Ash....Breivik's manifesto

[eastgermanautos]

Your mum saps my manly fluids.

Probably so. .

[eastgermanautos]

Shirer's book is interesting largely as reportage from a guy who was there at the time rather than as serious history.

I of course have read Gibbon. The idea of it as a comic is...interesting. Did you know he had a testicle the size of a small baby? Gibbon, that is, not your friend.

Wow! Fun fact. .

[Sir C]

Why do you fools argue about this stuff? I worry that you are sapping the manly fluids of our great site, admitting impurities to our precious bodily fluids.

'Fools'? This is online bullying and I won't stand for it. I demand a safe space.

[eastgermanautos]

Wow! Fun fact. .

I seem to recall reading a section devoted to Caracalla.

[Burney]

I seem to recall reading a section devoted to Caracalla.

Yes. Like so many Roman Emperors, he fell foul of the Parthians. They never really got the hang of Johnny Parthian.

[eastgermanautos]

Yes. Like so many Roman Emperors, he fell foul of the Parthians. They never really got the hang of Johnny Parthian.

Yup.

[Ash]

Anyway, I was just responding to Ash's incredulous response to the suggestion that Breivik was not acting to protect the west from subjugation.

So what if he thinks he's doing that? He thinks he can save Europe from Islam by killing the multiculturalist left until they go away, while ISIS want to Islamise Europe by killing infidels until they submit. Opposite causes but same operating procedures.

My incredulity was not about his objectives but your seeming to think that he is achieving them.

[Monty92]

So what if he thinks he's doing that? He thinks he can save Europe from Islam by killing the multiculturalist left until they go away, while ISIS want to Islamise Europe by killing infidels until they submit. Opposite causes but same operating procedures.

My incredulity was not about his objectives but your seeming to think that he is achieving them.

Can you point me towards a post in which I make any implicit or explicit reference to the relative success or otherwise of these people's objectives? Certainly your response to my original point ("Acting to protect the west from subjugation? Really? You are joking, right?) Did not make clear that this was what you were picking me up on.

You did seem to be making the very specific point, more than once, that these people are one and the same.

"...the freelance nutters like Mr Stabby of Bloomsbury are just nutters like this Thomas Nightmare fellow."

“A mere technical detail, subject to the context of the belief system. Otherwise they're pretty similar imo.”

Do you still deny the distinction?

[Ash]

Can you point me towards a post in which I make any implicit or explicit reference to the relative success or otherwise of these people's objectives? Certainly your response to my original point ("Acting to protect the west from subjugation? Really? You are joking, right?) Did not make clear that this was what you were picking me up on.

You did seem to be making the very specific point, more than once, that these people are one and the same.

"...the freelance nutters like Mr Stabby of Bloomsbury are just nutters like this Thomas Nightmare fellow."

“A mere technical detail, subject to the context of the belief system. Otherwise they're pretty similar imo.”

Do you still deny the distinction?

I should have said that I may have misunderstood that you thought they were achieving those objectives, and of course I didn't believe you could be thinking that. So that's that bit sorted.

The bigly point is that I do not see that the distinction of political aims stops them all being terrorists. Footballers and cricketers are both subsets of the category sportsmen. Ultra-right-wing terrorists and Islamist terrorists are subsets of the category terrorists. I don't see why this should seem mysterious.

[Sir C]

I should have said that I may have misunderstood that you thought they were achieving those objectives, and of course I didn't believe you could be thinking that. So that's that bit sorted.

The bigly point is that I do not see that the distinction of political aims stops them all being terrorists. Footballers and cricketers are both subsets of the category sportsmen. Ultra-right-wing terrorists and Islamist terrorists are subsets of the category terrorists. I don't see why this should seem mysterious.

I tend to think of terrorists as affiliated to a particular group, though. I mean, if I were to decide that my political goal was the freedom to abuse monty, and if I raped him at gunpoint to further my goal, that wouldn't make me a terrorist, would it? It would make me a lone nutter. A sexually gratified lone nutter, admittedly, but a lone nutter nonetheless.

I appreciate that this is a rather strange analogy but I was taken by the mental image of me raping monty at gunpoint.

Back in 5.