Anders Behring Breivik is on trial for gunning down 77 people, many of them children, in the worst civilian massacre in Norway since the days of the Third Reich. And in his defiant anti-government rants, the gunman sounds like he might be right at home among the extreme wing of the usual suspects in the US:
(TIME) — Anders Behring Breivik defended his massacre of 77 people Tuesday and called the bomb-and-shooting rampage the most “spectacular” attacks by a nationalist militant since World War II.Reading a prepared statement in court, the anti-Muslim extremist lashed out at Norwegian and European governments for embracing immigration and multiculturalism.
He claimed to be speaking as a commander of a Norwegian and European “anti-communist” resistance movement and an anti-Islam militant group he called the Knights Templar. Prosecutors have said the group does not exist.
Maintaining he acted out of “goodness not evil” to prevent a wider civil war, Breivik insisted, “I would have done it again.”
He set off a bomb in the government district of Oslo, killing eight people, then set out for a youth camp for Norway’s progressive party, where he shot 69 more people to death and wounded many more.
I’m not a lawyer or a psychiatrist, but if he managed to plan it out over a period of time, wouldn’t that mean he was legally sane? In which case, he sounds like an absolute sociopath.
He also asserted that he shot unarmed people in self-defense. And his lawyer ‘said Breivik wanted to be judged as a sane person and would call radical Islamists, and both left- and right-wing extremists to testify to support “his perception that there is a war going on in Europe”.’
(The comment about being judged as sane is because there’s still ongoing legal argument about whether he is or not, and thus the appropriate place for him to spend a custodial sentence.)
Gotta love the (mis)targeted ads here: “Know Your Rights and get your free Concealed Carry Report today!” Yeah, Brevik would have been right at home here — the pandering scum of the NRA would have seen to that.
I am the last to usually call mental illness, but I can’t conceive of a way you can conclude slaughtering children==good. Even if you believe what he did what was he trying to accomplish? He seemingly choose targets because they were vulnerable not valuable. Even if he thought of himself as part of these armies what good did his attack do? It killed a bunch of civilians and alerted the enemy to his presence. All around fail.
((Yes I know the children were at a political camp, but it’s still picking a low target, it’s like starting an assassination mission against the Kremlin’s janitor))
I applaud the Norwegian reaction to this event: they are sticking to their principles of a free and open democracy and a proper trial … unlike a certain other country that prides itself in its freedom and democracy and its best justice system in the world.
That’s what they always say, but I’m gonna have to call Poe on that. Not Poe’s Law, but Edgar Allan Poe. Have you ever read The Tell-Tale Heart? Our murderous narrator takes great pains to try to prove to us he is not insane by describing how carefully he planned the murder. Yet we can clearly tell he is insane.
I believe Poe probably wrote the story in response to the fairly recent M’Naughten case in the UK, which codified some basic principles for the insanity defense and was also had a big influence on US law
He’s quite the arrogant one, isn’t he? I found his description of Norway as a prison interestting. If he’s so smart why didn’t he escape from that prison and go live somewhere more to his liking? I’m sure there’s some camp of right wing loons elsewhere that would have been happy to take him in.
The trial is not being televised, as is sometimes (rarely) done; this decision was made to spare survivors and parents of victims unnecessary pain – but those who have been present in court now say his testimony should be shown on TV, because he comes off as incredibly self-important, pathetic and immature. Seeing him for what he is will make it less likely that others will take his opinions seriously as an analysis of the political/demographic situation in Europe.
Ing: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream So I Comment Instead wrote:
He killed 69 kids, many of whom would have matured into the backbone of Norwegian government in the next few decades. Considering the population difference between Norway and the U.S., that would be like murdering 4,337 American kids, equivalent to 65% of the undergraduate population of Harvard College.
I imagine he considers that he did a good job.
On last nights news here in Oz, they noted that Brevik’s testimony wouldn’t be shown live or filmed to deny him the opportunity to further publicise his evil views.
Then they went and showed a good snippet of his anti-Muslim video.
*Facepalm*