ARmy Rumour SErvice

At the end of the day he is standing up for what he beleives, for that I respect him. His methods were perhaps a little too rough. The most we would get in the UK would be a few links to e-petitions on facefuck.

Biscuits, People were saying that about 'right wing' parties in the UK ten or so years ago. Many of those opinions are no longer deemed taboo though and in many cases have been adopted as policy. See my previous post.

Are you actually familiar with his stated concerns? And no, i'm not defending the sick cunt. I hate to see false grandstanding against commonly perceived "wrongthink" though.

Its not a Nazi salute. The irony of his closed fist salute has connotations with Socialist movements and such like. So I am not sure why he is using it either. Maybe he doesnt do the full nazi salute as he doesnt want to be labelled one.

Maybe he's an avid fan of Pink Floyd's "The Wall" film?

Originally Posted by Werewolf

I'm surprised you aren't over in Oslo right now...

Don't encourage him just report him. Ta.

Originally Posted by Forastero

Don't encourage him just report him. Ta.

Sorry, boss. My bad.

Originally Posted by Blade-Runner

Its not a Nazi salute. The irony of his closed fist salute has connotations with Socialist movements and such like. So I am not sure why he is using it either. Maybe he doesnt do the full nazi salute as he doesnt want to be labelled one.

Oh, the irony!

Originally Posted by h301593

At the end of the day he is standing up for what he beleives, for that I respect him. His methods were perhaps a little too rough. The most we would get in the UK would be a few links to e-petitions on facefuck.

Respect for him?

I might have some respect for him if he had taken on some hard people, but as far as I can see, he shot and killed unarmed children. I have as much respect for him as I do the fungus which grows between my toes.

No I retract that. The fungus is far preferable.

Originally Posted by h301593

At the end of the day he is standing up for what he beleives, for that I respect him. His methods were perhaps a little too rough. The most we would get in the UK would be a few links to e-petitions on facefuck.

I've been comparing this notably effete cunt to Prod paras and PIRA "volunteers" who stood up for what they believed in by casually murdered bystanders in scores. This is rather unfair to the odd ODC pyscho and lot of basically normal men who ended up committing atrocities back then, we do what we have to do when people around us get killed or burned out in numbers, it will be messy, allowances are made.

On observation this delusional Norwegian fuckwit has something in common with my countrymen beyond the fairly simple business of building a car bomb and shooting innocent kids like quail. Delusional motivation was not uncommon in The Troubles, but most atrocities had more mundane and practical roots, we were killing each other finally over turf and we did so stupidly but with some moderation.

However this chubby chin bearded fucker faced no tangible threat, beyond a deeply cowardly sense that the streets of Oslo where no longer his peoples. He stewed his creeping Sharia fears on the wailing wingnut internet. He was a privileged son of a soft still throughly white bread society that chose the softest target for his rage, his own establishment class peers.

Despite the body count this is perhaps the lamest example of terrorism since the weather underground, kidnapped Patty Hearst. The fucker might better have set his arse on fire near civil aviation, in fact its rather clear from the commendably calm and even dull Norwegian response that scorching your balls for Allah is far more terrifying.

Finally like yerman Tim McVeigh he's not mad but just a bit thick and out of touch. McVeigh at least took the trouble to construct a decent truck bomb and didn't cry off in court at being tired before Tiffin.

Originally Posted by Mr_Deputy

thanks for that it answers, very clearly, what i have been asking myself about this media coverage. I've been wincing at the radio thinking 'you are doing his bidding' by giving out every single word he says. Sort of coverage a political party would pay thousands/millions for. all part of the process i suppose.

although by covering it in details surely they then fall into the 'propaganda' area?...say he starts to say things which make alot of sense, make people sympathise and feel sorrow for him?? They would have to leave those bits out in order to satisfy a pre-existing agenda. Or leave them in and ... as I say...do his bidding (work) for him.

I'd be happy to see him thrown in a dungeon and shot. Save the solicitor's bills.

Yes I am aware of the process of law.

Anyway that wont happen will it? The solicitors would see to that for one thing, they protect their industry like no other people I've ever met...and thus the ball doth roll around once more....

But what he has written, and says doesn't add up, it's full of lies, inaccuracies, . He uses advanced vocabulary that he doesn't understand in wrong places, and talk about statistics and figures he's made up himself, in the same way a computer game would classify different things due to the mechanics of the game.

BTW: his defence team are good decent people, doing a sterling job, giving him the defence he's got a right to by law, without any of the bullshit and shamelessness you'd see in, say, a US court.

Originally Posted by supermatelot

The same moral standards that created Tony Blair and allowed his empire to flourish?
Morals are relative. What's considered morally acceptable, or morally correct to accept has changed dramatically over a relatively short period. A century ago homosexualists were deemed immoral - or lunatic. Queen Victoria even refused to acknowledge lesbianism could exist! Where will we be a century down the line...paedophilia a recognised sexual preference? That's not such a dramatic extrapolation when you see the changes that have occurred so far the past century.

So you blame democracy and western civilisations moral standards for Tony Blair being democratically elected as PM of the UK?
Well, I guess that's correct.
But what alternative would you have preferred then? Roderick Spode deciding that his slightly overweight youngest son, Rupert, take over as head chieftain of the Norsefire party, as well as leader of the National Defence Committee, and thereby becoming the next Lord Protector?

Do you really believe that de-criminalising homos, due to the slippery slope, will lead to child sex being the norm?

A quick look at human history indicates that things have become a lot better, for most people, since AD 1. Have a look at British or western society in general in the 1700s.. or the 900s for that matter, when my genetics group came over to visit you. That doesn't mean we have problems, or things that needs improving.

Originally Posted by supermatelot

I think you misunderstood my comment, perhaps I should have worded it better. I was trying to make the point that our current form of democracy cannot in anyway be said to be fair to all, and is most definately NOT a pillar of altruism that accurately reflects the majority's views.

Any democracy, by necessity, can't be fair to all, nor is it always altruism. How, and to who it will be most unfair, is something you decide upon in elections, with various parties, where you try and find a party you disagree the least with to vote for. Again, give me your alternative to it?

I can't comment on the particularities of the UK political system right now, although from the (both serving and civvy) Brits I know, they seem to have the same problems as here. Ie. the house needs painting, the wage should get higher, and some teenage shithead wearing stupid clothes listening to shit music just vandalised something down the road last saturday.

Originally Posted by supermatelot

Today's society is all about outward appearances - people wear the hat they think they ought to, laugh at what they are told is funny and openley cringe at what they are told is bad. Here's a very small example: How many times have you cracked a sick joke to a bunch of civvies and they've all furtively glanced at each other to see who's laughing before they allow themselves to do so? It's rather like smoking at a wedding.

Have you heard about Beau Brummell? Or the incroyables of Paris? That was 200+ years ago. Seen any huge codpieces? That was the 1500s. The majority of people have always worried about fitting in, fashion, gossip, what's acceptable or not, and who's giving it to who in spite of their marriages. Your grandfather would probably try to avoid going to the pub without clothes. So do you. So will your grandchildren.
You can't blame the government and 'the system' for peer pressure and social norms.

With regards to sick jokes: yeah, I know the feeling. But that's got to do with fitting in, social intelligence and peers. A taxman tells taxman jokes to his colleagues, but doesn't do them to the girl he's chatting up, because she usually wouldn't find it funny/understand it. Same with an ambulance driver.

Originally Posted by supermatelot

I can think of several people I know who are openly pious, allude to a higher moralistic standing and will (in public) deride any opinion that does not go with the accepted flow. Speak to them in private however...

What? Do you mean like a lot of homosexuals did, 50 or 100 years ago? Or what about this guy? Pope Alexander VI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by supermatelot

I'm willing to bet that a significant majority of our population secretely agree with much of Breivic's concerns but the current climate does not accept open expression of it.

We are censored by our own society from expressing our true opinions. I don't doubt that many actually feel their opinions in the heart but - what sort of country do you think the UK would be now if people were truly not afraid to openly express their REAL opinions and that was reflected in the elected parliament?

Yeah. I can believe that a lot of people worry about immigration and open borders, so do I. That's why I want modification of laws and the system, to keep out the shitheads, and bring in the good ones, who are hardworking, have good food and bring genetic variation, do the jobs we can't be arsed to do ourselves, or skills needed for certain jobs.

I can't say I've experienced anyone disagreeing with me, or censoring me for that. Is it really that bad at your place?

Please, tell me about the censorship you are experiencing. Is CO19 kicking your doors in (I take it that's inbetween the other raids they're doing)?

And please, tell me, what sort of country would the UK be if people weren't 'so afraid of speaking the truth'?
Would the streets be paved with gold? Would it be overflowing with slim, literate and articulate, polite, drug-free, blondes, constantly inventing cures for cancer? Would the BNP be in a majority in the parliament?

Originally Posted by PrinceAlbert

You have to admire his cahonas

I take it you mean 'cojones'. Or are you implying he has a Kahuna that is worth seeing?
And the answer to your statement is 'no'.

Originally Posted by h301593

At the end of the day he is standing up for what he beleives, for that I respect him. His methods were perhaps a little too rough. The most we would get in the UK would be a few links to e-petitions on facefuck.

You respect him for 'standing up for what he beleives(sic)'? Holding his so-called 'beliefs' out of this, how do you connect shooting a 14-yr old girl in the head with standing up for something? Unless you are trolling, I bet you're reading Amon Goeths bio on wikipedia right now, while wanking and crying at the same time.

I guess your neighbours would be in for a surprise on saturday, when you start standing up for your newfound belief that everybody with brown eyes that like raspberry jam are destroying your nation, race and life, and therefore should be killed.

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

I'm not quite sure what he's doing with the beard-He probably hoped that all his hidden sympathisers would grow a 'Breivik'-But unlike the neat little 'Hitler' or manly 'Stalin' he has chosen to grow a silly little chinstrap. He can't even get that right.

In order to be an aryan poster boy, it's nice to have a chiselled chin and defined neck. When that's lacking, and you couldn't get money for both the nose job and the chin surgery, you get that kind of beard to bring some contour into what would otherwise be, and still is a slightly rotund and doughy face. A bit like Ricky Grovers character in 'Getting on'.