Hi Butterflytyrant,
BT writes:
I would say he would consider his actions have been a great success.
"Huge amount of media attention to his cause." - and most of it is negative. Gary Glitter had
massive media attention too. On balance: not a success.
"The wide distribution of his manifesto." - Yes, it has been widely distributed.
"A direct loss of life of individuals he saw as the cause of his problem." - since many of them were below the voting age, I suspect only a madman could blame them for the government's policies - but since he
is mad, I expect that he
does consider their deaths a success.
"People now take him seriously." - I am not sure what you mean by 'take him seriously'. Before the attack he was ignored - and now he is loathed. Is that a good thing for him?
BT writes:
I disagree. How do you make that judgement? How many lives is his agenda worth? How many lives is anyones agenda worth? I would not make a judgement like that because it is very subjective. Many people have causes they believe are worth dying for. The amount of people with agendas they believe are worth dying for is usually less.
How many lives is someone's agenda worth? IMO: None.
And you may not be willing to make a judgement about how many lives an agenda is worth, but Breivik was more than willing to.
He decided it was as many as he was able to kill. 76 lives in total.
I am not sure why you are asking about causes people are willing to die for, as Breivik
didn't die for his cause.
It was only innocent people that died for his cause.
BT writes:
True. But many people are not condeming him for what he was sying. They are condeming him for the way he said it. people are now talking about the elephant in the room.
But most people
aren't talking about his manifesto.
Here is a good example:
http://mangans.blogspot.com/...s-ideology-doesnt-matter.htmlMany voices, but none actually talk about the details of the manifesto.
If someone does talk about the details they tend to be told to shut up:
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110728/165431856.htmlBreivik has undermined his own agenda.
BT writes:
As to his actions. I am aware that pretty much everyone is distancy themselves from his actions. But who is distancing themselves of the ideology?
Most people are distancing themselves from his ideologies.
As I said previously, even the National Front is distancing themselves from his ideologies.
As a consequence of Breivik's actions, it is now very difficult to criticise multiculturalism without being tarnished by Breivik's 'psychopath' brush - and no-one wants to be touched by that brush.
BT writes:
Many immigrant Islamic people are not happy with how their lives are in different countries, the bombs in London buses would be a very good example of this.
If by 'many' you mean about 25, then I might agree.
But if by 'many' you mean 'the majority of' then I strongly disagree.
I have friends who are Muslims - I work with Muslims - I have customers who are Muslims: they all like living in Britain.
The bombs in London were planted by psychopaths and were condemned by the majority of Muslims.
BT writes:
What I am suggesting is that we work out a way that people like Breivik, the people on the street screaming for blood after the Danish cartoons, the people who want to kill Salmun Rushdie, the people who want to wear burqas, the people who want to have Islamic schools and the people who want to smear peanut butter on their bodies and do nudey runs can all be happy.
We already have a way - it is called democracy.
p.s.
If I have missed out responding to any part of your post it is not because I am ignoring it, but I am trying to mitigate each reply getting longer and longer.
If you feel I have skipped a particularly important remark, then please repeat it and I will address it.
™ Version 4.2
