NATO made him do it

[discoberry]

"I was completely ignorant at the time and apolitical but his total lack of respect for my culture (and Western culture in general) actually sparked my interest and passion for it," the suspect in Norway's bombing and mass shooting wrote in his 1,500-page manifesto.
The 32-year-old Norwegian said it was the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 that "tipped the scales" for him because he sympathized with Serbia's crackdown on ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. A year later he said he realized that what he called the "Islamization of Europe" couldn't be stopped by peaceful means.

From September 2009 through October 2010, Breivik posted more than 70 times on Dokument.no, a Norwegian site with critical views on Islam and immigration. In one comment, he entertained the idea of a European Tea Party movement.

He said he came in contact with like-minded individuals across Europe, and together they formed a military order inspired by the Knights Templar crusaders. Their goal was to seize power in Europe by 2083 in a string of coups d'etat. Norwegian police couldn't say whether the group existed.

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jREZaKntVIRXokHei_MJBFkXK-XQ?docId=605e7ef9e8a34e5f8db0efdba04e3553

[ironbite]

This could go into the main Norway thread.

Ironbite-even that being said...wow what a nutcase.

[HarleyThomas1002]

I know plotting a terrorist attack takes time, but over ten years? He really wanted to accomplish something.

[Shane for Wax]

Jul 25, 2011 0:33:07 GMT -5 HarleyThomas1002 said:

I know plotting a terrorist attack takes time, but over ten years? He really wanted to accomplish something.

You'd be surprised how many attacks are plotted for long time frames.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 25, 2011 0:33:07 GMT -5 HarleyThomas1002 said:

I know plotting a terrorist attack takes time, but over ten years? He really wanted to accomplish something.

I'd say he was successful.

[malicious_bloke]

Jul 25, 2011 5:45:03 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Jul 25, 2011 0:33:07 GMT -5 HarleyThomas1002 said:

I know plotting a terrorist attack takes time, but over ten years? He really wanted to accomplish something.

I'd say he was successful.

Judged by what criteria?

[Deimos]

By his quite large kill count I would say

[lighthorseman]

Jul 25, 2011 6:20:42 GMT -5 Deimos said:

By his quite large kill count I would say

Yep.

Of course, I doubt what he wanted to achieve politically will be successful, but as far as the "killing a bunch of innocent people to generate fear and terror" stakes are concerned, yep, I'd say he had a win.

[Jedi Knight]

Jul 25, 2011 7:02:17 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Jul 25, 2011 6:20:42 GMT -5 Deimos said:

By his quite large kill count I would say

Yep.

Of course, I doubt what he wanted to achieve politically will be successful, but as far as the "killing a bunch of innocent people to generate fear and terror" stakes are concerned, yep, I'd say he had a win.

Of course, but he also succeded in uniting the entire nation against him. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if our Labour party, who was his main target, picks up a lot of sympathy votes in the election in september.

[malicious_bloke]

Jul 25, 2011 7:28:54 GMT -5 Jedi Knight said:

Jul 25, 2011 7:02:17 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Yep.

Of course, I doubt what he wanted to achieve politically will be successful, but as far as the "killing a bunch of innocent people to generate fear and terror" stakes are concerned, yep, I'd say he had a win.

Of course, but he also succeded in uniting the entire nation against him. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if our Labour party, who was his main target, picks up a lot of sympathy votes in the election in september.

Not only that, but all his cohorts will be facing much greater scrutiny after this (hopefully), making further activities that little bit more difficult to carry out.

Also, if it takes you ten years to plan a single shooting spree and a few sneakily placed explosives, you fail planning forever.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 25, 2011 7:28:54 GMT -5 Jedi Knight said:

Jul 25, 2011 7:02:17 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Yep.

Of course, I doubt what he wanted to achieve politically will be successful, but as far as the "killing a bunch of innocent people to generate fear and terror" stakes are concerned, yep, I'd say he had a win.

Of course, but he also succeded in uniting the entire nation against him. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if our Labour party, who was his main target, picks up a lot of sympathy votes in the election in september.

Its a pretty well acknowledged military truism that asymetric warfare is only effective if you ahve the backing of the majority of the populace. Hence, worked in Eire and Afghanistan, and to a lesser degree, France. But unless you have the backing of the majority, while you can certainly do an awful lot of damage, and cause tremendous amounts of mayhem and bloodshed (New York, Bali, Beslan, etc) I am unaware of any example where these sorts of exercises have resulted in a positive outcome for the attackers, or furthered their goals in any meaningful way.

I'm genuinely curious, if anyone can think of an example where this form of projected asymetric warfare has worked, I would be very interested to hear of it.

[dasfuchs]

I suppose it depends on what your criteria is. Allied firebombing in WWII was nothing less than terrorism and worked.

[malicious_bloke]

Jul 25, 2011 8:48:18 GMT -5 dasfuchs said:

I suppose it depends on what your criteria is. Allied firebombing in WWII was nothing less than terrorism and worked.

If by "worked" you mean "had almost no bearing on an outcome that was already pretty much decided".

[lighthorseman]

Jul 25, 2011 8:48:18 GMT -5 dasfuchs said:

I suppose it depends on what your criteria is. Allied firebombing in WWII was nothing less than terrorism and worked.

Yes, but not an example of assymetric warfare. It was part of an over all conventional offensive. So I don't really think it is comparable to what most people think of as "terrorism", and it certainly didn't win the war for the Allies alone.

But FYI, I agree with you that the use of incendiaries against civilian targets is most certainly a terror tactic, and probably should be considered a warcrime.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 25, 2011 8:55:44 GMT -5 malicious_bloke said:

Jul 25, 2011 8:48:18 GMT -5 dasfuchs said:

I suppose it depends on what your criteria is. Allied firebombing in WWII was nothing less than terrorism and worked.

If by "worked" you mean "had almost no bearing on an outcome that was already pretty much decided".

Weerl, it did and it didn't. By the Dresden raid in 45, yeah, sure, things were pretty much over for Axis powers. But incendiaries had been used by both sides throughout the war.