Norway: dozens killed in terror attacks

[Voltron]

Do you mean the United States here?

Yes, thats coming from personal experience. Just read the news you will see what is happening over there on an everyday basis. Anyway thats my take on it.

[TrueMacedonian]

Yes, thats coming from personal experience. Just read the news you will see what is happening over there on an everyday basis. Anyway thats my take on it.

The founding faith of the United States? The Founding Fathers did not model the United States as a Christian nation. Even John Adams states this in a letter;

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Hence seperation of Church and State.

[Vangelovski]

The founding faith of the United States? The Founding Fathers did not model the United States as a Christian nation. Even John Adams states this in a letter;



Hence seperation of Church and State.

TM, the US was founded on Christianity. You've completely misunderstood that qoute. A much more in-depth research is needed to understand the founding fathers and their commitment to Christianity and the fact that the founding documents are based on Biblical principles.

The famous "separation of church and state" is so misunderstood that it beggers belief! It means that the state should not interfere in religion, but that religion should guide the state.

[TrueMacedonian]

TM, the US was founded on Christianity. You've completely misunderstood that qoute. A much more in-depth research is needed to understand the founding fathers and their commitment to Christianity and the fact that the founding documents are based on Biblical principles.

The famous "separation of church and state" is so misunderstood that it beggers belief! It means that the state should not interfere in religion, but that religion should guide the state.

The Founding Fathers religious beliefs are very varied. This debate is still raging today. Some say that Washington was a devout christian. Others say he was a deist. Was John Adams a Unitarian or a Realist or a Deist? Jefferson and Franklin go way out of bounds from christianity. Voltron stated "but when you try to isolate God and the country's founding faith" well what founding faith are we talking about here? Some Founding Fathers felt the virgin birth of christ was nonsense (Jefferson) and some felt that there was more than one god (Franklin) while some stated that the church caused much pain and suffering in the world (Adams).

[Vangelovski]

TM,

I'm not sure what books you are reading, but you should go to the original sources and writings of these people. Further, you should study their lives and finally, you should look at the founding documents of your own country.

Most importantly, you should refrain from taking segments of sentences completely out of context and then using them as some sort of "evidence" that a particular founder considered the US was not based on Biblical principles.

All basic stuff for the historian...even the self-professed ones.

[TrueMacedonian]

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/30/for-breivik-insanity-tough-to-prove-hard-to-fake

For Breivik, insanity tough to prove, hard to fake
Kate Kelland, Reuters

Saturday, July 30, 2011 10:29:33 EDT AM

Assessing whether Norway’s confessed mass killer Anders Behring Breivik is insane, as his lawyer asserts, will take months of observation, interviews and analysis — and experts say it’s hard to fake mental illness.

Forensic psychiatrists who analyse the minds of murderers point to clear patterns of behaviour that can date far back and may give vital clues to Breivik’s mental state when he killed at least 76 people in a shooting spree and bomb attack on July 22.

Breivik’s lawyer Geir Lippestad has already said “this whole case indicated that he is insane” , but experts point to some key factors that might suggest a different view.

They say the most likely final outcome is that Breivik, 32, will be jailed or kept in a secure mental hospital until he is at least in his early fifties, and any release beyond that would be allowed only if a parole board thinks it is safe — unlikely given the scale and severity of his crimes.

“The insanity defence is about whether someone understands what they’re doing, and if they do..whether they realise it is legally wrong,” said Seena Fazel, a clinical senior lecturer in forensic psychiatry at the University of Oxford.

“If you think when you’re attacking somebody that you’re actually attacking a piece of bread...and if you had no idea what you did was legally wrong...then people would consider that as part of an insanity defence,” he told a briefing in London.

These elements also play into another key consideration for insanity — whether the killer had the capacity to form intent.

“A high degree of planning and premeditation, and an ability to see through to the consequences of your actions in a rational way, imply some capacity to form intent,” Fazel said

Breivik’s copious writings — some of which appear in diaries and a 1,500-page “manifesto” in which he wrote of himself as a righteous crusader on a mission to save European “Christendom” from a tide of Islam — suggest he planned his attacks months in advance, gradually gathering the tools and the expertise he needed.

His diary entry on April 27 reads: “I made the order for the fertilizer which were to be delivered a week later. Prior to making this order I had officially registered my company as an agricultural entity.”

He adds: “The last week in the capital I spent a lot of time with friends, partying and attending various social events. I knew that it would be the last chance for a very long time.”

On July 4 he wrote: “Began the preparations for a trip to extract the armour cache I had dug down a year ago...”

Fin Larkin, a consultant psychiatrist familiar with making assessments of offenders’ minds, said they “have to be pretty patently mentally unwell” to successfully claim insanity.

“It’s not impossible...but it’s actually quite difficult to fake,” he said.

Larkin, who works in the personality disorder section of Britain’s Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital, which has housed and treated some of its most notorious killers, said psychiatrists making such assessments take as their starting point that everything the defendant says is a lie.

“They’ve often got strong motivation not to tell the truth, they may be very well researched, they may have planned things for quite a while, they may be good mimics who have spent time with mentally ill people,” he said.

Experts say that while there are some common factors that often crop up in the backgrounds of mass killers — a difficult childhood, a lack of empathy, sadistic behaviour and difficulties forming and maintaining relationships — these on their own offer few clues for a mental illness diagnosis.

For a proper assessment, offenders should ideally be admitted to a high-security hospital where psychiatrists and other specialists monitor them day and night to observe their reactions to people, situations and the stresses of daily life.

This could and should take several months, Fazel said, and should be combined with a detailed search of the offender’s life course — including interviews with family, old friends, online contacts, analyses of diaries, and going back to school reports and earlier notes from doctors or other professionals.

“It’s too early at the moment to say much about this man in terms of diagnosis, but it’s very important to read his writings, interview informants, friends and family and get as much objective information as possible.”

[TrueMacedonian]

TM,

I'm not sure what books you are reading, but you should go to the original sources and writings of these people. Further, you should study their lives and finally, you should look at the founding documents of your own country.

Most importantly, you should refrain from taking segments of sentences completely out of context and then using them as some sort of "evidence" that a particular founder considered the US was not based on Biblical principles.

All basic stuff for the historian...even the self-professed ones.

I have read books on the Founding Fathers Tom. I think you are a little out of bounds assuming that America and its Founding Fathers had a 'Founding Faith' as Voltron claims. This is debateable considering the Founders beliefs were varied.

[George S.]

Clearly the guy is a lunatic & should never be released.If he claims to be a christian test.
Did jesus christ say to go out & kill people no,In what way was this guy a christian because he professes to be one.He killed so many innocent people only because they were there.I think we should stop blaming religion as god & religion does not teach to go & kill your fellow man.Only in a war where you kill or are going to be killed do we resort to killing.Remember in the ten commandments it says Do not kill,you should also love your neighbour as yourself.
So how is that telling someone go out & commit mass murder.The guy is not a christian he is insane to do that.

[George S.]

We are assuming that this guy is insane he might be perfectly sane when he committed those murders.There is no way he can justify what he did it's cold blooded calculated murdering of innocent people.
Remember in that song i don't like mondays I'm going to shoot the day down.Well this guy went on a shooting spree for that.
Then you have these so called fringe cults that tell people to kill themselves or to kill others
is beyond beleif.It gives religion a bad name.But then again i'ts not the religion it's the people who take it to the nth degree.
Then there's people who harbour so much hate that the'll do anything including mass murder & killing of themselves.

[Vangelovski]

I have read books on the Founding Fathers Tom. I think you are a little out of bounds assuming that America and its Founding Fathers had a 'Founding Faith' as Voltron claims. This is debateable considering the Founders beliefs were varied.

Again, how about you try and read some of the original sources? You live in the states, it shouldn't be that hard to access copies of their actual works or your own country's founding documents.

[TrueMacedonian]

Again, how about you try and read some of the original sources? You live in the states, it shouldn't be that hard to access copies of their actual works or your own country's founding documents.

Sure. Like the Constitution of the United States which is one of the most important documents in this country's history - http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

Doesn't mention anything about a 'Founding Faith'.

Bill of Rights - http://www.suwanneegop.com/billofrights.pdf

Doesn't mention anything about a 'Founding Faith'.

[Vangelovski]

Sure. Like the Constitution of the United States which is one of the most important documents in this country's history - http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf

Doesn't mention anything about a 'Founding Faith'.

Bill of Rights - http://www.suwanneegop.com/billofrights.pdf

Doesn't mention anything about a 'Founding Faith'.

That's a very superficial look at them TM. How is it that you consider yourself a historian?

The least I would expect from a historian would be to acquaint themselves with the moral values of Christianity and those of the founding documents and then do a thorough comparison. Then I would expect a good historian to look at the original works of the founders themselves and see what they had to say. Finally, I would expect a historian to actually study the lives of the founders and their "extra-curricular" activities.

That's just a basic start. For a really good historian, I would expect much more. But I see you did a "ctrl" "f" for 'founding faith', found nothing and moved on. Great work Watson!

P.S. There are more founding documents than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What country do you live in again?

[TrueMacedonian]

That's a very superficial look at them TM. How is it that you consider yourself a historian?

The least I would expect from a historian would be to acquaint themselves with the moral values of Christianity and those of the founding documents and then do a thorough comparison. Then I would expect a good historian to look at the original works of the founders themselves and see what they had to say. Finally, I would expect a historian to actually study the lives of the founders and their "extra-curricular" activities.

That's just a basic start. For a really good historian, I would expect much more. But I see you did a "ctrl" "f" for 'founding faith', found nothing and moved on. Great work Watson!

P.S. There are more founding documents than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What country do you live in again?

I'll pm you a book I have about the founders and their faiths that I read. For now back to Norway - http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....ights-templar/

What is the Knights Templar?
By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

The group has come to everyone's attention because of Anders Behring Breivik's killing spree in Norway, now just over a week ago. He claimed in his rambling manifesto to represent a modern-day "Knights Templar".

But who are they?

The name might ring a bell, especially if you've seen The DaVinci Code or National Treasure or one of any number of recent films. But these are, of course, all fictional. What are the facts?

The Knights Templar were a Christian military order founded in the early 12th century. Its members were said to be elite warriors who wore distinctive white mantles with a red cross. They made their reputation by winning a series of battles in the Crusades.

Ironically, the Knights' first headquarters were in a mosque - the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem - because they believed it was built on top of the ruins of Solomon's Temple. Their name, templar, comes from that legendary temple.

The Knights' main job was said to be protecting Christian pilgrims from Muslims (amongst others). To this day, the site of the mosque and the temple mount remains one of the most heavily disputed place on earth.

The order of the Knights Templar was dissolved in 1312, but its legacy lives on. Rumors still swirl that the group exists in total secrecy and guards the Holy Grail.

From what sounds like fiction, back to fact: We know that Brevik saw himself as a Knight Templar.

But get this: Halfway across the world from Norway, a new drug gang has recently arisen in Mexico. They call themselves quite simply "The Knights Templar".

And they claim to live by a religious code, a copy of which the Associated Press recently obtained. It says the drug-dealing knights will "defend the values of society...against materialism, injustice and tyranny" and that its members will be "honorable", "noble", "courteous" and "honest".

So they are "honest" drug dealers, selling marijuana, cocaine and whatever else in the name of God?

Anders Breivik's fascination with the Knights is less bizarre - in fact, he's part of a larger movement. People like Breivik are trying to resurrect the idea of a modern-day Crusade, a real clash of civilizations against what they see as an Islamic invasion of Europe.

In fact, Muslims make up only about 3 % of Europe's population and are likely to rise to between 5% and 8% by 2025 and level out at that point. But that doesn't change the reality of the anger, hatred and violence.

Ironically, in Breivik's nostalgic view of the medieval world, the Knights Templar resembles nothing so much as al Qaeda, a terrorist organization that is fundamentally opposed to the modern world.

We still don't know if Breivik's boast that there are more lone knights like him waiting to act is true. But if his depiction of the knight as a self-sacrificing assassin on a larger holy mission sounds familiar, it's because it too is mirrored in Islamist terror. That's exactly what a suicide bomber is: A lone fighter, often acting in the so-called interests of a larger movement and willing to kill innocents to draw attention to the cause.

While we have all focused on the dangers of radical Islam and of Muslim terror, the attack in Norway should remind us that there is actually a pretty large problem of other sources of terrorism in the West.

The European Union's 2010 Terrorism Situation and Trend Report has some fascinating findings. It showed that of the 294 terror attacks committed in Europe in 2009, only one was conducted by Islamists. That's a third of one percent.

The most recent statistics show there were 249 terror attacks in Europe in 2010. Only three of those attacks were carried out by Islamist terrorists. Again, that's about one percent. Most of the attacks were by separatist groups or anarchists.

So perhaps that's the lesson we can learn from the events in Norway. Islamic radicalism is a real problem and Islamic terrorism a real threat. But if we ignore other kinds of threats we're likely to be blindsided by another Gabby Giffords shooting or another Virginia Tech massacre.

[TrueMacedonian]

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/OsamaBinLadenDead/2011/08/01/Norway_gunman_not_likely_legally_insane_645013.html

Norway gunman not likely legally insane

It's unlikely that the right-wing extremist who admitted killing dozens in Norway last week will be declared legally insane because he appears to have been in control of his actions, the head of the panel that will review his psychiatric evaluation told AP.

The decision on Anders Behring Breivik's mental state will determine whether he can be held criminally liable and punished with a prison sentence or sent to a psychiatric ward for treatment.

The July 22 attacks were so carefully planned and executed that it would be difficult to argue they were the work of a delusional madman, said Tarjei Rygnestad, who heads the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine.

In Norway, an insanity defence requires that a defendant be in a state of psychosis while committing the crime with which he or she is charged.

That means the defendant has lost contact with reality to the point that he's no longer in control of his own actions.

'It's not very likely he was psychotic,' Rygnestad told AP.

The forensic board must review and approve the examination by two court-appointed psychiatrists before the report goes to the judge hearing the case.

The judge will then decide whether Breivik can be held criminally liable.

Rygnestad told AP a psychotic person can only perform simple tasks. Even driving from downtown Oslo to the lake northwest of the capital, where Breivik opened fire at a political youth camp, would be too complicated.

'If you have voices in your head telling you to do this and that, it will disturb everything, and driving a car is very complex,' Rygnestad said.

'How he prepared' for the rampage - meticulously acquiring the materials and skills he needed to carry out his attack while maintaining silence to avoid detection - argues against psychosis, Rygnestad said.

By his own account, the 32-year-old Norwegian spent years plotting the attack.

On July 22, he set off a car bomb that killed eight people in downtown Oslo's government district, then drove north to a youth camp on Utoya, a small lake island set amid a quiet countryside of pines and spruces.

There, he spent 90 minutes executing 69 people, mostly teenage members of the youth wing of Norway's governing Labor Party.

In a 1500-page manifesto released just before the attacks, Breivik describes his two-pronged attack as the opening salvos of a new crusade that, by 2083, will purge Europe of Muslims and the 'cultural Marxists' he complains are letting them have the run of the continent.

Breivik, who is being held pending trial, has admitted to the facts of the case, but denies criminal guilt because he believes the massacre was necessary to save Norway and Europe, his lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said, hinting at a possible insanity defence.

'This whole case has indicated that he's insane,' Lippestad told reporters last week.

Lippestad did not return calls over the weekend seeking reaction to Rygnestad's comments.

If tried and convicted of terrorism, Breivik will face up to 21 years in prison or an alternative custody arrangement that could keep him behind bars indefinitely.

If he is declared insane, a judge could order him institutionalised in a psychiatric ward only as long as he is deemed mentally ill, although Norway does have provisions for keeping dangerous but no longer insane people in custody even after they're discharged from the hospital.

Judging by his manifesto, it's not likely that Breivik would want to pursue an insanity defence if it were up to him.

He anticipates that, after his attack, he will be labelled 'psycho', 'maniac' and 'insane'.

'I have an extremely strong psyche (stronger than anyone I have ever known),' he wrote.

Two Norwegian psychiatrists selected by the court this week are set to complete their evaluation of Breivik by November 1.

To prove insanity, most American courts require that the defendant be possessed by an 'irresistible impulse' to commit the alleged crime - a mental illness that prevented the defendant from controlling his or her actions.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people when he set off a car bomb, similar in many ways to Breivik's, that tore through the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

'Timothy thought he was starting a revolution, too,' said Seymour L. Halleck, a forensic psychiatrist who examined McVeigh to determine whether he was competent to stand trial.

To carry out such an attack, 'you need a certain kind of competency and determination - and some need to make a mark on the world,' Halleck said.

'There was nothing we found psychotic about Timothy McVeigh.'

[Onur]

Knights Templar or any other Roman christian order during crusades are nothing but shame of the humanity and they can only be a role model for a modern day terrorist like the Norwegian guy.

They were cannibals, literally eating people, dead or alive. They desecrated all orthodox churches they could find on their path and massacred whole population of Jerusalem when they invaded there, regardless of who they were, orthodox christian, jews and muslims. And there was more than that too, like their famous alliance with the sons of Genghis Khan of Mongols to fight against the Seljuk Turks.

As far as i remember, Pope accused all the knights of templar laters with homosexuality and burned all of them alive, which was the most popular punishment at that time in western world for religious matters.