51–60 of 138 posts
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
Do I misunderstand these terms, or hasn't ethnonationalism been the norm historically and pluralism quite rare?
The headline of the English translation is "The Terror Attacks That Changed Norway". Did anything actually change? In the US, we're accustomed to mass killings not changing anything, and I'm curious if Utoya was different.
The fact that Breivik cited Hindu Nationalism in his manifesto went under-reported totally. The guys he cited are today on Twitter spewing the same hatred day after day. Hindu Nationalism now rules over India and they aren't going anywhere. World has changed so much within a decade.
> Hindu Nationalism now rules over India and they aren't going anywhere. Then why are Hindus being threatened and murdered every day for being Hindus? How can Hindu monks be casually lynched in the presence of police personnel?[1] Why were those who voted for the BJP during the Bengal elections forced to flee their homes?[2] And why are the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits who were systematically driven out…
The fact that Breivik cited Hindu Nationalism in his manifesto went under-reported totally. The guys he cited are today on Twitter spewing the same hatred day after day. Hindu Nationalism now rules over India and they aren't going anywhere. World has changed so much within a decade.
Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. The body count it's racked up so far is genuinely shocking. One riot[0]in 2002 (some argue it was a pogrom) killed at least 1,000 people. Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing, since he was the chief minister of the area at the time. I only know a…
Was the Godhra train arson[1] where 100+ Hindu pilgrims including women and children were deliberately set afire by a Muslim mob ever covered by the Western press?
This is what triggered the riots.
> killed at least 1,000 people.
So no Hindus were killed in the riots? Only Muslims?
> Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing
These people are Hinduphobes who deliberately lie about and malign Hindus, their religion, their culture and their leaders on every platform they can find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the paradox of tolerance in action. Tolerate intolerant ideals and there will be a sudden jerk to intolerance.
For context Karl Popper's quote on the paradox of tolerance: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should alway…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two 14 year olds, seven 15 year olds, eight 16 year olds, sixteen 17 year olds. I wasn't counting folks eighteen and over. He killed 33 children.
OK, 33 14-17 years olds who were already party members then... That doesn't materially change the point I made.
You're 'obviously not defending the guy' with words that are pretty close to if not already across that border. When you step into the breach for some monster weigh your words a bit more carefully please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. The body count it's racked up so far is genuinely shocking. One riot[0]in 2002 (some argue it was a pogrom) killed at least 1,000 people. Some people accuse the current prime minister of either initiating it or at least ordering the police to do nothing, since he was the chief minister of the area at the time. I only know a…
> Hindu nationalism is pretty scary stuff and is relatively under reported in the western world. Was the Godhra train arson[1] where 100+ Hindu pilgrims including women and children were deliberately set afire by a Muslim mob ever covered by the Western press? This is what triggered the riots. > killed at least 1,000 people. So no Hindus were killed in the riots? Only Muslims? > Some people accuse the current prime m…
That's a pretty easy answer: the very first item in the bibliography of that Wiki article is from BBC News, and the Indian government says it wasn't arson. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm
"We killed 1k people because you killed 50" isn't a great defense, even if it was arson.
Ten years on, and it's chilling to consider how much more widespread Brevik's ideology has become worldwide. Ethnonationalism has elbowed its way to a seat at the table, demanding "toleration" for itself that it would never reciprocate for pluralism.
"Breivik's subtitle is lifted from a 2007 essay by fellow Norwegian blogger "Fjordman". Extensive citations - often plagiarised - also refer to other anti-Muslim ideologues and groups, from the Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Steven Yaxley-Lennon's English Defence League to the likes of Jihadwatch and Stop the Islamisation of Nations (SION). "