Norway massacre suspect aired anti-Muslim, pro-Israel views

[Scurrilous]

1,500 page manifesto credited to Anders Behring Breivik, accused of killing spree, lays out worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism, and venomous attacks on Marxism and multiculturalism.

<snip>

"Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who killed nearly 100 people in a combined terror attack Friday that included car bombings in Oslo and a shooting rampage at an island summer camp, held fiercely anti-Islamic and pro-Israel views, according to a 1,500 page manifesto he uploaded before his killing spree Friday.

In the 1,500 page tome, which mentions Israel 359 times and “Jews” 324 times, Breivik lays out his worldview, which includes an extreme, bizarre, and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism, and venomous attacks on Marxism and multiculturalism.

In one passage, he lashes out at the western media which he accuses of unfairly focusing on the wrongdoing of Jews, saying “western journalists again and again systematically ignore serious Muslim attacks and rather focus on the Jews.”

In a jab at left-wing Jews, Breivik writes that pre-war German Jews were disloyal to their country, “at least the so-called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that oppose nationalism/Zionism and support multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists."

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. I wonder which member of the stormfront admin team he was.

[azurnoir]

5. so you think the stormfront admin team wants to fight alongside Zionists?

my the world is changing these days :sarcasm:

[bemildred]

11. Bizarre, ain't it?

Hoist on ones own petard indeed.

[PDJane]

2. "member" is the key.

This boy is not a 'lone nut'.

[regnaD kciN]

4. Maybe not, but he IS a nut, period...

...if, as is being reported, he's a Christian fundamentalist and a Freemason. That's a little like being a Jewish member of the Nazi Party, or an African-American Klansman. :crazy:

[kestrel91316]

3. He was indeed a Norske Teabaggerre.

[shaayecanaan]

6. Commentary devotes a whole paragraph to the story:-

Contentions
Re: Evil in Norway
John Podhoretz | @jpodhoretz 07.23.2011 - 8:54 PM

The news that the monster who killed so many kids at that camp in Norway is some kind of lone extremist with extremely peculiar views—a Christian, pro-Israel, anti-Muslim Freemason whose rantings include mentions of contrary schools of thought that don’t exist, like a “Vienna school”—should come as horrible relief to all of us who assumed in the immediate aftermath that this was an act of Islamist terrorism. Coming so soon before the anniversary of 9/11, the attack seemed to presage something terrible in the offing. What happened, instead, is something both more frightening (loose madman who is, by virtue of his solitary conduct, almost impossible to intercept before he acts) and more reassuring (this was not Mumbai 2.0, or Beslan). As for those, particularly those on the Israeli anti-Zionist left, who took to Twitter seemingly in celebration of the fact that the killer was not an Islamist—as though that calls into question strong action taken against the Islamists who commit the vast majority of such terrorist acts—one can only say that it is very strange and very sad to see what gives some activists pleasure. He is exactly the kind of psychotic ideologue of the Right so many in this country instantly assumed Jared Loughner, the schizophrenic who shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was—and this fact seems to have inspired a bizarre score-settling glee.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/23/re-evil-in-norway/

[shaayecanaan]

7. and a paragraph from Max Blumenthal...

"Breivik and other members of Europe’s new extreme right are fixated on the fear of the “demographic Jihad,” or being out-populated by overly fertile Muslim immigrants. They see themselves as Crusader warriors fighting a racial/religious holy war to preserve Western Civilization. Thus they turn for inspiration to Israel, the only ethnocracy in the world, a country that substantially bases its policies towards the Palestinians on what its leaders call “demographic considerations.” This is why Israeli flags invariably fly above black-masked English Defense League mobs, and why Geert Wilders, the most prominent Islamophobic politician in the world, routinely travels to Israel to demand the forced transfer of Palestinians."

http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-a-perfect-product-of-the-axis-of-islamophobia/

[Violet_Crumble]

8. OMG: Breivik identifies with the Israeli Right (Larry Derfner)

A computer check of the manifesto, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, shows he mentions Daniel Pipes 11 times. I couldn’t find out what Breivik says about Pipes, but I’m betting it’s good. He mentions Israel 359 times and Jews 324 times, and we know which Israel and which Jews he likes, and which he doesn’t.

There hasn’t been such a catastrophe, political and moral, for the Israeli and pro-Israeli Right since the 1995 Rabin assassination. This is almost deja vu - when Rabin was killed, everybody was shocked, but no one was surprised. Same thing now. That the Christian Right and Jewish Right have a kinship based on a common enemy – Muslims - was as glaring as could be. That there’s a lunatic fringe on the white Christian Right that hates Muslims and liberal “Arab-lovers” enough to kill them is also understood. That one of these lunatics went off, and that he admires the Zionist Right is shocking as hell, but not at all surprising.

The international MSM that excerpted Breivak’s manifesto, notably Reuters, CNN and Britain’s Daily Telegraph, haven’t published any of the Israel- or Jewish-related passages. These came out on Electronic Intifada and left-wing Jewish blogs Tikun Olam and Mondoweiss. Then they were published in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Then in The Jerusalem Post. (As I write this, an hour after Breivik’s views on Israel were reported in prime time on Channel 2, by far the most-watched news show in the country, this “local angle” still hasn’t appeared on Ha’aretz’s or Yediot Aharonot’s websites.) After the Channel 2 report, though, the floodgates will very soon open, here and everywhere else.

http://israelleft.com/2011/07/24/omg-breivik-identifies-with-the-israeli-right/

[shaayecanaan]

9. "Bombshell" may well be right...

The extreme Zionists and European far-right have been growing cosier for years, as witnessed by the Zionist positions of the English Defence League, Geert Wilders and the like. But the public has been oblivious to this for the most part. Even now most media outlets are refusing to report on this aspect of the Oslo massacre, although of course had he been an anti-semite they would have shouted it from the mastheads.

The fact is that anti-Muslim bigotry in Europe leaves anti-Semitism for dead. There are only 300 000 Jews in Europe, and in places like Germany they are mainly Russian working class slobs like the "rest of us". Not really the kind of people who would attract resentment. The far right has realised this and has adjusted its message accordingly.

None of this would matter, if it weren't for the fact that certain posters on this forum persistently conflate the positions of Palestinian supporters with the views of anti-semites such as David Duke, although of course no doubt those people would object vociferously if their own views were likened to Breivak's.

I thought the article on Commentary was particularly hypocritical - that magazine has done nothing but make hay out of September 11 for the last ten years, and they have seen fit to pre-emptively criticise the Left for doing the same thing vis-a-vis the Oslo massacre.

[bemildred]

12. We become what we hate.

And THAT is the best reason not to succumb to hate. And that is the one thing all reactionaries have if common, they hate, and they are afraid of the future.

[ellenrr]

10. "which Jew he likes and which he doesn't"...

"The Norwegian neo-Nazi views Zionist Israel, as represented by anti-jihadis like Avigdor Lieberman, as what he calls “cultural cousins.” Israel is the far-right’s friend in this view because this is a nation that hates Islam and will expel the Muslims living within it."

In other ways, Richard Silverstein in his blog, compares the Norwegian right-wing terrorists manifesto to Hitler's:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/07/24/breiviks-neo-nazi-manifesto-latter-day-mein-kampf/

[Jefferson23]

14. Incredible, thanks Violet. n/t

[azurnoir]

16. Thanks for posting

an incredible article with very interesting talkbacks

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

15. Yeah, makes as much sense as moving threads WRT the Fort Hood shooting to I/P.

He was pro-Palestinian, right?

:eyes:

[King_David]

17. And some people are making serious commentry on the thread

I wonder why?

[shira]

18. +972 magazine: Leftwing incitement to hatred/terror vs. Jews WRT Norwegian attack

This sick glee in the face of a terrorist attack
http://972mag.com/israelis’-perverse-support-of-terrorism/

That article could have been written by David Duke and goes to show the lengths Israel's delegitimizers will go to see Israel destroyed and its Jews harmed. Calling Israeli Jews "lepers", quoting from 9/11 truther sites about Jews dancing on 9/11 in NYC, Jews as master race, etc...

:puke:

But of course that's only "criticism", not demonization...

[shaayecanaan]

19. "That article could have been written by David Duke"

QED.

[shira]

20. You don't see anything wrong with that article, right? It's obscenely antisemitic. n/t

[bemildred]

21. Considering who Mr Gurvitz says he is, that's a fascinating piece. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I liked the bit where he said Breivik was an armed and ruthless version of Glenn Beck n/t

[bemildred]

24. I think I might offend someone if I commented on that, so ...

It's so easy to be misunderstood on the internets.

[shira]

26. He's a pretty sick individual. Here's an article of his from last year trivializing antisemitism...

....to the point that it's due mainly to Israel's actions and exaggerated outside the Islamic world (as it's negligible in western society).

http://972mag.com/the-jewish-problem-yossi-gurvitz/

So it's some Jews fault antisemitism exists. Imagine saying that of any other persecuted minority.

And antisemitism is negligible outside the Islamic world. Tell that to Jewish day schools and synagogues in the US, UK, France, etc...with 24/7 security.

:eyes:

Oh, here's Gurvitz referring to his Judeo-Nazi brothers across the green line....
http://ygurvitz.net/?p=48

[bemildred]

27. Well I can see why he annoys you.

But if I were you I would stop posting his work.

[shira]

28. You don't see this as the mirror image of far rightwing anti-Muslim incitement?

It's just legitimate criticism?

As legit as JihadWatch, Atlas Shrugs, etc..?

[bemildred]

29. Well OK then, keep posting his work.

Do carry on.

[shira]

30. Well, I guess you don't have a problem with that kind of "criticism". Thanks. n/t

[bemildred]

31. You posted it, not me. nt

[shira]

32. Yeah, to show the mirror image of the hate that influenced Breivik. Obviously, you don't see it...

...that way, or do not wish to acknowledge it for some reason.

Thanks.

[bemildred]

33. Well, it is true that Mr Gurvitz and Mr Breivik do not agree about much.

But that seems a rather weak basis for treating them as equivalent, no?

[shira]

34. Not comparing Gurvitz to Breivik, but rather Gurvitz to the RW sources that influenced Breivik.

But if you can't see any problem with Gurvitz's work, then you won't find his work as equally repugnant as the most extreme RW anti-Muslim sources.

[bemildred]

35. Hairsplitting won't get you far.

That fact that they disagree is still not much of a basis for considering them as equivalent.

Perhaps if you were to specify what it is that you find anti-semitic and/or hateful in the piece by Mr Gurvitz that you posted, it would make it clearer to me what your objections are.

[shira]

36. See posts #18 and #26....

That's some pretty sick shit.

Here's another on how Israel politicizes the Holocaust...
http://ygurvitz.net/?p=24

If you believe this is all legit criticism, then you can't possibly have a problem with sites like JihadWatch or Atlas Shrugs.

[bemildred]

37. Actually I can possibly have a problem with any site I choose for reasons that I alone choose.

I do appreciate your clarification, I should have paid more attention, but I expect that this conversation would immediately degenerate if I attempted to refute your feelings about him, so I think I'll leave it at: I would agree that he has a point of view, that he is not trying to be "fair", some of his terminology (Judeo-Nazi) I cannot approve of, even with regards to settlers, but "leper" seems sound enough applied as it is to the Israeli government; but I don't see that he rises to the level of the sites you mention, and I think he does make some criticisms that many will find to the point, and most of all as an apostate Israeli Jew he has a certain standing to comment that anyone not similarly placed does not. Which is why I suggest again it is a mistake for you to widen his audience.

[shira]

39. Every organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism would label Gurvitz's writings antisemitic...

...but for some reason, and I suspect it's because you (like others here) believe all these orgs are rightwing and trying to "cover" for zionist crimes - you don't believe any of them are credible and they're doing some disservice by exaggerating antisemitism. So organizations like....

ADL
Wiesenthal Center
Community Security Trust
Vidal Sassoon Center
EU working definition of antisemitism

...these are organizations compromised by Zionists trying to cover for Israel by dishonestly claiming all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

Am I close?

[shaayecanaan]

40. Every organisation dedicated to fighting Islamophobia would have the same view...

of many of the right wing websites you frequent, particularly the Little Green Footballs blog. It turns out that Anders Breivik was also fond of such websites, in particular Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs, which likewise feature virulently anti-Muslim sentiments on a regular basis.

You know, there's an old saying about glass houses and throwing stones.

[shira]

43. Deflection. Are there any orgs dedicated to fighting antisemitism you find credible?

Somehow I doubt it.

You wrote that orgs dedicated to fighting Islamophobia share the same views as LGF, JihadWatch, and Atlas Shrugs. Did you mean Antisemitism, not Islamophobia? And do you actually believe that?

And I can't say I'm a fan of any of those websites...

So what's the latest insane Mossad conspiracy in al-Manure these days? Zionist spy squirrels?

[shaayecanaan]

44. Absolutely...

the Southern Poverty Law Centre, for one.

You have quoted approvingly from the Little Green Footballs website. I have never quoted from al-Manar, and if I were to do so I would not be quoting approvingly.

[shira]

46. And how do you think they'd view Gurvitz's remarks? As fair game?

I never quoted from LGF as I don't ever frequent the site. What I posted here was from another website run by a fellow liberal who quoted from there. Now I know liberals to folks like yourself are considered rightwing, but whatever. You're the ones spewing far rightwing talking points from Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran so you don't get to really choose what's rightwing vs. leftwing....

You don't regularly read or watch al-Manar?

[shaayecanaan]

58. al-Manar is pretty difficult to watch, to be honest...

it used to be carried on satellite but is no longer available in Australia. The news coverage is turgid propaganda, quite reminiscent of Press TV. Because the Iranians aren`t made of money, the production values tend to suffer a bit as well. Ironically, because of this, most of the time al-Manar doesnt actually broadcast news programs because it doesnt have the budget. Instead it plays music videos and serials. Hezbollah of course isn`t a terribly huge fan of modern pop music so the choice of music videos is distinctly dowdy, which makes the whole channel seem a bit shambolic overall, a kind of really second-rate, nebbish MTV.

The only time I ever watched it is when there was a war on involving Hezbollah. Then of course the station comes into its own because it is the only network with access to HA, and therefore any choice tidbits are likely to be revealed on its broadast. For example the Silkworm missile strike on the Israeli naval ship by Hezbollah in 2006 was hinted at earlier in that afternoon by Nasrallah on al-Manar.

"What I posted here was from another website run by a fellow liberal who quoted from there."

And what website was that, pray?

[shira]

61. Well I was wrong....do you feel the same way about al-Jazeera too?

That other site is Augean Stables.

I know, I know, not your kind of liberal.

Euston Manifesto type....
http://eustonmanifesto.org/the-euston-manifesto/

[shaayecanaan]

66. Do you honestly equate al-Jazeera with David Duke?

In any event, the excerpt you quoted from Little Green Footballs does appear on the Augean Stables:-

"Except, the footage seems to be a fake. A medical doctor commented at the indispensible Little Green Footballs:

I’m no military expert, but I am a doctor, and this video is bullsh-t. The chest compressions that were being performed at the beginning of this video were absolutely, positively fake. The large man in the white coat was NOT performing CPR on that child. He was just sort of tapping on the child’s sternum a little bit with his fingers. You can’t make blood flow like that. Furthermore, there’s no point in doing chest compressions if you’re not also ventilating the patient somehow. In this video, I can’t tell for sure if the patient has an endotracheal tube in place, but you can see that there is nobody bag-ventilating him (a bag is actually hanging by the head of the bed), and there is no ventilator attached to the patient. In a hospital, during a code on a ventilated patient, somebody would probably be bagging the patient during the chest compressions. And they also would have moved the bed away from the wall, so that somebody could get back there to intubate the patient and/or bag him. In short, the “resuscitation scene” at the beginning is fake, and it’s a pretty lame fake at that."

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/09/cnn-steps-in-the-pallywood-doodoo-heartrending-footage-staged-by-norwegian-doctors/

I don't know of many liberals that consider the Little Green Footballs site to be "indispensible". Nor am I even aware that Mr Lowndes even self-identifies as a liberal. I would also make the point that the remark that you quoted from the Augean stables is clearly attributed to the Little Green Footballs website.

I also note that the remarks of the anonymous doctor are not quite consistent with the most current best practices regarding first aid. In the case of a single rescuer assisting a person without a pulse, it is considered preferable to perform compressions without ventilation.

See for example:-

http://firstaid.about.com/od/cpr/a/07_Y_no_breaths.htm

Furthermore, performing CPR on a child is a much more delicate situation than performing it on an adult. In the case of an infant the pressure amounts to no more than that which can be applied with the index and middle fingers.

[bemildred]

45. No, that is all hypothetical bullshit and propaganda, and you are not close. nt

[shira]

49. Really? So name a few orgs dedicated to battling antisemitism you find credible. n/t

[bemildred]

52. Do YOU even know what you mean?

I don't find ANY organization that publishes PR statements "credible", I don't believe or disbelieve stuff because of where it comes from. I am not going to have an argument with you about what sort of KoolAid I ought to drink.

[bemildred]

47. PS: See Violet's post, #38, that is precisely what Mr Gurvitz is talking about.

I am not in doubt that Norway did not deserve what it got, nor is Mr Gurvitz.

[shira]

48. Do you really not see the difference b/w JJ Goldberg's article and Gurvitz's?

FTR, I don't have any problem with JJ Goldberg's article whether I agree with his conclusions or not.

Gurvitz, OTOH, is completely different.

But you can't detect any difference, can you? It's the difference b/w criticism and demonization as Hirsch explains here:
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1786

Thank you for bringing up Violet's post #38, as these 2 articles about Norway talkbacks perfectly demonstrate the difference b/w criticism and demonization.

[bemildred]

50. I'm sorry, I've read more than enough of all this horseshit you like to post

and obsess over.

[shira]

51. But you just read Gurvitz and JJ Goldberg. You can't tell the difference b/w the articles? n/t

[bemildred]

53. They have lots of differences, different authors for example, different style.

Why do you ask these stupid questions over and over?

[shira]

54. Fascinating. One article is straight out demonization, the other isn't and you can't tell.

Or you're unwilling to admit that you actually can...

I suspect you'd be able to tell the difference between a NYT and JihadWatch article describing the same incident, but on this you can't or won't.

[bemildred]

55. Talking to you is like talking to a fencepost.

:hi:

[bemildred]

56. Fascinating. Both articles are talking about the same delusional attitudes, and you can't tell. nt

[shira]

57. Wrong. Gurvitz's work contains antisemitism so unlike JJ Goldberg, his work is illegitimate.

That's the difference.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. But he's saying the same things as JJ Goldberg, so it's not illegitimate...

I'm using yr 'logic' here, because I just read a post from you defending yr link to an article by an extreme RWer, claiming he's saying the same thing as credible sources. You can't have it both ways...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=359053&mesg_id=359290

[bemildred]

70. Hi Violet.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

72. So true, bemildred...

I do agree with what you said upthread. It IS like talking to a fencepost! :)

[shira]

73. No, no... Gurvitz and JJ Goldberg are reporting on the same thing. The content is legit

...but Gurvitz's use of antisemitism in his article shows he is engaging in demonization, which makes his article more fit for Stormfront than anything else.

You do know the difference b/w Stormfront and legit criticism of Israel, right?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Here's an article I posted elsewhere at DU...

It's not about what motivated him, but about the very disturbing tendency of laying blame before any facts were known. And it's by Charlie Brooker, even though he's not being funny in this one, so everyone should read it, imo...

went to bed in a terrible world and awoke inside a worse one. At the time of writing, details of the Norwegian atrocity are still emerging, although the identity of the perpetrator has now been confirmed and his motivation seems increasingly clear: a far-right anti-Muslim extremist who despised the ruling party.

Presumably he wanted to make a name for himself, which is why I won't identify him. His name deserves to be forgotten. Discarded. Deleted. Labels like "madman", "monster", or "maniac" won't do, either. There's a perverse glorification in terms like that. If the media's going to call him anything, it should call him pathetic; a nothing.


<snip>

As more information regarding the identity of the terrorist responsible for the massacre comes to light, articles attempting to explain his motives are starting to appear online. And beneath them are comments from readers, largely expressing outrage and horror. But there are a disturbing number that start, "What this lunatic did was awful, but . . ."

These "but" commenters then go on to discuss immigration, often with reference to a shaky Muslim-baiting story they've half-remembered from the press. So despite this being a story about an anti-Muslim extremist killing Norwegians who weren't Muslim, they've managed to find a way to keep the finger of blame pointing at the Muslims, thereby following a narrative lead they've been fed for years, from the overall depiction of terrorism as an almost exclusively Islamic pursuit, outlined by "security experts" quick to see al-Qaida tentacles everywhere, to the fabricated tabloid fairytales about "Muslim-only loos" or local councils "banning Christmas".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/charlie-brooker-norway-mass-killings

[bemildred]

25. I read that, I just read it again, it was good.

I find I am speechless at the sort of dumbness that expects to create this or that utopia by the vigorous pursuit of violence. It doesn't work that way, it never has.

At least one can give the Norwegian government credit for "getting it".

[Scurrilous]

67. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Israelis Debate on the Web: Did Norway Get What It Deserved?

The Norway massacre has touched off a nasty war of words on the Israeli Internet over the meaning of the event and its implications for Israel. And I do mean nasty: Judging by the comments sections on the main Hebrew websites, the main questions under debate seem to be whether Norwegians deserve any sympathy from Israelis given the country’s pro-Palestinian policies, whether the killer deserves any sympathy given his self-declared intention of fighting Islamic extremism and, perhaps ironically, whether calling attention to this debate is in itself an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic act.

The debate seems to be taking place almost entirely on Hebrew websites. There’s a bit of bile popping up on the English-language Jerusalem Post site as well (for example, there are a handful of choice comments of a now-they’ll-know-what-it-feels-like variety following this Post news article reporting on Israel’s official offer of sympathy and aid). In Hebrew, though, no holds are barred. I’ve translated some of the back-and-forth from the Ynet and Maariv websites below, to give you taste.

The debate exploded aboveground on Saturday in an opinion essay at Ynet (in Hebrew only) by Ziv Lenchner, a left-leaning Tel Aviv artist and one of Ynet’s large, bipartisan stable of columnists. It’s called “Dancing the Hora on Norwegian Blood.” He argues that the comment sections on news websites are a fair barometer of public sentiment (a questionable premise) and that the overwhelming response is schadenfreude, pleasure at Norway’s pain. As I’ll show below, that judgment seems pretty accurate.

He goes on to blame the Netanyahu government, which he accuses of whipping up a constant mood of “the whole world is against us.” Again, a stretch—a government can exacerbate a mood, but it can’t create it out of whole cloth. Israelis have been scared and angry since long before this government came in two and a half years ago, for a whole variety of reasons. The government isn’t working overtime to dispel the mood, but it can’t be blamed for creating it. Finally, Lenchner argues, on very solid ground, that the vindictive mood reflected on the Web is immoral and un-Jewish, citing the biblical injunction “do not rejoice in the fall of your enemy.”

His article has drawn hundreds of responses—more than any of the articles he complains about. They fall into four basic categories in roughly equal proportions: 1.) Hurray, the Norwegians had it coming; 2.) What happened is horrible but maybe now they’ll understand what we’re up against; 3.) What happened is horrible and the celebrations here are appalling; 4.) This article is a bunch of lies, Ziv Lenchner invented this whole schadenfreude thing because he’s a lying leftist who wants to destroy Israel.


Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/140297/#ixzz1TFagAN6f

[azurnoir]

42. Thanks it's saddening but not too surprising

I can't help but wonder what the talkbacks looked like after 9/11

[Scurrilous]

41. Suspect admired bloggers who believe Europe is drowning in Muslims

<snip>

"Andres Behring Breivik was a prolific blogger and visitor to online sites that reaffirmed his worldview.

Breivik's taste in online conversation shows a compulsive interest in websites that see the modern world in terms of a "clash of civilizations," where Christian values are supposedly under siege in the face of an Islamic onslaught.

But rarely if ever does he seem to have advocated a violent response to what he saw as the Islamization of Europe, even as he planned a massacre for years.

The head of Norway's intelligence police, Janne Kristiansen, told a Norwegian newspaper Monday that Breivik had "deliberately desisted from violent exhortations on the net. He has more or less been a moderate, and has neither been part of any extremist network."

The blogs and websites Breivik enthused about were pro-American and pro-Israel, extremely hostile to Islam and despairing that the European political elite would ever see the error of its liberal multicultural outlook."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/27/norway.terror.web/

[LeftishBrit]

59. Anyone who claims that pre-war liberal German Jews were 'disloyal to their country'

is not pro-Israel; he is a Nazi who is a supporter of the far right in all countries.

'Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us.'

Quite chilling.

[shira]

60. Larry Derfner thinks he's a rightwing zionist friend of Israel....

http://israelleft.com/2011/07/26/conspiracy-of-silence-breiviks-israelijewish-connection/

[LeftishBrit]

62. He calls him a 'rightwing Zionist' but not, as far as I can see, a friend of Israel

There are many right-wing Zionists who are anything but real friends of Israel - any more than the Greeks bearing gifts were real friends to Troy.

Rapture-ready Christian Zionists are a common example. So are Europaean Islamophobic anti-immigrant bigots, of whom Breivik is an extreme example.

[azurnoir]

63. you mean like Geert Wilders? JPost -"Another friend in Europe"

Last Friday, the judges were removed by an oversight panel of their peers, who agreed to the claim of Wilders’ lawyer that the court was suspect of bias. The trial will now have to start afresh before another court at a date yet to be determined.

From an Israeli viewpoint, however, the long-awaited establishment of a new Dutch cabinet is a far more important event. The previous cabinet, under former CDA Christian Democratic leader Jan Peter Balkenende, was Israel’s greatest supporter in Western Europe during the last few years.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=192764

[shira]

64. That comment about Germany puts him closer to neo-naziism than RW zionism. n/t

[shira]

65. Read what Breivik wrote about Hitler and the Jews...

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-on-hitler-and-the-jews/

He's definitely closer to being a neo-nazi.

Banned from Stormfront....

:eyes:

[shaayecanaan]

68. I think being banned from Stormfront would probably indicate that

his views probably aren't all that consistent with Nazism. Thanks for posting the link though, quite interesting.

"Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him. Why? No person has ever committed a more horrible crime against his tribe than Hitler. Because of him, the Germanic tribes are dying and MAY be completely wiped out unless we manage to win within 20–70 years. Thanks to his insane campaign and the subsequent genocide of the 6 million Jews, multiculturalism, the anti-European hate ideology was created."

His views seem quite eclectic and confused on the whole, but "his insane campaign and subsequent genocide of the 6 million Jews" is not a typical remark from a Nazi.

[bemildred]

71. Bizarre drivel.

Although I quite agree as to what a giant loser Hitler was.