Lately Arlene Bynon of 640 AM Talk Radio (Toronto) and the producers have elevated the program to almost the level of John Batchelor of 770 AM WABC (New York). But he doesn't take in callers. He communicates with notable individuals and panelists around the world. Today at 4:00 PM Arlene talked with Forensic Psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner about the Oslo terrorist. I will not mention the fellow's name because what he did makes me sick. But Welner said he is not sick. He's a "21st Century Terrorist" His manifesto, said Welner, is frightening... because it's a cookbook for terror far beyond the norm. This horrific event is about celebrity. It's about him. After all the years of planning the megalomaniac found out how to put the fear together in one of the soft places in the world. And I say this is Norway's 9/11 by a blond Norwegian terrorist who hates Islam and multiculturalism. So... he kills those close to who he blames for letting them into his beloved country. The Forensic Panel (Dr. Michael Welner, Chairman) http://www.forensicpanel.com/expert_services/psychiatry/experts/20835.html Defining Evil: An Interview With Dr. Michael Welner http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3418938&page=1 On Monday, James Delingpole was on Arlene Bynon talk radio program. So I emailed him a note. We have communicated, once. James, you are quite right about the left pinning the Oslo massacre on the right. And they call him a Christian. Please. The coward is an extremist nutbar who desires to be a Crusader, a Knight of the Knights Templar. Why? Because of multiculturalism and he hates Muslims? So he kills his own people, although politically different, because they, the Labour Party are the "enablers" as Dr Swier has stated. That's a brilliant strategy to show the world how much you hate other cultures. Indeed, terrorism of soft targets gets the message out. He has received world wide fame. His sickness isn't your everyday wacko. From what I have heard this has taken many years of planning. Maybe the Norwegians stop being so soft. They were in WWII. The Nazis basically walked in for the resources and iron. Churchill tried his best. Soft in the sense that the terrorist will get out in less than the maximum penitentiary time of 21 years. But the left is already talking about banning guns as if that will stop sociopaths.Oslo: An attack on the enablers of multiculturalism? Dr. Rich Swier First and foremost my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those who were killed by 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik in Oslo, Norway. Over the weekend I have been reflecting on why anyone would want to harm another innocent person, especially vulnerable children at an island retreat. The answer may be something we all need to think seriously about. I have written numerous columns warning about the negative effects multiculturalism has imposed upon America's core values and beliefs. The great strength of America has been in the ability of many peoples to assimilate and embrace our culture and beliefs. Hence the uniquely American motto E Pluribus Unum, out of many one. As J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur, in Letters from an American Farmer, 1782, wrote, "Here [in America] individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world." Multiculturalism is the antithesis of this ideal. So is what happened in Oslo a result of multiculturalism and those who enable it? Abigale R. Esman in her Forbes column titled "What Really Lies behind the Oslo Attacks - And Why It May Happen Again" states: "So that Breivik would have attacked Norways liberal Prime Minister and his party is horrifying but it is therefore not terribly surprising: these are the politicians who, in the name of civil rights and equality, have made most of the [multicultural] concessions. . . Such gestures of accommodation are, to be sure, well-meant. . . But they do not breed goodwill; rather, the result is that Europeans feel increasingly and understandably threatened." [My emphasis] Abigale observes, "Breivik has simply taken a different approach: he attacked what he sees as the enablers frustrated, perhaps, by a failure to vote them out of power. It is a new form of protest, and he is the first to use it. But I fear that, unless Europe begins demanding that its Muslim population live according to its Enlightenment traditions and the values of democracy, he will not be the last." [My emphasis] Daniel Greenfield, in his column "Healing Norway", states, "European liberals often boast of keeping a tighter lid on extremism than America, with tighter curbs on free speech, but the current tragedy is yet another reminder that this lid is counterproductive. Suppressing a legitimate opposition only leads to the rise of an illegitimate opposition. Shutting down ideas you don't like brings back those same ideas, only heavily armed." [My emphasis] Daniel points out, "An open society is a safety valve." "The outbursts of political violence in Norway and Sweden - countries which have become notorious for suppressing right of center free speech should be a sign that change is necessary. The authorities may be tempted to once again reach for the club, but they might consider trying the bullhorn of free speech instead." says Daniel. Daniel points out, "The very act of suppressing ideas is extremist. And it leads to oppositional extremism." Here in America we have the First Amendment to our Constitution. Europe has no such standard against which freedom of speech is measured. Europe has hate speech laws which tend to suppress freedom of speech. According to Daniel, "[T]he very real dangers of marginalizing a political opposition and a point of view to the extent that they [the opposition] have nowhere to go but underground." Daniel proposes, "Healing a country begins with healing its fractures. And the only way to begin the healing is to open a dialogue on freedom of speech." I must agree. Marginalizing the opposition as the left does leads to acts of violence. When one is cornered with no chance of escape, he strikes out. Let this lesson be learned and learned well. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that even hurtful speech is free speech. As Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." About Richard Swier: http://redcounty.com/rich-swier About James Delingpole: www.jamesdelingpole.com James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. What astounds and disgusts me is that it took the police so long to do anything. Evidently they walk around the streets unarmed, too. This is the left for you. Check Michael Savage's in your face website... http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/ A leftist professor in the New York Times piece "Unsettling Wariness in Norway, Where Police Are Rarely Armed" nauseates me. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/europe/26police.html?_r=4&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065 Currently, only beat police officers in patrol cars have immediate access to weapons. By law, however, they have to remain unloaded and locked in a box in the car unless authorization is given. Some experts worry that arming police officers all the time will only lead to an escalation of violence as criminals arm themselves in response. For many, though, resistance to the idea has more to do with national pride. I would prefer to live in a society where police normally work unarmed, said Johannes Knutsson, a professor of police research at the Norwegian Police University College. It is a very forceful and symbolic sign to the citizens that this is a peaceful society.
You really need to quote and post properly James, its hard work reading your posts and trying to work out what is your comment and what is the links. I d like to comment on this but I cant work out exactly what you yourself are trying to say here.
I agree with the megalomania suggestion. There certainly seems to be an element in his statements and actions that show him to feel that he is specifically positioned to act against those people he disagrees with. I still think there needs to be a further element of mental disturbance required for that conclusion to lead to the planned massacre of children. Most people with strong political views and a sense of self-importance tend to limit themselves to noisy protest or standing for political office. I absolutely hate all this "left" and "right" arguments being brought in to this, largely by Americans. It is totally inappropriate to start throwing around such generalised (and largely meaningless) groupings, especially in response to the actions of a single, essentially lone (I don't believe most his claims of associates) individual. The attack on the Norwegian criminal justice system is laughable. They have massively better results in regards to crime, reoffending and prison numbers than the US (or UK for that matter). There is a very obvious reason why this tragedy is such big news. The article you quote makes some strange statements. It claims that this attack is a "new form of protest", ignoring that violent attacks against those whose politics you disagree with is an age-old act across the world, especially by those with minority views. It also claims that Europeans - Scandinavians particularly - restricting the freedoms of the right-wing to speak out was a factor here yet, for all those restrictions, this man was able to spout his rhetoric across the internet, protest on the streets of London and, had he chosen, joined Norwegian political parties who pretty much share his view on immigration and multi-culturalism (if not his course of action). Of course, The USA, despite the First Amendment freedoms, is hardly free of violent protest and politically motivated attacks. While I agree such restrictions can go too far, I think it's grossly unfair to effectively blame the Norwegian government (meaning, of course, "the left") for this tragedy for somehow restricting the megalomaniac thug's free speech. I'm not going to comment on the police response because I don't know the details. I suspect all the people currently commenting on it don't know the details either. I will say that it would be stupid to respond to this tragedy alone to either demand routinely armed police or to (further) restrict private gun ownership in the country.
You must be kidding. This isn't an essay. It's from a weblog piece. No one else has a problem but you, it seems, and you don't even take the time to check your spelling and you call yourself "guru". Please. Look at the title then read slowly. The quotes are in italic but remain blue which is the colour of all my writing on my weblog, full articles usually remain in black. Now isn't this an analysis done on radio, followed by an email to one of the talk radio guests with an article by Dr. Swier to him about "enablers". Perhaps I might have left out the police problem in Norway but I found it on Michael Savage's outstanding website. A link to the New York Times and thought it was worthwhile. Or maybe I should have just linked my weblog piece where it might be easier for you since it looks fine. Arlene Bynon of AM640 Radio talked with Dr. Michael Welner and James Delingpole about the Oslo Terrorist... http://onwardjames.blogspot.com/2011/07/arlene-bynon-of-am640-radio-talks-with.html By the way, the other links explain who some of the people are. What else do you require?
I dont call myself a guru, its a title that automatically pops up when you get enough credit here. You need to enclose your abstracts from articles in quotes.
The whole false flag operation was all about this. The Oslo bombing first news reports had the eyewitnesses tesitfying that there was two blasts. Smoke from 4'th story window where the bomb was palced inside the building was blasted outwards and debree from the 2'nd bomb blasted out the office where it was. The same as the Oklahoma City bombing. Thus, we see that it was impossible for the truck bomb to have destroyed the Murrah Building. Other bombs were strategically placed at the bottoms of the structural columns to do the damage that was done. Somebody who had access to the Murrah Building, who knew where the reinforced structural columns were, who had access to the building plans, placed the bombs that destroyed the building. News reporters on the scene shortly after the building collapsed reported that workers were removing bombs that did not go off from within the building. The bombs that did explode did not explode simultaneously. The bomb blasts were recorded on two seismometers, one at the Omniplex Museum, 4.34 miles northeast of the Building, and the other at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, 16.25 miles to the southeast. Both of these seismometers recorded two separate, closely spaced explosions of approximately equal intensity. Also, several highly credible witnesses reported hearing separate explosions. Shortly after the explosions, the bomb squad defused one unexploded bomb inside the building, and were working on a second. There is an emerging pattern here. When President Kennedy was killed, it was declared that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had committed the crime. As we saw in chapter eight, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that proves there were several gunmen. Lee Harvey Oswald took the rap, and many others went free. When the Murrah Building blew up, it was declared that one man was primarily responsible, Timothy McVeigh. But Benton Partin, a military explosives expert, showed that it was impossible for the truck bomb to have done the damage. Others had access to the building plans and planted explosives around the columns. They were guiltier than McVeigh, but they went free. Who were the people really responsible for the Oklahoma City tragedy? During a live-feed video interview, an Assistant Fire Chief on the scene stated that the bomb squad was at the Murrah building at seven clock that morning, two hours before the bombing took place. What were they doing there two hours before the bombing? Immediately after the explosions, Mayor Ron Nordick, Dr. Randall Heather, Governor Frank Keating, and numerous news anchors stated that the FBI and the ATF had confirmed that high explosive bombs were taken out of the building. Now, the official story is that it was a fertilizer bomb. Were the governor, the mayor and the news anchors lying, or were they just not briefed in time for everyone to get their stories straight? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had offices in the Murrah Building. On the day the Murrah building was bombed, none of the ATF agents came to work that morning. The ATF agents, who had children in the day-care center, did not drop their children off that day. There were no ATF agents or their children on the casualty list of the Oklahoma City bombing. Freedom Network News, June/July 1996, pp. 5, 6. This is amazing. A United States government agency, that had offices in the building, did not report to work that day or bring their children to the daycare center. Do you suppose they knew what was going to happen to the building? On a radio talk show ten days after the bombing, [Mark] Boswell interviewed 28 year CIA veteran James Black and assistant Ron Jackson regarding sworn affidavits now in their possession, sworn by two Justice Department officials which state that they were part of a Committee of 10 who planned the Oklahoma bombing. Martin O. de Brook, Cherith Chronicle, May-July, 1995, page 5. In light of all the evidence, this is the only story that makes sense. As in the case of Kennedys murder, so it is in the Oklahoma City bombing. High-level agents of the U.S. government, claiming to love America and our freedom, were serving another master, carrying out his purposes. As we will see, there was a distinct purpose for the Oklahoma City bombing. How sickening that so many lives were lost to answer the call of the papacy! Like JFK, Waco, and the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City bombing leaves a great many questions that demand answers, but none have been given. Consider some of these questions. 1. Why was U.S. Judge Wayne Alley, whose office was located in the Federal building, warned several weeks in advance in a Justice Department memo to be prepared for an unnamed terrorist act directed against the federal building? 2. Why did the director of the University of Oklahomas geological survey, Dr. Charles Mankin, tell the media that according to two different seismographic records, there were two blasts? 3. Why has the information of Benton K. Partin not come to the light of day? 4. Why did the Clinton administration blame right wing radio talk shows for the incident, and demand the most draconian police state legislation ever proposed in the United States so quickly after the blasts? This proposed legislation was so well organized that it was obvious it had been prepared long before the destruction of the building. 5. Why was a blizzard of domestic terrorism bills rushed into Congress in a matter of days after the bombing? These laws include the banning of virtually all privately owned firearms. Remember Waco? There were liberty-restricting measures in Congress just prior to the Oklahoma City bombing that were stalled. Right after the bombing they were immediately passed. The Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995 was on a slow track in Congress and the subject of a lively debate as to whether it would violate some fundamental civil liberties, including the right to confront ones accuser. Now, after the Oklahoma City bombing, there are few surer legislative bets in Washington. Democrats and Republicans issued news releases Thursday calling for the bills quick passage. Terror in the Heartland: Terrorism Bill Moves Very Fast, Orlando Sentinel, April 21st, 1995 (emphasis supplied). President Clinton prodded Congress on Friday to move swiftly on his anti-terrorism legislation and avoid political endless quibbling over details. We must not doddle or delay. Congress must act, and act promptly. His 1.25 billion anti-terrorism package would expand law enforcements investigative and enforcement powers and toughen penalties for certain crimes. Republicans have reacted favorably to the proposals Clinton put forward on Wednesday, one week after the Oklahoma City bombing. Clinton Urges Swift Action on Anti-terrorism Legislation, Orlando Sentinel, April 29th, 1995. The purpose of the Oklahoma City bombing was to get Congress to pass the anti-terrorism bill without debate. If a debate had taken place, the issues of constitutional liberties and the creation of a police state would have been raised. The Jesuits in Congress prefer that the police state be implemented without the public noticing by creating a climate of national hysteria using a staged terrorist attack. The bill sailed through with no debate or discussion. One of the laws considered for passage after the Oklahoma City bombing was the gross destruction of the First Amendment advocated in Charles Schumers bill, HR 2580. In this bill, a five-year prison sentence would be given for publicly engaging in unseemly speculation and publishing or transmitting by wire or electronic means baseless conspiracy theories regarding the federal government of the United States. Mcveigh was a CIA operative whose mission was to take down the Militia movement. Because the new NWO plants objective was to take down open borders, do away with nationalism this guy blogged a lot of anti immigration stuff, was into preserving sovergnty and National Identity. The man was primed to put out that image to bring it down with this planned act of terrorism. NWO plant. __________________
Only if he gets 21 years for each count to be served consecutively... Can Norwegian punishment fit the crime? 27 July`11 When Anders Behring Breivik was arrested on charges of murdering 76 people, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said that the Norwegian way to respond to the massacre was "more democracy, more openness, more humanity, but without naivety."
Michael Ledeen is an expert about Iran's quest. We have communicated many times over the years. The following is an interesting view about the Oslo terrorist... The Myths of Oslo - Michael Ledeen, Pajamas Media The more I look at the Oslo massacre, the more I am struck by how archaic it all is. The killer fancies himself a noble defender of a Western world that no longer exists, and has not existed, really, since the First World War destroyed it. He is the sort of fascist who believes in the myth of a Golden Age that must be restored, and vaingloriously sees himself a member of the elite chosen by history to defend the mythical West. He fancies himself a warrior fighting against two mortal enemies: "Marxism" and "Islam." He needn't have bothered; they both died a long time ago. The first was effectively demolished in the Cold War with the defeat of the Soviet Empire. Yes, there are certainly Marxists around, and even communists, but there is no longer a worldwide mass movement challenging the West in the name of dialectical materialism. Their contemporary warriors are intellectuals, not workers, and they are more often masked as liberals or moderates than openly leftist revolutionaries. That's because there is no market for revolutionary Marxism, as Van Jones can explain to you. The second, "Islam," has been moribund for centuries. Virtually all the countries calling themselves "Islamic" are failed states whose citizens are starving, whose industries are generations behind those of the contemporary West, and whose most talented young people are mostly eager, even desperate, to live and work in infidel countries. Yes, there are certainly plenty of murderous jihadists around, but although they work very hard at killing us (typically often blowing themselves up instead, or setting their own underwear on fire), they are most effective against other Muslims. Even outside the Muslim world, the hard-core pro-jihad, let'screate-a-new-caliphate crowd visits misery on fellow Muslims packed into ghettos and force fed a particularly nasty version of shariah. Anders Breivik's demons did not drive him to attack Muslims, although there may have been some among his victims; his targets were his own people, those he called "traitors" for betraying the mythical West to the mythical global forces of Islam and Marxism. Quite a bizarre tapestry: A fight to the death among and within three spent forces which had already died. This archaic mythology is not only Breivik's; the Marxists and the radical Islamists embrace it just as avidly. The Marxists embrace the myth of class struggle in a Western world that is no longer capitalist and where there is no working class. The jihadists embrace the cause of holy war (no accident, the Marxists might say, that jihadists raced to take "credit" for the mayhem in the first hours) against a Western world described as Christian and Islamophobic. That, too, is an archaic remnant from a past long dead and buried, especially in Europe. The Old World is secular, and, certainly among its elites, more anti-Semitic and anti-Christian than anti-Muslim. Just look at the thoroughly disgusting remarks by the Norwegian ambassador to Israel after the massacre, in which he claimed greater "understanding" of Palestinians killing Jews than of a Norwegian massacring fellow countrymen. It is thoroughly understandable, then, that some have responded to the Norwegian mass murder with myths of their own, beginning with the fable that Breivik is the tip of a very large iceberg, that includes not only deranged would-be killers but also writers and politicians. Thus they conjure up yet another phantasmagorical mass movement - a vast conspiracy with countless fol-lowers, some hidden, others public. There is no such movement. Yes, there are crazy people who think they are fighters in the great cataclysmic struggle of the days of the Last Judgment (and if you want a fine survey and analysis of the enormous variety of such beliefs, and their dreadful effects over the centuries, get yourself a copy of Richard Landes' timely study Heaven on Earth). But I doubt there are enough of them to feed more than a handful of Knights Templar, let alone a full-fledged political movement. We're living through a revolutionary moment, all over the world. The world we knew and believed we understood is gone, and we don't know where we're headed. No wonder chaos disrupts orderly thought, and mythology replaces common sense. Michael Ledeen is a freedom scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. His justpublished book is Virgil's Golden Egg and Other Neapolitan Miracles; an Investigation Into the Sources of Creativity. This column is an edited version of a blog originally posted at Pajamasmedia.com.
Lawyer says Norway killer is insane... Lawyer Calls Norway Shooter Cold, Calm JULY 27, 2011- Confessed Killer Is Likely Insane, His Attorney Says; White Van, Potato-Farm Plan Raised Suspicions See also: Anonymous lashes out at Norway massacre suspect July 25, 2011 - The man accused of the attacks in Norway last Friday that left dozens of people dead is the latest target of the "hacktivist" group Anonymous.
Easy way out for a lawyer, plead insanity. From what I have read so far the Oslo terrorist was and still is quite aware and the consequences. Was bin Laden insane, Hitler, Stalin, Chicom leaders, Castro etc? All leaders of an ideology.
It's alot easier for right wing pundints who share his idealogy to shout insanity rather then relate to him. However if we simply call him insane we are not dealing with the core issue that are the raving fanatics in western culture.
I think it's because Europeans wants to show by another all world that the can fight with domestic terrorism face to face.
what do you think, he is a terrorist or resistance fighter? (and why my threat was not registered? ))
He is a terrorist, plain and simple. "Resistance Fighters" do not go around blowing up school camps. You might have a point, if the targets were military in nature, and if he was a declaired combatant.
His tagets were politicians, not the youngs. After have listened that nobody from his tagets was touched by the explosion, he went to the plan B - with the same tagets.. but nobody from them was also in the island. he began to shoot at the guard, then at the others, according to the newspapers.. the question is: why it was "necessary" for him? To what extent? Did he has no return? Or didn't want it?
Oh that is nonsense! And pure apologist speech. He set off a bomb in front of a government building, then went to a summer camp 2 hours later and started killing anybody he could. Those were not valid targets, they were civilians, mostly children. Sorry, but that carries as much weight with me as any other such slaugher. In other words, none at all.
A bird may be known by its song. Of course, he is a terrorist. But in Norway jails like health resort,and he will not suffer a just punishment. If he did this act in Russia then his destiny was very bad.
But if you not take countries with an abcense of human rights and an undeveloped penal system, like China or Russia - in US his destiny would be also very bad.. It remains to hope only for common sence in Norway..
Why do you think that in Russia the human rights are absence? Is it Berezovsky or Khodorkovsky says? They were suffer beyond contacts with mafia and larceny of the Soviet Union's legacy.
I wonder why he was even considered to be sick. I read his manifesto and I saw he deeds in TV. The man was right, now multiculturalists are not only playing with the lives of others, but with their own as well. Useful lesson.
Evidently, Norway doesn't have the death sentence, and putting him away in an institution they can study him for life, until he passes away. Hopefully sooner than...
