FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Anders Breivik alone?





jmlworld
Do you think there are intelligence officials, underground movements, governments, or a couple individuals involved in the Friday's mass murder in Norway?

Of course there's Anders Breivic, but do you think one man could plant two bombs in the center of Oslo and then was able to travel to an island to kill masses of teenagers?

Let the conspiracy theory roll.
Peterssidan
I think Anders Breivik made this alone. There was some rumors there was one gunman more on the island but the police have not confirmed this. As far as I know there was one bomb. He only have to park the car and have a way to detonate the bomb when he is far enough away. He can then calmly travel to Utøya and shoot people. I think this can be done by one man. Of course he could have had accomplices but I don't think it is necessary to do what he did.

Lets keep to facts instead of conspiracy Confused
deanhills
I was totally bowled over by the fact that this guy is a Christian fundamentalist and an anti-islamist crusader. I was unaware that there were any Christian fundamentalists in the Scandanavian countries. That completely shook me. The guy also looks so very normal. I'm sure I could meet him anywhere and think he is a great person.

I found the Russia Today interview (below) with a friend of his quite disturbing, as apparently Central Oslo has an enormous gathering of all kinds of fundamentalists. All ready to be brainwashed by organizations who would want to use them to their own advantage. His friend says that in his wildest imagination he would never have thought Breivik to be capable of doing this, and that he must have been "brainwashed" by some or other organization. So jmlworld must be right.

I agree there will be plenty of conspiracy theories coming from this, but it has to be evident that this guy must have had some additional motivation from somewhere to have been as convinced of the justification of killing so many people. This has to be a very gruesome message to all of the Scandinavian countries. Wonder how they are going to sort this out, as I'm sure there must be many Breiviks all over Europe, not necessarily working together, but now that someone has gone this far, it obviously must have those who are of similar thinking contemplating possibilities.

jmlworld
When I asked the original question, I didn't ask if other people were involved the incident physically (although I still suspect whether he planted the bomb or somebody else did).

There are some people suggesting that Anders Breivik was actually Fjordman, also some people suggest that he is a huge fan of Pam Geller* (Norwegian language) and he recommended people to read her works.

Most of the people he killed were not Muslim. They were Christians, and most of them were Scandinavians and native Norwegians. He claimed that he was against Muslim and was protecting Scandinavia and Christians from being conquered by Muslim Caliphates, yet he became the enemy of the the same people he was supposed to defend.

When Aljazeera International reported the huge blast followed by the island shooting all the people here were shocked. Norway was one of those few peaceful countries. Their government is not involved in the international conflict and they rarely hit the news headlines.

As Dean Hills posted, there should be at least one other person involved in this incident. There should be some other people or groups who actively encouraged Anders to plan this attack. The BBC reports that he was planning this for 2 years.


_____

* The link is served from Google cage, the actual page was taken down.
HalfBloodPrince
jmlworld wrote:
Their government is not involved in the international conflict and they rarely hit the news headlines.

Actually, Norway is part of the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. That's why initial reports assumed it was Islamist militants who carried out the attacks (in retaliation).

I don't think there's any conspiracy in this case. Breivik is just an insecure narcissist. Read through his manifesto and the glowing praise he gave himself (and the interview he had with himself).

He was consumed in delusions of grandiose (he was, in his own words, both "The Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe", and the "Leader of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement").

So you have an insecure ultra-conservative overwhelmed by demographic change. This change reaches critical mass and he spends 9 years planning this attack and writing a 1500 page manifesto that tries coming across as an academic work. He prepared a speech he would give during his hearing before the attack.

I personally don't want the death penalty for him. Why that, when he could go to jail and get repeatedly raped for decades to come?
deanhills
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
He was consumed in delusions of grandiose (he was, in his own words, both "The Justiciar Knight Commander for Knights Templar Europe", and the "Leader of the National and pan-European Patriotic Resistance Movement").

So you have an insecure ultra-conservative overwhelmed by demographic change. This change reaches critical mass and he spends 9 years planning this attack and writing a 1500 page manifesto that tries coming across as an academic work. He prepared a speech he would give during his hearing before the attack.

I personally don't want the death penalty for him. Why that, when he could go to jail and get repeatedly raped for decades to come?
I agree with the above, but it is well known that guys with super egos always seek out an audience. I'm almost certain if he had planned this completely alone, that he probably would have limited his attack to a single target. Also, he probably would have been unable to "shut up" and most of his friends would have known about his plans. This kind of operation to me shows more than one mind thinking it out. He must have had at least one or more persons guiding him in utmost confidentiality.
jmlworld
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
I personally don't want the death penalty for him. Why that, when he could go to jail and get repeatedly raped for decades to come?


Norway do not practice the capital punishment. He'll face a maximum prison sentence of 21 years as the Norwegian law states, however, it can be extended 5 years at a time if the convict is deemed a threat to the public. This is a daft rule, but I don't know if they are going to charge him for each individual murder. May be 1 more year for every murder.

By the way, it was long ago since you've posted in these forums HBP, welcome back friend.

deanhills wrote:
[...]he probably would have been unable to "shut up" and most of his friends would have known about his plans.
His manifesto seems that he was a lone. I have gone through a summary of it and it seems that he was an anti-social for reasons beyond his personal control. Anyway, I'll download it today to read the whole thing.

But his request for the hearing to be made public and to be allowed to wear some kind of uniform (an underground group uniform?) signals that the crazy man had an intent of provoking some fanatics into an emotional response. May be he has watched few of those Al-Qaeda videos and he wanted to send the same message to his fans.

This Telegraph link also reports that the Norwegian court warned of possible "two more cells" of like minded people ready to launch further attacks.
deanhills
jmlworld wrote:
I'll download it today to read the whole thing.
Do you have a link where it is available? I can't seem to find any where I am. And am dead curious to read it. Somehow has a ring of Hitler's Mein Kampf style to me.

jmlworld wrote:
This Telegraph link also reports that the Norwegian court warned of possible "two more cells" of like minded people ready to launch further attacks.
This sounds pretty much in sync with the guy that was interviewed by Russia Today. That to me is the most worrisome part.
jmlworld
deanhills wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
I'll download it today to read the whole thing.
Do you have a link where it is available? I can't seem to find any where I am. And am dead curious to read it. Somehow has a ring of Hitler's Mein Kampf style to me.


The manifesto documents are on Scribd. I don't know if it's allowed to share on this forum though. I've PM'ed you the link.
Da Rossa
Hmm, the investigations can narrow down the possibilities, but not by 100%. There will always be a little chance someone has aided him, IF he's had as a single perpetrator.
catscratches
deanhills wrote:
His friend says that in his wildest imagination he would never have thought Breivik to be capable of doing this, and that he must have been "brainwashed" by some or other organization.
That's the way it always goes. No matter whether it's murder, rape, etc. The friends will always say that. (After all, if you think your friend is likely to commit murder and/or rape, you wouldn't be friends.)
deanhills
jmlworld wrote:
deanhills wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
I'll download it today to read the whole thing.
Do you have a link where it is available? I can't seem to find any where I am. And am dead curious to read it. Somehow has a ring of Hitler's Mein Kampf style to me.


The manifesto documents are on Scribd. I don't know if it's allowed to share on this forum though. I've PM'ed you the link.
Thanks jml. I'm probably not meant to read the manifesto as when I tried to open it it froze right up. I may try again at home tonight.

catscratches wrote:
deanhills wrote:
His friend says that in his wildest imagination he would never have thought Breivik to be capable of doing this, and that he must have been "brainwashed" by some or other organization.
That's the way it always goes. No matter whether it's murder, rape, etc. The friends will always say that. (After all, if you think your friend is likely to commit murder and/or rape, you wouldn't be friends.)
True. However, the part where quite a number of likeminded individuals seem to be frequenting Oslo has to be worrisome. I'm almost certain this guy could not have acted alone. I'm certain he would have wanted to approach like minded individuals and it must have been in super confidentiality as otherwise his friends would have known about it.
Da Rossa
Quote:
I personally don't want the death penalty for him. Why that, when he could go to jail and get repeatedly raped for decades to come?


I don't think he'll get raped.

I personally double-stunne: part of me because of the 76 people he decimated alone, by himself (assuming he wasn't aided). This means he's intelligent. A great mind wasted in such a terrible being. I wish a talent to plan and execute something like that was used for good.

The other part of me is sad because some of the things he advocates may be "politically incorrect", but very true. So far, according to the specifics the media has published about his caracter (yes, even so short after there is much, much filtering), some of his ideas are reasonable, but not the means. And I can't believe this man calls himself a Christian. He could, at best, be a deviant. Jesus Christ was the only revolutionary that ordered 0 murders in his life. Jesus changed people, and never told anyone to promote religious war or use violence against each other.
jmlworld
Da Rossa wrote:
I personally double-stunne: part of me because of the 76 people he decimated alone, by himself (assuming he wasn't aided). This means he's intelligent. A great mind wasted in such a terrible being. I wish a talent to plan and execute something like that was used for good.


Really?

For me talent and intelligence are different than the two you attributed to this man. Yes, he had research and writing talent, but the statistics and the numbers he provided in his compendium were overreacting and exaggerated. He even provided a handful of unwanted information in the log of his manifesto (like exposing private things about his close friends, etc...).

If you read what he wrote, you will notice that he was brainwashed by some older people who met him in a conference back in 2002. Since then he was reading books and blogs written by desperate people.

Da Rossa wrote:
Jesus changed people, and never told anyone to promote religious war or use violence against each other.


Every religion has its set of rules, including punishments, self defense, conquering lands, eye for eye, holy wars, resistance, seizing enemies, slavery, etc... But driving verses out of their contexts will lead someone into clash of religions, hatred, promoting violence, etc... Normal people do not back violence, anti-socials do.
deanhills
Da Rossa wrote:
The other part of me is sad because some of the things he advocates may be "politically incorrect", but very true. So far, according to the specifics the media has published about his caracter (yes, even so short after there is much, much filtering), some of his ideas are reasonable, but not the means. And I can't believe this man calls himself a Christian. He could, at best, be a deviant. Jesus Christ was the only revolutionary that ordered 0 murders in his life. Jesus changed people, and never told anyone to promote religious war or use violence against each other.
It is interesting that you should mention "politically incorrect" as he used those words many times. He sees it as one of the greatest weaknesses of Governments in Europe in that all its members are trying to be politically correct and that that is weakening them in the face of "perceived" Islamic expansion.

jmlworld wrote:
Every religion has its set of rules, including punishments, self defense, conquering lands, eye for eye, holy wars, resistance, seizing enemies, slavery, etc... But driving verses out of their contexts will lead someone into clash of religions, hatred, promoting violence, etc... Normal people do not back violence, anti-socials do.
Well said, particularly the last sentence. I just can't help but think of Hitler who had been anti-social at the time when he was writing Mein Kampf as well.

It is also interesting that Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist. By his own admission he is not that devout. The focus on being Christian is more on the religious discipline of following Christ's moral teachings than the actual belief in God. Christian atheism is therefore also OK. As are those Muslims who have been completely assimilated in society. He is specifically anti-Jihad and anti-Islamic. Not anti-Muslim. What was also fascinating is his obviously indoctrinated belief that "crusaders" like him who sacrificed their lives for martyrdom are exempted from committing sin before they have committed it.
Da Rossa
Quote:
Really?


Please have in mind that all knowledge we have on this event, the perpetrator and the parallel circumstances are too limited. Mine are even more limited than yours. What I told were my first impressions. And my impression is, since he was that successful, he's at worst very intelligent. And don't confuse intelligence with doctrine. Some intelligent people often embrace wrong or false ideas worldspread. Some intelligent people do have bad ideas.

Quote:
Every religion has its set of rules, including punishments, self defense, conquering lands, eye for eye, holy wars, resistance, seizing enemies, slavery, etc... But driving verses out of their contexts will lead someone into clash of religions, hatred, promoting violence, etc... Normal people do not back violence, anti-socials do.


I agree with the last part. But do not generalise by saying "every religion". Islam seems to fit your description. Christianism fails to fit in the "conquering lands", "eye for an eye", "holy wars", "seizing enemies" and "slavery". There may be a discussion about the "holy wars" part but that's another topic.

Quote:
It is interesting that you should mention "politically incorrect" as he used those words many times. He sees it as one of the greatest weaknesses of Governments in Europe in that all its members are trying to be politically correct and that that is weakening them in the face of "perceived" Islamic expansion.


That's the point! While you get worried about politeness, they worry about an expansion agenda.
liljp617
Da Rossa wrote:
I agree with the last part. But do not generalise by saying "every religion". Islam seems to fit your description. Christianism fails to fit in the "conquering lands", "eye for an eye", "holy wars", "seizing enemies" and "slavery". There may be a discussion about the "holy wars" part but that's another topic.


Cut the BS.
jmlworld
deanhills wrote:
He is specifically anti-Jihad and anti-Islamic. Not anti-Muslim.


Are there differences between Islam(ic) and Muslim?

- Islam: the religion followed by the Muslims.
- Muslim: a follower of the religion of Islam.
- Islamic: something based in traditions of the religion of Islam (e.g. prayers, funerals, hajj, jihad, fasting, marriage, etc...)

Now I don't see a difference there. And Anders himself knew that there's no difference between the two. If you go through his research you'll see:

1. He was against all things Islam (the religion and the followers).
2. He was advocating removing the politically correctness and European civilization.
3. He was encouraging clash of colors (e.g. his suggestions of South Africa to be divided into two regions: black region & white region).

Is he Christian? Yes. His mission was to restore Europe as pure Christian estate. He himself admitted it. I don't know however, how deep his Christianity is. He mentioned how he had a couple of one-night-stands in Prague but he emphasized that was necessary for his mission and his heavenly reward in the waiting.

Da Rossa wrote:
...do not generalise by saying "every religion". Islam seems to fit your description. Christianism fails to fit in the "conquering lands", "eye for an eye", "holy wars", "seizing enemies" and "slavery".


Da Rossa, why do you deny the "every religion" phrase? Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have verses ordering their followers to conquer lands, seize enemies, and do slavery. What do you back with your argument? Crusaders and Trans-Atlantic Slave Traders were Muslim, right? Exudos and Deut are chapters from the Quran?

As I said before, it's unhealthy to drive verses out of their contexts and to compare religions without well-structured research and common sense.

Anyway, Anders Breivik was Christian, he was anti-democracy and anti-Muslim, the aim of this thread was to discuss whether there are hooligans, political groups or individuals involved in motivating the guy to commit a terrorism and mass murder (although it seems the terrorism term is reserved for certain people).
Navigator
jmlworld wrote:


Most of the people he killed were not Muslim. They were Christians, and most of them were Scandinavians and native Norwegians. He claimed that he was against Muslim and was protecting Scandinavia and Christians from being conquered by Muslim Caliphates, yet he became the enemy of the the same people he was supposed to defend.


Doesn't make any sense, does it?
deanhills
Navigator wrote:
jmlworld wrote:


Most of the people he killed were not Muslim. They were Christians, and most of them were Scandinavians and native Norwegians. He claimed that he was against Muslim and was protecting Scandinavia and Christians from being conquered by Muslim Caliphates, yet he became the enemy of the the same people he was supposed to defend.


Doesn't make any sense, does it?
In his own mind it did. He thought himself a martyr and that his sins had been forgiven before he acted in the interest of all humanity. This guy was seriously brainwashed with this kind of logic.
Bikerman
jmlworld wrote:
deanhills wrote:
He is specifically anti-Jihad and anti-Islamic. Not anti-Muslim.


Are there differences between Islam(ic) and Muslim?

- Islam: the religion followed by the Muslims.
- Muslim: a follower of the religion of Islam.
- Islamic: something based in traditions of the religion of Islam (e.g. prayers, funerals, hajj, jihad, fasting, marriage, etc...)

Now I don't see a difference there.
That's because you are looking in the wrong place. I explained, in great detail, the difference between Islam and Islamist (NOT Islamic) to Deanhills some time ago. He apparently didn't get it then and still doesn't - although the distinction is extremely easy and requires no special knowledge.
An Islamist is one who seeks total Islamic control of society through the legal, educational and governmental organs of state.
Breivik was of the opinion that Muslim Islamists are a real danger - and here's the thing - I agree with him. The problem is that, having correctly identified the source of the danger he then conflates Islamist with Islam repeatedly, espouses a brand of political extremism slightly to the right of Gengis Khan and manages to persuade himself that killing innocent people is a good way to get attention, apparently careless of the morality of such an act.

He is an extremely disturbed and dangerous individual, but if you are going to talk about his motivations then I think it is wrong to ignore or mis-state what he said simply because of the evil that he consequently did. He needs to be confronted head-on and where his arguments have validity then this should be acknowledged. That is not to say that anyone, me least of all, should condone his actions, but if you want to understand his position (or at least try to) then you mustn't shy away from inconvenient facts.
Navigator
deanhills wrote:
Navigator wrote:
jmlworld wrote:


Most of the people he killed were not Muslim. They were Christians, and most of them were Scandinavians and native Norwegians. He claimed that he was against Muslim and was protecting Scandinavia and Christians from being conquered by Muslim Caliphates, yet he became the enemy of the the same people he was supposed to defend.


Doesn't make any sense, does it?
In his own mind it did. He thought himself a martyr and that his sins had been forgiven before he acted in the interest of all humanity. This guy was seriously brainwashed with this kind of logic.


I am just puzzled by this, but we can only speculate his motives or state of mind, the only thing clear to me is that the guy is a crackpot and his actions obey a guiding hand that told him or urged him to commit this. This opens a new pandora's box as we can now speculate if the guy was a lunatic, a schizophrenic, or was deliberately brainwashed.

If he was a christian and/or antimuslim is just the motive, but this motive is weak at best because his actions are completely opposite to his beliefs. We are only left with another question, who benefits?
Da Rossa
liljp617 wrote:

Cut the BS.


Why do you bother writing such a unnecessary thing? Why don't you come for a discussion instead?

Quote:
Da Rossa, why do you deny the "every religion" phrase? Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have verses ordering their followers to conquer lands, seize enemies, and do slavery. What do you back with your argument? Crusaders and Trans-Atlantic Slave Traders were Muslim, right? Exudos and Deut are chapters from the Quran?


Well, first let's not narrow down the religions to those three. There are more, and most of them are/were not as significant as Islam, Christianity and Judaism. I don't have much knowledge of the Quran, but a little bit of history I do.

First I'd like to say that the Old Testament, for the Christians since Jesus, is a collection with mere historical value. Teachings from Jesus and his disciples encarved in the New Testament never advocated anything "offensive" such as jihad, conquering lands, mass murder, captures and, mainly, slavery. Actually it was the Primitive Christianity what halted the Roman power to make slaves. So the just-born Church made a deal with the Empire: the first would waive the common property (since private property was a taboo in the Roman Empire), while the second would give up the differentiation between human beings. So the Church could survive and head to the Middle Ages, where most it gets of the critics. The Church used to be the largest land owner in the European Continent, and it also cut some futher deals with the realms in order to be left alone. So it became an enterprise, with Church leaders negotiating lands to increase the Church's temporal power. Maybe this is what you're talking about when you say "conquering lands". But come to the fundamentals: what does this have to do with Christianity itself? There is the doctrine and there is the Institutional Church. So I ask you, please come with some indication that the Christian doctrine ever advocated offensive acts.

The same for the trans-atlantic salvery carried on from the 16th century on. The sailors where sent by the monarchs, from Portugal and Spain in particular, which happened to be Catholic states. That's why they preached to the local indigenous people in here, and brought the religion. But they were merchantilists in the first place, seeking the most for the crown. Slavery does not combine with Christianity ever.
jmlworld
Bikerman wrote:
He is an extremely disturbed and dangerous individual, but if you are going to talk about his motivations then I think it is wrong to ignore or mis-state what he said simply because of the evil that he consequently did.


What he said was clear as crystal. He wrote his motivation in detail in 1,000+ pages. Do we need any other evidence?

Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
Da Rossa, why do you deny the "every religion" phrase? Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have verses ordering their followers to conquer lands, seize enemies, and do slavery. What do you back with your argument? Crusaders and Trans-Atlantic Slave Traders were Muslim, right? Exudos and Deut are chapters from the Quran?


Well, first let's not narrow down the religions to those three. There are more, and most of them are/were not as significant as Islam, Christianity and Judaism. I don't have much knowledge of the Quran, but a little bit of history I do.


I narrowed down to these three religions, because they're the most compared religions. I would like to reserve these arguments for another thread though.

Navigator wrote:
If he was a christian and/or antimuslim is just the motive, but this motive is weak at best because his actions are completely opposite to his beliefs. We are only left with another question, who benefits?


I wouldn't say his primary motives were Christianity, most of the Europeans are Christians and wouldn't agree what he did.

But I would strongly agree the part that says he was anti-Muslim. It's not speculative that he was a massive fan of anti-Muslim hooligans like Pamela Geller (who in return mocked the dead and justified his camp shootings) and Fjordman. He even quoted their propaganda in his compendium.
Bikerman
Da Rossa wrote:
First I'd like to say that the Old Testament, for the Christians since Jesus, is a collection with mere historical value. Teachings from Jesus and his disciples encarved in the New Testament never advocated anything "offensive" such as jihad, conquering lands, mass murder, captures and, mainly, slavery. Actually it was the Primitive Christianity what halted the Roman power to make slaves. So the just-born Church made a deal with the Empire: the first would waive the common property (since private property was a taboo in the Roman Empire), while the second would give up the differentiation between human beings. So the Church could survive and head to the Middle Ages, where most it gets of the critics. The Church used to be the largest land owner in the European Continent, and it also cut some futher deals with the realms in order to be left alone. So it became an enterprise, with Church leaders negotiating lands to increase the Church's temporal power. Maybe this is what you're talking about when you say "conquering lands". But come to the fundamentals: what does this have to do with Christianity itself? There is the doctrine and there is the Institutional Church. So I ask you, please come with some indication that the Christian doctrine ever advocated offensive acts.

Firstly I would say that if you are going to carry on this 'sub-thread' then I think it would be better for me to split this off and put it in p&r, because it will inevitably take-over this thread.
Are you both willing for me to do this?

Secondly I can happily supply you with RAFTS of examples of Christian Doctrine advocating extremely offensive acts, from the bible itself through to the infallible encyclicals of Popes throughout the history of Catholicism, even through to the present day.

The idea that the institutions of the various Churches have nothing to do with 'Christianity itself' is disingenuous. That is like saying that the US isn't responsible for any actions that aren't explicitly referenced in the constitution.

Also, the idea that the OT is simply of 'Historical value' is wrong on two counts. Firstly it has little historical value, since much of it is myth or distortion. Secondly it is absolutely crucial to Christianity. You seem to forget that Jesus was a good jew who followed the teachings of the Hebrew Bible and, what is more, insisted that those teachings should be followed by all Jews (Jesus didn't care about non-Jews - his message was ONLY for the Jews). In Christianity both Old and New testament are taken together - you won't find a true Christian bible without the OT.

Finally, this revisionist history of the Roman empire is a bit much. Christianity had very little to do with the abolition of slavery in the roman empire - for the very good reason that it was never abolished. It gradually decreased as the supply dried-up.
Neither did the early Church take an anti-slavery position. Christians were more concerned with making sure that slaves were treated reasonably than they were with abolishing the institution of slavery. In fact the early Roman church condemned slaves who fled from their masters as 'anathema' and refused them communion.
The first of the great theologians of the Church - Augustine of Hippo - was entirely supportive of slavery, though he thought it was a result of original sin rather than part of the 'natural world' (in other words he couldn't say that God had created slavery because of the theological implications, so he blamed it on the essential nature of mankind which resulted from the 'fall' from Eden).
Quote:
Slavery does not combine with Christianity ever.
I'm sorry to say this in blunt terms, but anything less would not express my outrage.
This is just an outright lie.
I could cite examples of Catholic Popes who bought slaves, but I've bashed the catholics enough, so I'll switch to the Protestants - or more specifically that most benign and liberal type of Christianity - Anglicanism.

USPG - United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, an Anglican organisation, had major commercial interests in slavery. It owned several hundred slaves on West Indies plantations. In fact the Church of England apologised for its 'sins' in this regard only a few years ago - look it up.

I really find this attempted re-writing of history by Christian apologists disgraceful. No doubt you are not entirely to blame because much of this nonsense appears on various Christian apologist websites. You do, however, have a responsibility to check sources.

A few quotes might finally put the lie to this:
Quote:
[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts
Jefferson Davis (Confederate President).
Quote:
It is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word 'slave' in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature.
St Augustine, The City of God, 19: 15
Quote:
Men of outstanding intelligence naturally take command, while those who are less intelligent but of more robust physique, seem intended by nature to act as servants

Thomas Aquinas - Summa Contra Gentiles
Quote:
since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction.
Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica

What about the bible?

Quote:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Leviticus 25:44-46
Quote:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Exodus 21:7-11

and before you repeat the canard that Jesus didn't support this line....

Quote:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ
Ephesians 6:5
Quote:
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.
Timothy 6:1-3
Quote:
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."
Luke 12:47-48
Bikerman
jmlworld wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
He is an extremely disturbed and dangerous individual, but if you are going to talk about his motivations then I think it is wrong to ignore or mis-state what he said simply because of the evil that he consequently did.


What he said was clear as crystal. He wrote his motivation in detail in 1,000+ pages. Do we need any other evidence?
No, that is my point. I've not yet managed to read the whole thing, but I have read enough to know that:
a) Much of the underlying philosophy seems to come from the Unambomber, and parts of the manifesto are actually verbatim copies.
b) It contains quite a bit of genuinely scholarly work, properly researched and referenced.

I've actually found myself in a bit of a moral dilema over this. I strongly believe in freedom of expression, and that part of me is saying 'post a link to the manifesto'.
On the other hand I am a teacher and I know that some propogandist material can easily influence people - particularly younger people without a more complete experience and education in the ways of the world.
I've come down on the side of not posting the link - just..
jmlworld
Bikerman wrote:
jmlworld wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
He is an extremely disturbed and dangerous individual, but if you are going to talk about his motivations then I think it is wrong to ignore or mis-state what he said simply because of the evil that he consequently did.


What he said was clear as crystal. He wrote his motivation in detail in 1,000+ pages. Do we need any other evidence?
No, that is my point. I've not yet managed to read the whole thing, but I have read enough to know that:
a) Much of the underlying philosophy seems to come from the Unambomber, and parts of the manifesto are actually verbatim copies.
b) It contains quite a bit of genuinely scholarly work, properly researched and referenced.

I've actually found myself in a bit of a moral dilema over this. I strongly believe in freedom of expression, and that part of me is saying 'post a link to the manifesto'.
On the other hand I am a teacher and I know that some propogandist material can easily influence people - particularly younger people without a more complete experience and education in the ways of the world.
I've come down on the side of not posting the link - just..


I'm not a teacher, but, like you, I wouldn't post a link of such material on a public forum. Yes, it's already online, but showing a responsibility is golden.

However, I have a feeling that Internet shouldn't be censored. Adults should have the rights to access any content provided that there's a warning in a bold statement before unleashing offensive content.
deanhills
jmlworld wrote:
I'm not a teacher, but, like you, I wouldn't post a link of such material on a public forum. Yes, it's already online, but showing a responsibility is golden.

However, I have a feeling that Internet shouldn't be censored. Adults should have the rights to access any content provided that there's a warning in a bold statement before unleashing offensive content.
Couldn't agree with you more. I've read large sections of the material, but have avoided as much as I can to refer to it directly. I'd think however that the detailed step by step planning could be dangerous in inexperienced hands so am relieved it is not freely available.
Navigator
If someone wants to read that thing, send the link in a PM.
Da Rossa
Biker, I began typing a response but I agree this will flood and hijack this topic. I realised, though, your arguments are honest. Inspired me a will for discussion. See you someday in the p&r!
Related topics
Starcraft
Post Your Mix CD/Tapes Tracklists
All Alone in the way...
Why are you Alone?
I'm alone and I'm very happy on my own. Is there a cure?
Alone
Einstein proves Religion
I've NEVER read/seen Harry Potter -- am I alone??
To be alone
BF1942 stand-alone
Spending Valentine's Day alone
Norway killings
Identity and personhood
Is it immoral to write a story where the characters suffer?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.