Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pyriel- wrote:

They could have, and may well have, tried to defend themselves. I imagine that they likely fled in terror, being generally unwilling to suffer an unpleasant circumstance (that's the definition of cowardice, by the way).

Logical and also true.
Just as cowardly the lone out of context action of shooting young people is just as cowardly is it to run away. Thus if one claims the definition of not being a coward is to assault superior forces then the same definition ought to hold true the other way.

In a perfectly logical world, that is if people could turn of their innate cowardly selfs and think logically the gunman would have never been able to do what he did since the masses of people could simply overpower him instead of acting out of self preservation (cowardly).
There is no way a lone person amidst a hundred people could survive if they all to a man rushed him, he would spray-kill 15 people and then be overmanned whereas if people ran away each tending for themselves they were easy picking.

Bear in mind that this is purely a theoretical thought, I claim in no way to have a high moral ground or claim that I myself would have ran towards the bullets. Just saying a hive mentality would have suited the survival rate in that situation.

I also find dogmas way of turning the coward card the other way pretty much brilliant. If the gunman was a coward for not facing elite troopers outgunning and outnumbering him then the same can be said about the civilians not facing him in turn. Who, when and what is a coward is thus highly dependent on subjective views. That which we find abhorrent is easily compartmentalized as "cowardice".
It can also be tied in with biccats comment of the israelis in 48 facing superior opposition, being both outgunned and outnumbered and still kicking behind...well duh, the were forced to, it was fight or die with no option for better terms or other "cowardly" behaviour. Just as on the Norwegean island. Fight and have fewer die or flee and die almost to a man, cowardly or human nature who can tell?
The instance where the taliban prisoners stormed their guards (in the Walker incident) can be had as an example, they were outnumbering the guards but unarmed and faced certain death rushing armed people but still prevailed due to a hive mentality although they had the luxury of time to plan and agree to this action, something the Norwegeans never had.

Exalt!

That's a welcome new (ported) feature, by the way.

Kilkrazy wrote:Cowardice is when you are afraid of something that society holds you should not be afraid of, and your fear governs your actions.

According to society, if one is a child and an armed gunman starts shooting at them then society dictates that they should be scared so they weren't cowards.

However, I believe that whole spiel about Fear leading to anger. This guy hated immigrants probably because he had some underlying fear of what Norway would become if there were too many immigrants. Out of his fear for what could happen to his country he became angry with the party and decided to take action.

Society doesn't normally condone one being afraid of change and says that we should endorse change for the better, and society also dictates that we shouldn't be afraid of immigration. The guy was afraid of immigrants changing his country and acted out of his fear of letting the current party continue its current course of action.

Monster Rain wrote:Where are we getting the 21 year sentence bit from?

It's based on the media picking up on but not really understanding Norwegian law. 21 years is the time until his parole is considered, after which he will be considered for release, and inevitably turned down as being 'unsafe for release back into society'. They can keep turning him down for release until he's dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike Noble wrote:Oh I agree, I'm just saying that if he is arrested and convicted of mass murder, then 12-21 years is too good for him.

I agree that being released after 21 years would be madness. I'm just saying that's not going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:If it was a politically motivated attack, and they targeted children, the end game would be to instill fear into people that oppose. However, this guy could just be a whacko, or it could be a bit of both. Terrorist attacks are usually used to instill fear of the people, to doubt their government and want change. It almost always back lashes though.

I'm not sure that's true. They certainly say they want government change, but given as you pointed out it almost always works the opposite, I doubt it's really the underlying motive.

Impotent rage, spite and a desire to be relevant to the world are more powerful motives, in the end.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I wish people would get a grip.

I don't know what I had said to make this necessary.

I'm pretty sure I was asking a question in the post you referenced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Where are we getting the 21 year sentence bit from?

It's based on the media picking up on but not really understanding Norwegian law. 21 years is the time until his parole is considered, after which he will be considered for release, and inevitably turned down as being 'unsafe for release back into society'. They can keep turning him down for release until he's dead.

Ah. I see. Thanks, sebster!

It's based on the media picking up on but not really understanding Norwegian law. 21 years is the time until his parole is considered, after which he will be considered for release, and inevitably turned down as being 'unsafe for release back into society'. They can keep turning him down for release until he's dead.

Norwegean law actually makes it 14 years and not 21.
21 is the maximum number but those are always considered for bad behaviour.
The praxis is getting out after half or two thirds time, thus unless you screw up like attempt to escape or assault the guards you will get out after 14 years.

The best case is actually to get him declared insane, this means they will let him out only after declaring him healthy, something that wont happen.

I am very interested how the court will try to force a mental illness conviction even should it turn out he is perfectly sane.

alarmingrick wrote:
Cowardice or self preservation? Surely, at some point you have to say ‘it’s better to live to fight another day’?

There is no reason to believe that both cannot be accurate descriptors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When ratings fall, Glenn gets dangerous.

The article wrote:
The commentator was speaking on his national radio show following Friday’s massacre on Utøya island, where teenagers had gathered for a long-running summer camp run by the country’s Labour party. “There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or, whatever,” Beck told listeners yesterday. “I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics. Disturbing.”

dogma wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:
Cowardice or self preservation? Surely, at some point you have to say ‘it’s better to live to fight another day’?

There is no reason to believe that both cannot be accurate descriptors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When ratings fall, Glenn gets dangerous.

The article wrote:
The commentator was speaking on his national radio show following Friday’s massacre on Utøya island, where teenagers had gathered for a long-running summer camp run by the country’s Labour party. “There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or, whatever,” Beck told listeners yesterday. “I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics. Disturbing.”

Man, Glenn is a proper bastard. That's almost as bad as listening to Bill Donahue telling an Irish rape victim that he was a cry baby.




The thing is, I do agree with some of the stuff Geert Wiilders says, I really do believe that we cant live harmoniously with Muslims, I think moderate ones are never really that moderate, they have loyalty to their Religion far more than their country, and they are simply waiting until there is enough of them before they ban beer... NOOOOOOO!!

The difference is, im resigned to the fact that aside from whinge about it in the pub, (and occasionally on dakka) and totally ignore them in my personal life, there is little I can do about it.

There's no need to just be an incessant prick like these guys.

Pyriel- wrote:Norwegean law actually makes it 14 years and not 21.

No, the actual maximum is and remains 21 years. It is fairly standard for prisoners to be released after 14 years following good behaviour reductions, but there's nothing requiring that process, so the only way it would happen in this case would be if lawmakers in 14 years decided his pleasant demeanour behind prison meant he should be let out. I don't think there's any value is predicting such ludicrous future actions from a parole board.

The best case is actually to get him declared insane, this means they will let him out only after declaring him healthy, something that wont happen.

I am very interested how the court will try to force a mental illness conviction even should it turn out he is perfectly sane.

No, under Norwegian law containing a prisoner past his original sentence because he's deemed a threat to society has no insanity requirement.

No, the actual maximum is 30 years. It only applies to some specific crimes like crimes against humanity and maybe terror. It's a rather new adding to the law I think.

It's very likely he be the first to get the new maximum punishment.

Baxx wrote:No, the actual maximum is 30 years. It only applies to some specific crimes like crimes against humanity and maybe terror. It's a rather new adding to the law I think.

It's very likely he be the first to get the new maximum punishment.

If they stretch the mass murder to being a 'crime against humanity'. I have no idea if that's possible.

But either way, the maximum sentence is not that meaningful when at the end of the process the board has the option to continue his stay because he represents a threat to the community.

How long is hard to say, as there has not been any similar situations in Norway. I think that person always will be a threat to the community or any people around him.

Crimes against humanity

I find it absolutely appalling that the people who whine the most about maximum punishments and crimes against humanity over here are the very first ones that should be punished.
Not to long ago our little socialist party applied forced sterilization on "unwanted" people over here and now they are yelling about crimes against humanity.
Bunch of human weed.

dogma wrote:

When ratings fall, Glenn gets dangerous.

The article wrote:
The commentator was speaking on his national radio show following Friday’s massacre on Utøya island, where teenagers had gathered for a long-running summer camp run by the country’s Labour party. “There was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler youth, or, whatever,” Beck told listeners yesterday. “I mean, who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics. Disturbing.”

Wow... just... wow. I mean, I know that Glenn Beck is a tad... shall we say "out there"? But this?

Pyriel- wrote:

Crimes against humanity

I find it absolutely appalling that the people who whine the most about maximum punishments and crimes against humanity over here are the very first ones that should be punished.
Not to long ago our little socialist party applied forced sterilization on "unwanted" people over here and now they are yelling about crimes against humanity.
Bunch of human weed.

Dude, i'm one of those "socialist party voter "( actually, it's called Social Democrats here, and the party is near middle of the "right wing vs. left wing" ) you speek so highly of..
And, for your little interest, the forced sterilization was introduced in law in 1934, and ended in 1975, "not so long ago?" get your head out of your arse before you bash other people, 1 man is not THE WHOLE of a community.

It's a terrible and despicable act, made all the worse becuase the monster specifically targetted children, and abused the trust children are supposed to have in Police figures. I worry that the people of Norway won't ever feel safe, by any means, ever again.

Pyriel- wrote:

They could have, and may well have, tried to defend themselves. I imagine that they likely fled in terror, being generally unwilling to suffer an unpleasant circumstance (that's the definition of cowardice, by the way).

Logical and also true.
Just as cowardly the lone out of context action of shooting young people is just as cowardly is it to run away. Thus if one claims the definition of not being a coward is to assault superior forces then the same definition ought to hold true the other way.

How is it just as cowardly for an unarmed civilian teenager to run away from a gunman with an automatic weapon as it is to shoot a bunch of teenagers with no weapons? The innocent victims didn't have firearms and were not prepared for this situation. Whereas this gunman has prepared for a while and had all the advantages including weapons and the vital element of surprise in not only attack but appearance since he was dressed in a police uniform. It'd be like if Kindergarten Cop planned and decided to go postal on a gradeschool.

In a perfectly logical world, that is if people could turn of their innate cowardly selfs and think logically the gunman would have never been able to do what he did since the masses of people could simply overpower him instead of acting out of self preservation (cowardly).
There is no way a lone person amidst a hundred people could survive if they all to a man rushed him, he would spray-kill 15 people and then be overmanned whereas if people ran away each tending for themselves they were easy picking.

In a perfectly logical world this probably wouldn't happen

IIRC the attack started indoors and there wasn't some big hive of innocents, I thought they were spread out in the camp. Anyway under that kind of duress and in those firing lanes it seems just about impossible to organize a bunch of kids to rush a gunman in a police uniform with an automatic weapon and possibly other weapons as well.

For example look at combat reports or police firefights: even trained and uniformed professionals will shoot hundreds of bullets with only a few actually hitting their intended target and they're hiding behind cover and spraying and praying. Being open and exposed to an automatic firearm like a Hollywood movie hero is naive.

Bear in mind that this is purely a theoretical thought, I claim in no way to have a high moral ground or claim that I myself would have ran towards the bullets. Just saying a hive mentality would have suited the survival rate in that situation.

Not likely or at least not by a significant amount; the results would be the same especially if they were spread out from the start. Even if you managed to use your adrenaline to charge the attack, its pretty easy to stop a guy cold with an automatic weapon indoors or out. And considering these guys were mostly unsuspecting teens, the prepared gunman would probably be able to handle some of that anyway if they got close enough.

I also find dogmas way of turning the coward card the other way pretty much brilliant. If the gunman was a coward for not facing elite troopers outgunning and outnumbering him then the same can be said about the civilians not facing him in turn.

How so? Soldiers and police officers know the dangers when they put on the uniform and accept them and they have the training and equipment to be better prepared for such chaotic situations. Terrorists and gunmen like Breivik prepare for their attacks and have the equipment and often times the training to carry them out. This gunman put on a police uniform and shot a bunch of unarmed, unsuspecting, and untrained civilians that were mostly teens in a building and outdoors. How do civilian teens compare to trained professionals?

Who, when and what is a coward is thus highly dependent on subjective views. That which we find abhorrent is easily compartmentalized as "cowardice".

It can also be tied in with biccats comment of the israelis in 48 facing superior opposition, being both outgunned and outnumbered and still kicking behind...well duh, the were forced to, it was fight or die with no option for better terms or other "cowardly" behaviour. Just as on the Norwegean island. Fight and have fewer die or flee and die almost to a man, cowardly or human nature who can tell?
The instance where the taliban prisoners stormed their guards (in the Walker incident) can be had as an example, they were outnumbering the guards but unarmed and faced certain death rushing armed people but still prevailed due to a hive mentality although they had the luxury of time to plan and agree to this action, something the Norwegeans never had.

Comparisons where these innocent victims are compared to terrorists, soldiers, police officers, etc. doesn't seem logical. These mostly teenage kids don't have the training, preparation, equipment, experience or awareness that examples that include soldiers and terrorists usually entail.

Cane wrote:
How is it just as cowardly for an unarmed civilian teenager to run away from a gunman with an automatic weapon as it is to shoot a bunch of teenagers with no weapons? The innocent victims didn't have firearms and were not prepared for this situation. Whereas this gunman has prepared for a while and had all the advantages including weapons and the vital element of surprise in not only attack but appearance since he was dressed in a police uniform. It'd be like if Kindergarten Cop planned and decided to go postal on a gradeschool.

If you wanted to kill a large number of grade school children, that's likely one of the best ways to do it; as it possesses many tactical advantages.

Cane wrote:
For example look at combat reports or police firefights: even trained and uniformed professionals will shoot hundreds of bullets with only a few actually hitting their intended target and they're hiding behind cover and spraying and praying. Being open and exposed to an automatic firearm like a Hollywood movie hero is naive.

Yes it is.

Cane wrote:
How so? Soldiers and police officers know the dangers when they put on the uniform and accept them and they have the training and equipment to be better prepared for such chaotic situations. Terrorists and gunmen like Breivik prepare for their attacks and have the equipment and often times the training to carry them out. This gunman put on a police uniform and shot a bunch of unarmed, unsuspecting, and untrained civilians that were mostly teens in a building and outdoors. How do civilian teens compare to trained professionals?

They're both people, and therefore both capable of exhibiting cowardice.

Cane wrote:
Comparisons where these innocent victims are compared to terrorists, soldiers, police officers, etc. doesn't seem logical. These mostly teenage kids don't have the training, preparation, equipment, experience or awareness that examples that include soldiers and terrorists usually entail.

Well, they are logical, they simply aren't pleasant.

As I said, people are mixing idiocy with cowardice. And its childish, why does he have to be a coward?

If some bloke wants to fill you in, and hes got twenty mates with him, the smart thing to do is feth off out the fire exit. Is that cowardly, or fething sensible?

The guy isnt a coward. A vainglorious last stand against the armed police can only end in your death. How is avoiding that cowardly?

It takes some stones to kill a gak load of people knowing your going to get caught for it.

Just because its an awful crime, doesn't make him a coward. gak, you can call him all sorts of names, why do you need that one as well?

He is a mass murdering, emotionless sociopath. He is a scum bag, a vile piece of human trash who murders the innocent, but he isnt a coward.

Is anyone who ever uses a gun a coward? If a burglar comes into your house, are you a coward for shooting him? I mean, the blokes got no chance, why, you should empty the gun, roll up your sleeves and ask him out into the yard for some bareknuckle boxing, anything else is cowardice of the highest order.

And If you insist he is, then the poor kids he murdered who ran are cowards, why, one of them should have grabbed a rock and snuck up on him an tried to bash his brains in. Sure, he was 99.5% certain of getting himself killed instead, but at least he isn't a dirty coward!

mattyrm wrote:
It takes some stones to kill a gak load of people knowing your going to get caught for it.

It takes some stones to kill anyone.

I've not killed anyone, but I know from experience in sports that even hurting another person is a thing that lots of people have difficult with, and I know plenty of veterans that have nightmares because of some of the more violent actions they've taken.

mattyrm wrote:
Is anyone who ever uses a gun a coward? If a burglar comes into your house, are you a coward for shooting him? I mean, the blokes got no chance, why, you should empty the gun, roll up your sleeves and ask him out into the yard for some bareknuckle boxing, anything else is cowardice of the highest order.

Queensberry rules, of course. Handlebar mustaches required.

dogma wrote:

Queensberry rules, of course. Handlebar mustaches required.

I say!

They're both people, and therefore both capable of exhibiting cowardice.

Sure but one is a grown adult well prepared for the situation and the other is mostly kids that were about as unprepared and unaware as it gets. In other words it seems naive and unrealistic to expect them to act like soldiers.

Well, they are logical, they simply aren't pleasant.

Comparing a bunch of civilian kids to instances where soldiers and terrorists overcame the odds against other soldiers or terrorists doesn't seem to work. Now maybe if they were actually Hitler Youth and had at least some training and organization for this it'd make more sense.

mattyrm wrote:As I said, people are mixing idiocy with cowardice. And its childish, why does he have to be a coward?

If some bloke wants to fill you in, and hes got twenty mates with him, the smart thing to do is feth off out the fire exit. Is that cowardly, or fething sensible?

The guy isnt a coward. A vainglorious last stand against the armed police can only end in your death. How is avoiding that cowardly?

It takes some stones to kill a gak load of people knowing your going to get caught for it.

Just because its an awful crime, doesn't make him a coward. gak, you can call him all sorts of names, why do you need that one as well?

He is a mass murdering, emotionless sociopath. He is a scum bag, a vile piece of human trash who murders the innocent, but he isnt a coward.

Is anyone who ever uses a gun a coward? If a burglar comes into your house, are you a coward for shooting him? I mean, the blokes got no chance, why, you should empty the gun, roll up your sleeves and ask him out into the yard for some bareknuckle boxing, anything else is cowardice of the highest order.

And If you insist he is, then the poor kids he murdered who ran are cowards, why, one of them should have grabbed a rock and snuck up on him an tried to bash his brains in. Sure, he was 99.5% certain of getting himself killed instead, but at least he isn't a dirty coward!

Its stupid, despicable, etc. and cowardly. In just about any culture opening fire on unarmed kids while dressed in a police uniform is considered a cowardly act even though he's obviously risking his life to do it. In these conditions to be driven to the point of basically suicide while taking down a bunch of kids is pretty damn cowardly.

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Cowardice is when you are afraid of something that society holds you should not be afraid of, and your fear governs your actions.

According to society, if one is a child and an armed gunman starts shooting at them then society dictates that they should be scared so they weren't cowards.

However, I believe that whole spiel about Fear leading to anger. This guy hated immigrants probably because he had some underlying fear of what Norway would become if there were too many immigrants. Out of his fear for what could happen to his country he became angry with the party and decided to take action.

Society doesn't normally condone one being afraid of change and says that we should endorse change for the better, and society also dictates that we shouldn't be afraid of immigration. The guy was afraid of immigrants changing his country and acted out of his fear of letting the current party continue its current course of action.

Exalted!

mattyrm wrote:
He is a mass murdering, emotionless sociopath. He is a scum bag, a vile piece of human trash who murders the innocent, but he isnt a coward.

Actually he is a coward, and it goes back a long time in Norwegian history and ancient heathen religion.

There was a troll named Hrungnir, which visited Asgard, home of the gods, with regards to a bet he had made. During the visit, he became drunk and abusive, mocking the gods, but when they wanted to overman him, he statet that he was unarmed. And Thor could not attack him, because doing so would be against the public view of honour, and it would be a shamefull act. A so called nidingr's deed.

In such a context, the acts of ABB is truly cowardice and he has brought shame upon him because of it. He is a great nidingr.

Baxx wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
He is a mass murdering, emotionless sociopath. He is a scum bag, a vile piece of human trash who murders the innocent, but he isnt a coward.

Actually he is a coward, and it goes back a long time in Norwegian history and ancient heathen religion.

There was a troll named Hrungnir, which visited Asgard, home of the gods, with regards to a bet he had made. During the visit, he became drunk and abusive, mocking the gods, but when they wanted to overman him, he statet that he was unarmed. And Thor could not attack him, because doing so would be against the public view of honour, and it would be a shamefull act. A so called nidingr's deed.

In such a context, the acts of ABB is truly cowardice and he has brought shame upon him because of it. He is a great nidingr.

Because he betrayed their trust we can also call him a traitor, or we could call him another word denoted from Norwegian history. He's a quisling, at least in the eyes of those children he is. They died thinking that a cop shot them, they didn't know he was a mad, cowardly scumbag too afraid of his own country's politics.

Cane wrote:
Sure but one is a grown adult well prepared for the situation and the other is mostly kids that were about as unprepared and unaware as it gets. In other words it seems naive and unrealistic to expect them to act like soldiers.

Cowardice doesn't, or if it is material, shouldn't, be limited to particular types of humans.

Cane wrote:
Comparing a bunch of civilian kids to instances where soldiers and terrorists overcame the odds against other soldiers or terrorists doesn't seem to work. Now maybe if they were actually Hitler Youth and had at least some training and organization for this it'd make more sense.

Sure, it s unpleasant, but it is not illogical.

Cane wrote:
Its stupid, despicable, etc. and cowardly. In just about any culture opening fire on unarmed kids while dressed in a police uniform is considered a cowardly act even though he's obviously risking his life to do it. In these conditions to be driven to the point of basically suicide while taking down a bunch of kids is pretty damn cowardly.

Seems more like savvy to me.

dogma wrote:Seems more like savvy to me.

Sorry, but the guy was an idiot. This isn't going to endear his cause to anybody and only give the party he was trying to damage a weapon they can use.

How do civilian teens compare to trained professionals?

Heh, specifics please. Are we comparing the kid who has hunted since old enough to pick up a rifle, competes in competition yearly, etc. to the "professional" who went through police academy and then only handled his weapon when it was time for yearly qualification at the dizzying range of 7 meters? I've ran into a lot of both, and between the two would prefer the teen to watch my back by a landslide.

Too much stock placed in mass produced, git-r-dun job training, particularly in this arena. Better than nothing, will not result in effectiveness over daddy taking you out for a weekend on the gun range unless maintained and improved on, which requires individual drive. Many police and even soldiers are not "Gun guys." kinda like people in every other walk of life. Lots of people who enjoy thinking themselves one, though.

Comparing a bunch of civilian kids to instances where soldiers and terrorists overcame the odds against other soldiers or terrorists doesn't seem to work. Now maybe if they were actually Hitler Youth and had at least some training and organization for this it'd make more sense.

Or perhaps a bit like boy scouts. "Hey, how many of you earned your marksmanship badge? Well, now is the perfect time!"

Though don't get me wrong. Had I been there, I would've likely hauled <CENSORED> too. Particularly If I was a child. Even as an adult, it's not like the US where I can go around legally armed and armored if desired. Most of Europe seems to frown on that sort of thing.

halonachos wrote:
Sorry, but the guy was an idiot. This isn't going to endear his cause to anybody and only give the party he was trying to damage a weapon they can use.

I think that killing liberals out-ranked political success in terms of his objectives.

Never mistake personal distaste for an objective characteristic, you'll go farther that way.

The thing is this though, by society's law soldiers and officers are trained to deal with these situations and so they deal with these situations. If a soldier or officer runs from a gun wielding lunatic then they think that the soldier/officer are cowards.

A child isn't normally expected to face an armed individual, and for the most part any citizen who isn't in the military or law enforcement agencies are expected to face an armed individual because we have people for that. They're called police officers, law enforcement officials, and soldiers.

So any kid or person who is not law enforcement or into soldiery running away is fulfilling their societal role and not being a coward because they are expected to run for cover and wait for law enforcement to deal with it. Its how most kids are raised and how society is conditioned no matter what we would like to tell ourselves. If you're a parent with a five year old and you tell him to handle a guy with a gun by facing off with him you're a fething moron.

The kids weren't cowards because they were doing what they were told to do in these kinds of situations; run, take cover, and wait for law enforcement to arrive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Sorry, but the guy was an idiot. This isn't going to endear his cause to anybody and only give the party he was trying to damage a weapon they can use.

I think that killing liberals out-ranked political success in terms of his objectives.

Never mistake personal distaste for an objective characteristic, you'll go farther that way.

He released a manifesto and gave reasons for doing so. He wanted to help destroy the liberal party in power, sure he killed a bunch of kids but that would make me think that the entire party he was probably for is pretty messed up. In the end he shot his goals in the foot by giving something the party can now use for sympathy.

His manifesto explicitly stated that open warfare was to be engaged in against forces opposing Conservatives.

Again, do not confuse what you do not like with what is objectively true.

dogma wrote:His manifesto explicitly stated that open warfare was to be engaged in against forces opposing Conservatives.

Again, do not confuse what you do not like with what is objectively true.

Yes, but now that he has gone and done this how many people do you see rallying to this battlecry? Anybody who sympathizes with this man's call will be an outcast because they are following the ideals of a man who killed kids. Now if had done some sort of normal rally/protest where nobody was harmed and he was violently assaulted then he would garner sympathy for his cause. Look at MLKJr, non-aggression is what won his side sympathy.

The guy failed seeing as though he was the only one on the wagon at the time and nobody has joined him. Didn't incite a riot against the liberals, didn't gain support for the conservative cause, he just killed some kids. Kind of like when a US bomb accidentally kills a bunch of kids in Iraq or Afghanistan, guess which side the parents and people join.