Huge explosion at the government quarters in Oslo.

WingZero30 · 24 Jul 2011 at 09:24

It's the Sky News which worry me more than BBC. ON the day of attack, the ignorant reporters were already drawing conclusions to who could it be.

I particularly have a disdain for Sky foreigns affair editor Tim Marshall. I have listened to him several times and he usually comes up with biased crap.

Zip · 24 Jul 2011 at 09:25

WingZero30 said:
This we can't be sure of. Many things happen in war that aren't reported.

What use would bombing a Civilians compound be if they are clearly innocent?

Surely it wouldnt help the hearts and mind cause?

Orcish-Horde · 24 Jul 2011 at 09:33

Sagalout said:
What on earth are you talking about ?

Are you genuinely saying that in 9/11 and 5/7 there was little talk of Muslim extremists?!

In the BBC you sing from the hyme sheet or get a new job.

BunnyKillBot · 24 Jul 2011 at 09:45

WingZero30 said:
It's the Sky News which worry me more than BBC. ON the day of attack, the ignorant reporters were already drawing conclusions to who could it be.

I particularly have a disdain for Sky foreigns affair editor Tim Marshall. I have listened to him several times and he usually comes up with biased crap.

Agreed. Happily most people on here are reasonably capable enough to identify that 24 hour news coverage is an inherently evil ideal. The problem comes from the hordes of X-Factor watching seals who cannot separate fact from fiction, necessity from omg-drama-sensation.

n111ck · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:01

WingZero30 said:
Whenever some bombing takes palce, people are quick to blame Islam. A very wide media coverage is given to attacks.
However when US aerial bombings take place on civilian houses, it is only made as a passing reference with no mention of christianity. It is well known that US is a deeply conservative country with christian rooted values especially in the southern states compared to western europe.

Are you seriously trying to say that the US military deliberately target civilians and also that they are some sort of Christian army???? :rolleyes:

This thread is just bizarre.

n111ck · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:02

BunnyKillBot said:
Agreed. Happily most people on here are reasonably capable enough to identify that 24 hour news coverage is an inherently evil ideal. The problem comes from the hordes of X-Factor watching seals who cannot separate fact from fiction, necessity from omg-drama-sensation.

I hope that cloud of smug over you head doesnt choke you.

Brian8bit · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:04

n111ck said:
Are you seriously trying to say that the US military deliberately target civilians and also that they are some sort of Christian army????

This thread is just bizarre.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-08/us/atheist.soldier_1_tours-discrimination-bible?_s=PM:US

One of many stories of Christian bias in the US military. If you're willing to look you can find many more.

hola_adios · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:08

Orcish-Horde said:
In the BBC you sing from the hyme sheet or get a new job.

Any evidence for that?

Gackt · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:17

Brian8bit said:
For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.--Isaiah 66:16

Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.--Isaiah 9:19

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.--Exodus 12:12

Deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.--Jeremiah 18:21

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Knock yourself out.

Those are quotes from the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, and as such are largely incompatible with the New Testament. Anyone with even the slightest of knowledge about the Bible would understand that the New Testament is supposed to overrule the Old Testament. Not only that but a couple of the quotes are God himself doing the acts, not telling people to go out killing.

New Testament = Teachings of Jesus.
Followers of Jesus Christ = Christians.

Freakbro said:
Seems to say kill the unbelievers to me.

Not that I know much detail of the Bible, but just to show, if I wanted to I could find a parable and hold it up as justification for my own ends.

Both the Bible and Qur'an are full of contradictions, some talking about pure peace, some about killing all enemies, just depends which bit you want to use.

Again, you're using the Hebrew part of the Bible which is overruled by the New Testament.

That's why they call it the OLD Testament, and the NEW Testament.

Brian8bit · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:26

Matthew 10:34-36

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Gackt · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:35

Brian8bit said:
Matthew 10:34-36

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Unfortunately like much in the Bible, taken out of context it can be very misleading. Not only that, but there are many ways of interpreting the above passage. Not forgetting that it contradicts just about everything else that Jesus says. Oh and also that it's well known that the Gospels tend to be sketchy in that they leave out some very vital information between them (virgin birth, for example).

Brian8bit · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:40

Gackt said:
Unfortunately like much in the Bible, taken out of context it can be very misleading. Not only that, but there are many ways of interpreting the above passage. Not forgetting that it contradicts just about everything else that Jesus says. Oh and also that it's well known that the Gospels tend to be sketchy in that they leave out some very vital information between them (virgin birth, for example).

Personally I don't really care. The gospels are sketchy because they were written by men and are fantastical works of fiction. As are all "religious" documents.

hola_adios · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:44

Gackt said:
Unfortunately like much in the Bible, taken out of context it can be very misleading. Not only that, but there are many ways of interpreting the above passage. Not forgetting that it contradicts just about everything else that Jesus says. Oh and also that it's well known that the Gospels tend to be sketchy in that they leave out some very vital information between them (virgin birth, for example).

You would have thought that a supreme being would have made more of an effort at writing instructions than that, IKEA have learnt to do it better in 25 years

Gackt · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:46

Brian8bit said:
Personally I don't really care. The gospels are sketchy because they were written by men and are fantastical works of fiction. As are all "religious" documents.

Of course. I was trying to highlight that in Christianity, you get a lot less of "Go kill the Jews" (obvious reasons on that) or "Infidels" and the like.

hola_adios said:
You would have thought that a supreme being would have made more of an effort at writing instructions than that, IKEA have learnt to do it better in 25 years

Tell that to my bookcase. !_!

BunnyKillBot · 24 Jul 2011 at 10:52

n111ck said:
I hope that cloud of smug over you head doesnt choke you.

Its not choking me no. Instead of throwing insults, how about you debate the point? Have an opinion maybe? I'd even settle for 'i think 24 hour news is a good thing' which is an opinion and not an insult.

Tombstone · 24 Jul 2011 at 11:00

Freakbro said:
He has now said the actions were "Gruesome, but necessary" and he will explain himself in court on Monday.

I'm glad he was taken alive as it will be interesting to study and fathom his rationale for doing this.

I totally agree, the human thought processes and psychology fascinate me, all too often these things end with the person in question turning the gun on themselves or being killed in the act, or simply going silent once captured. Will be very interesting to hear someone calmly explain their reasons and thinking.

hola_adios · 24 Jul 2011 at 11:03

Tombstone said:
I totally agree, the human thought processes and psychology fascinate me, all too often these things end with the person in question turning the gun on themselves or being killed in the act, or simply going silent once captured. Will be very interesting to hear someone calmly explain their reasons and thinking.

Isn't the attacker's personality the modern definition of a psychopath?

Danthus · 24 Jul 2011 at 11:04

People will want to believe he is a deranged individual, what if he isn't?

Mr Krugga · 24 Jul 2011 at 11:04

It looks like I was wrong, BBC reports he was a "follower of Knights of Templars" and that strikes me as being a religious nutter. Knights Templar were disbanded in 1312 by the way.

If it was his personal Crusade, I think we should start to worry about terrorists from both major religions now.

Brian8bit · 24 Jul 2011 at 11:05

His explanation and reasons will be right wing extremist views. There'll be nothing eye opening about it. He killed a load of people because he doesn't like the government. If he'd wanted to really strike at the heart of the problem, after detonating the car bomb he would have strolled through the damaged building like the Terminator, gunning down as many government workers as he could. But he didn't because he's a pussy. He fled the scene in a van and then stalked among unarmed children for a couple of hours.