medusa Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 [/b] . Was he? I thought he was part of some far right organisation. Doesn't he salute them in court? He claims to be a part of 'Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici' which is a Knights Templar organisation which he claims he is a founder member of, along with 8 others from all over Europe. He says that he is a one man cell for this organisation and that there are over 80 others in the rest of Europe, which will stage a military and political takeover of Western Europe. Norwegian police have found no evidence that this organisation exists, but of course that's no guarantee that it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Shame his statement won't be televised, I would have liked to have heard how he thought killing a load of people would achieve whatever aims he had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 No there's another thread about Human Rights and there were discussions about how people like him should be dealt with. He can only get a maximum 21 years in Danish law and their prisons are much better than ours. They really do have all mod cons. 3 roomed cells... The sentence can be added to if he's none repentant, but its fairly easy to do this and not mean it. If he's found insane he can be kept for life. Perhaps this is his motive to prove he's sane... You mean, Norwegian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17737085 This man commited an appalling crime.How can a such an extreme right wing terrorist justify such an action. Psychiatrists appear to disagree on his mental condition. How can someone like that be normal? It would appear he is still delusional,and still believes what he did was right.Yet he has shed tears in court,(were those for himself or for his 77 tragic victims) Isn't it terrifying that someone with such political extremist views can become so paranoid,and be full of hatred,and yet be described from former friends as being quiet, friendly and ordinary. Come one janie why is it so difficult to believe, ever since humans have walked on the earth they have killed each other, many people still believe in a God without evidence, why is it so difficult to believe that he genuinely thinks he was defending himself and is country. He has a believe that drove him to do something deplorable, but then governments, and religions, and countries have done exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The guy MURDER'S 77 innocent people and is caught in the act and he gets a trial ??? Now thats what you lefty human rights idiots have done . Wasting their tax payers money, to hear him waffle on about how it was self defence as the victims had been brainwashed into multicultural domination. The guy wants putting up against a wall and a bullet putting between his eye's. They should have just shot him on sight and saved all the fuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Echoes of the Yorkshire Ripper case in which he was found sane enough to stand trial yet like this bloke was as nutty as a fruitcake,simply because of the high viz state of the case he will stand trial and then like the ripper be classed insane.Like the ripper he shouldnt be on trial but should be facing time in a asylum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 They should have just shot him on sight and saved all the fuss. Would have been a little bit awkward had they accidentally shot the wrong guy... Not to mention that a lot of people would consider that to be a lesser punishment than life in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Come one janie why is it so difficult to believe, ever since humans have walked on the earth they have killed each other, many people still believe in a God without evidence, why is it so difficult to believe that he genuinely thinks he was defending himself and is country. He has a believe that drove him to do something deplorable, but then governments, and religions, and countries have done exactly the same. Why the need to bring God into it? Perhaps he thought God was telling him to do it.Many terrorists do. That is delusional, but just believing in God isn't delusional,whatever you may think. Although Blair and Bush believed God was telling them to do something before they chose a certain course of action. Some have questioned their sanity since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Why the need to bring God into it? Perhaps he thought God was telling him to do it.Many terrorists do. That is delusional, but just believing in God isn't delusional,whatever you may think. Although Blair and Bush believed God was telling them to do something before they chose a certain course of action. Some have questioned their sanity since then. People kill other people because they have the dilution that it is what God wants them to do. What’s so different about his dilution, he thinks what he did was the right thing to do. If it’s possible to believe in a supernatural being that can do anything, then it’s possible to believe killing is the right thing to do. If your belief in God tells you to be good why is someone else’s believe in God wrong just because God tells them to do something bad. You are both doing what God tells you to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 They should have just shot him on sight and saved all the fuss. Bad idea. 1) He's stated that he expected to die as part of his plans. 2) His video released after the event was an attempt to portray himself as a martyr for his cause. Having him stand in court and attempt to justify his actions is the best thing that can have happened given the circumstances. Even those who think that he may have had a point (of which there were a handful on this site at the time of the attacks and their immediate fallout), are going to find it hard to justify similar activity as being "popular but not talked about" in the wider public. If he'd died on that day, then there would be a bigger group of people who sympathised with him than there is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.