You damn barbarian ;)

I have to admit he deserves it... like all other terrorists, whatever their motivations are (religious, politics, etc..) 

I was in London when the bombs went off there, and it is a pretty harrowing experience.

Terrorists want exposure - thats the entirity of their goal, to cause terror.

What happened in England was it caused a social change where the country became more consolidated and the people more united against the common threat.

It's very reactionary, but that's human nature. Hopefully this can have a positive effect in Norway - It sounds callous, but something good has to come from even the worst disfigurement of human psyche.

Whatever is done to this guy should be announced, but shouldn't be shown, just to not give him a a forum for his evil.

Hopefully it'll involve him being very slowly fed into a wood chipper. 

I really don't understand how you consider not giving a mass murderer who just shot more than 80 teenagers the chance to "debate" his views publicly censorship. Can you explain that to me? I can't wrap my head around that idea. Do you think we should put him in front of a camera so that he can explain to the world how he wanted to unite western Europe against the islamic threat? What good would that do? 

I think I was not clear... using the word censorship is maybe a little bit aggressive, but this is certainly what the murderer will think if there no public debate... anyway, who cares now about what he thinks ? He is been caught, and needs to pay for his acts..

What I just tried to say is there's absolutely no solution against such morons. Whatever you do, he already reached his goal: the world knows him, the world knows his motivations, the word knows his "cause".
And what do you think such debate would bring on the table ? Do you think it will be fruitful to know the why and how such massacre, to let the guy explains why he acted so ? Whatever you'll say, whatever you'll try to elaborate to convince him his acts are absolutely horrible, he will find loads of "good" arguments to justify his choices, and explain why he acted as he did... and this is the most terrifying. There are absolutely no sense, no valid arguments to justify such act, but he will never understand.

And at the end, I tend to agree with Ricky, these kinds of mass murderer or terrorists, call it as you want, should be executed on the public place.. as an example.. just to show there no compromises with them. 

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or openness to ideas because those extend only so far as the speaker does not openly threaten democracy by his acts or words.

...is total bullshit, because then you can just define everyone who's acting critical of your regime as "outside democracy" and censor him. A true democracy needs to be able to handle any kind of information or opinion.

The real problem [1] is that discussing or listening to the political agenda behind such an act constitutes positive feedback towards not only the killer, but everyone who might play with the idea of using something on the same level of violence as means of getting attention.

[1] The real real problem is of course that you don't discuss, honor and give some thought to these political agendas before their spokesmen even think of attention whoring the shit out of everyone. Violence is used when communication fails. In democracies, communication tends to fail, and people -- not only -- at the top tend to sabotage communication, because it's to their advantage, to the point that it is doomed to fail dealing with all but the most simple problems. 

the tyranny of the majority. There's no way to morally defend it. 

our best option.

Megaman, you need to read what I wrote. I'm not talking about criticism of democracy. I'm talking about those who want to do away with it. Criticism is good and should be heard. It may be true that mainstream media is not representing such criticism. But that is not what I was talking about. I am all for free speech. Please don't put words in my mouth. 

You're not thinking hard enough. 

for pointing that out, you dick. 

Hey jt, go troll some atheists instead. 

bear and Spirit are right.

glad to hear everything is okay with you Berntsen.

thanks for caring, Shambler. Nobody I, or my family knows were affected by the events. 

You wouldn't be able to set up a party with the main goal of reintroducing monarchy in a "democracy" that censors stuff that's "against democracy". Even if the majority of people would favor it. 

By definition. Democracy favours majorities, but that is why it is fair - you can piss of a small group of people or a large one. To piss of a small group of people is not as bad as pissing off a large group of people. /scienceLesson 

I dont think he has a right to 'explain himself' even if it would allow reasonable people a chance to deconstuct and destroy all of his arguments one by one. First of all some people might agree with him, and that is dangerous. Secondly an example should be made that if a person goes on a killing spree that by doing so you loose the right to spread whatever message you were trying to spread. Killing spree's are not the answer to political or social debates. And if they are used in such a debate, that the killer's message and beliefs are de-valued entirely. 

Denying human rights is never an option.

I am wondering what kind of treatment you would recommend for eg US soldiers who proudly went to the middle east to kill those filthy raghead donkey loving third class humans. Do you like how Saddam Hussein was hung? 

Should be denied.

Saddam Hussein deserved to be hung, for killing all those kurds in the late eighties, women, childeren, chemical warfare. Screw that guy, he got what was coming.

U.S. Military - dont get me started on the U.S. Military. I would never blindly pledge alleigance to a piece of fabric. And what exactly they think they are upholding other than a deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply deeply corrupt government, I have no idea.

I will say that if you blow up and shoot hundreds of innocent people in an act of terrorism that you loose certain rights. Including the right to have your beliefs heard by masses. I dont think you automatically have that right anyway, do you? Mass cold-blooded killers should not have their point of view heard. It sends out the message that if you kill hundreds of innocent people, then everyone will listen to your point of view. 

Never denying anyone ever rights ever is extreme liberalism.

Child rapists, murderers, terrorists and dictators long ago decided to ignore basic human rights, they don't deserve any in return. 

(...) decided to ignore basic human rights, they don't deserve any in return.

Agree 110% 

 

Wtf is it with "right to be heard by the masses"? What do you mean? If anything the masses will only hear of his hearing if the media decides to. This is not a problem in the justice system. It's the sensationalist lust of people just like you.

What good does it ever do to kill someone? If you support this, then you are not better than a murderer in my eyes.

Jesus fuck, why did I even bother participating in this disgusting conversation. 

The man who went on a killing spree in oslo has voluntarily given up his rights when he murdered 80+ people. The only thing to do now is have him tried and to bring compensation to the victims families.

Czg, what exactly are these ' dumb views' you're talking about? Care to elaborate or would you prefer to keep acting like a demagogue?

Spirit, I'm not trolling, nor would I troll someone on their religious views. 

I think you and I are thinking on different channels here. The guy who shot and blew up all of those people knew that what he was doing meant that he was to be 'shot on sight'. If I was there and I had a gun, I would have shot him myself. My motivations for killing him would be to avenge the deaths of all of the innocent people who he had killed, and to prevent him from killing anyone else. And he wanted that. He wanted me to want to kill him. I would not have wanted to kill anyone else there, unlike him. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as possible.

If someone put me in the position of killing hundreds of people or killing myself I would kill myself. 

Is to me offensive. To be honest I dont care if it's a government, an army, terrorists, psychos, aliens or otherwise - running around shooting and blowing up innocent people is wrong, should not be tollerated, perpetrators deserve no mercy, why the hell should the people of Norway have to pay for this guy to be imprisoned, fed, clothed, watered, doctored, sustained and kept alive (cause you can be damn sure he aint going to be working for those things), when they already have to pay for the inquest, the cleanup, and that's without even stratching the surface of of any of the other horrors, traumas, lives left in ruins, some of which will never be repaired or healed.

If this had been a questionable case, of a few people, with a lack of evidence, then believe me - I'm all for a proper investigation and trail, I believe we have a right to be treat as innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that the punishment for a crime should not be worse than the crime committed. But this is an open and closed case. The pathetic excuse for a 'human' wont be getting any compassion from me. 

decided to ignore basic human rights, they don't deserve any in return.
So we're at "eye for an eye" now :(

Jesus fuck, why did I even bother participating in this disgusting conversation. :D 

The UK Government are no better.