breivik is sane, so actually are Tony the Terrible and BuSh etc. All cold calculated killers for whom the deaths of children is but a one off puff of air in the eye.
I suspect ultimately they will say he insane.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–