digger Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 21 years for 77 deaths. Good to see we are not the only feeble minded lilly livered country in the west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 It was the maximum sentence their judicial system allowed, he won't ever be released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 It was the maximum sentence their judicial system allowed, he won't ever be released. How do you work that one out? If he keeps his nose clean he's out in 21 years or less! A maximum sentence is just that, once it's served they have no choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cant hit rabbits 123 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Haven't they granted special powers to keep him imprisoned untill he is deemed no longer dangerous, which is probably never? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisa Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 According to the news even once his sentence is served he can be detailed if he poses a threat to the public. I don't think he will be out again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Don't see how they can to be honest. They deemed him sane in order to be able to try him. As far as I can work out, unless he's 'sectioned' or the equivalent, then they can't hold him once he's served his time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 He wont be released alive.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Did you hear that both the defence and those who lost relatives were happy with the verdict ? He can be held as long as he poses a threat to the public of Norway. I have been impressed by the Norwegian approach to this and please dont think for a minute they are stupid, or weak ,just 'civilised'. However, I am generally impressed by the Norwegians. At a wholly different level I do worry a little about their immigration policies but amvery content to keep my nose out of their business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vole Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 His defiance and pathetic weak arguments will ensure he never gets out . How on earth the murder of a crowd of teenagers is going to stop Islamisation is beyond me . What a numpty . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 His defiance and pathetic weak arguments will ensure he never gets out . How on earth the murder of a crowd of teenagers is going to stop Islamisation is beyond me . What a numpty . Not defending the guy but his reasoning was very logical.. The left wing party that the teenagers belonged to was responsible for Norway's liberal immigration and multicultural stance, the right wing opposition the polar opposite.. By taking out the left wings best and brightest, he reduced the likelyhood of them gaining and maintaining power in the future, therefore affecting immigration and multiculturalism in the future... A little like killing hitler before WWII may have prevented the holocaust, he was trying to alter the odds for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Not defending the guy but his reasoning was very logical.. The left wing party that the teenagers belonged to was responsible for Norway's liberal immigration and multicultural stance, the right wing opposition the polar opposite.. By taking out the left wings best and brightest, he reduced the likelyhood of them gaining and maintaining power in the future, therefore affecting immigration and multiculturalism in the future... A little like killing hitler before WWII may have prevented the holocaust, he was trying to alter the odds for the future. Likening Hitler to a left wing party of teenagers............hmmmm. Not defending him but his reasoning was logical...........hmmm . His actions, thoughts, deeds, behaviour since, mentality was/is so far from logical nobody can grasp it, unless you're a raving lunatic racist who believes that races should be separated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 His defiance and pathetic weak arguments will ensure he never gets out . How on earth the murder of a crowd of teenagers is going to stop Islamisation is beyond me . What a numpty . I don't think it was so much Islamification as immigration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 I think they actually wanted to declare him insane because he probably is...but that would have meant phsyciatric care the leser sentance in all probability. He wont see freedom...someone will get to him or he will contract a "terminal illness" before his custodial term is ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peck Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 what i cant work out is why did they not charge him for "each" killing instead of "mass murder" he could have then been sentenced to 21 years for each killing.!!! ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Likening Hitler to a left wing party of teenagers............hmmmm. Not defending him but his reasoning was logical...........hmmm . His actions, thoughts, deeds, behaviour since, mentality was/is so far from logical nobody can grasp it, unless you're a raving lunatic racist who believes that races should be separated. He has been found to be sane.... His actions had planning, purpose and a deliberate outcome... I did not liken a group of teenagers to hitler, I was trying to offer an analogy of what he was trying to achieve, I.e. affect the future... His idea....., preventing the left wing/liberals getting in power in the future would reduce the level of immigration and therefore protect the indigenous population of his country... I did not say I agreed with what he had done, I was merely pointing out that what he did, as heinous as it was, was logical and I can understand exactly what he was trying to achieve and how he was trying to achieve it. That is not the same as being a "raving lunatic racist who believes that races should be separated." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 We tend to think that anyone who sets out to kill a lot of people are mad or mentally ill this is a fallacy would you say that a pilot dropping bombs on Dresden in ww2 was mad or IRA bombers Israeli bombers killing lots of innocent people any one of us is capable of doing terrible things if we believe that it is the only way that we can change things. This guy believed that the politicians was/are letting his country be taken over slowly by foreigners which as with most of northern Europe is just what is happening is this a good thing or a bad thing it is not for me to say is killing lots of your own people to bring this to make people think about the subject no but are people talking about it yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted August 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 The people you cite didnt work alone. Drawing comparisom to pilots over Dresden has no bearing what so ever. saying we are all capable of these acts is bull ~ proven by the fact that the vast majority of people dont do it. Bombers pilots set out to do their duty, not kill point blank after seeing the faces of people. Jesus wept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 There is provision in Norwegian law that allows a prisoner to have their term extended by 5 years if they are deemed to still be a threat. This can continue to be done as often as is deemed necessary so a 21 year sentence can mean life. There was some debate about whether he should be deemed insane - there was sufficient medical evidence but it was felt that it was not in the best interest of the victims' families as this was certain to result in an appeal and they did not want to go through the whole trial again. They want closure and for them this is the least worst way to get it. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 I did not say I agreed with what he had done, I was merely pointing out that what he did, as heinous as it was, was logical and I can understand exactly what he was trying to achieve and how he was trying to achieve it. Vipa, if killing in a non combat situation, if ever logical, in a way you can understand what he was trying to achieve, then do you understand what an Al Qaeda or terrorist is trying to achieve in general? It seems to me both are not only heinously wrong and illogical but beyond comprehension of reasonable thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 It is possible to understand what these people are trying to achieve without agreeing with it. It is also possible to agree with the objective whilst wholly disagreeing with the way they try to achieve it. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Vipa, if killing in a non combat situation, if ever logical, in a way you can understand what he was trying to achieve, then do you understand what an Al Qaeda or terrorist is trying to achieve in general? It seems to me both are not only heinously wrong and illogical but beyond comprehension of reasonable thought. That depends on where you are viewing things from. If you are on the offended side of the fence then, they are terrorists and the only view you will ever take is that thier actions are illogical and some how evil with a touch of insanity thrown in.. If you look at it objectively at it though and ask the perpetrators what they think they were doing they will tell you they are at war, ask any member of the IRA from the 70s, they will tell you they were most definitely at war as would members of AQ however, because our governments do not recognise it as a war, they are terrorists and we have a different attitude. You say killing in a non combat situation.... The IRA, AQ, Breivik all believed they were in a combat situation. What is the difference between AQ's, the IRA's, breivik's or any other individual or group's terrorist actions and say, our invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, the US involvement in Vietnam, Belize etc... The difference is they were state sanctioned that is all but in realityq are the crimes and killings and heinous acts committed under state sanction somehow more acceptable? I will repeat what I said before, I do not condone what happened, I am just stating I understand the motives and can look at it from a non emotional point of view Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 It is possible to understand what these people are trying to achieve without agreeing with it. It is also possible to agree with the objective whilst wholly disagreeing with the way they try to achieve it. Nick +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 It is possible to understand what these people are trying to achieve without agreeing with it. It is also possible to agree with the objective whilst wholly disagreeing with the way they try to achieve it. Nick Yeah,I would agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Braevik was a movement of One - no followers, no 'party machine' to back his ideas up. No real grounds to believe the threat he thought he saw was a real threat to his country. He had no real justification to think he had the correct viewpoint and the majority of Norwegians did not. He had no REAL reason to presume all those youngsters on Etoya were future politicians or even left wingers, it must have been the case that some friends went to be bored by political speeches. In fact no one can scrape together any higher motives for this man, IRA or AQ. In my view he cannot be considered to be 'Sane' in the sense of his purpose but clearly, as was stated, in the execution of the crimes there was sophisticated planning which allowed the Norwegians to take the nationally preferable course of declaring him sane, to serve out a life in prison. The Norwegians arent soulless but they have a national will - (second world war and all that) and they are rightly very proud of their heritage and culture. Let us not justify or appear to support the far right in immigration issues but if we are concerned about dilution of cultures then we strengthen what it is to be, say British and ensure being British is what an immigrant wants to be - and for those who want more provide a limit. Braeviks way has probably created in the Norwegian consciousness a firmer belief in themselves and the culture and heritage which he does not typify. His actions may therefore have had the reverse effect he sought and 77 people had to die to deliver that. No I DONT think he was sane or right or excusable by parallels which are ill conceived - sorry. I cant see ANY comparison with anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 That depends on where you are viewing things from. If you are on the offended side of the fence then, they are terrorists and the only view you will ever take is that thier actions are illogical and some how evil with a touch of insanity thrown in.. If you look at it objectively at it though and ask the perpetrators what they think they were doing they will tell you they are at war, ask any member of the IRA from the 70s, they will tell you they were most definitely at war as would members of AQ however, because our governments do not recognise it as a war, they are terrorists and we have a different attitude. You say killing in a non combat situation.... The IRA, AQ, Breivik all believed they were in a combat situation. What is the difference between AQ's, the IRA's, breivik's or any other individual or group's terrorist actions and say, our invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, the US involvement in Vietnam, Belize etc... The difference is they were state sanctioned that is all but in realityq are the crimes and killings and heinous acts committed under state sanction somehow more acceptable? I will repeat what I said before, I do not condone what happened, I am just stating I understand the motives and can look at it from a non emotional point of view I think you put that very well more eloquent than me people are saying that he worked on his own and so he has to be a nutter he may have been working alone but he was in contact with like minded people who no doubt encouraged him in this and now that we have the internet it is not hard to find like minded people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.