There was a lot of talk lately on the anti-islam and anti-multiculturalism movement and the responsibility for the anti-multiculturalism terrorist Anders Breivik and his acts.
Some people demanded that we condemn him, some accused us of trying to avoid responsibility every time some of us did condemn him, some took the condemnations as an admission of guilt, some took absense of condemnation as silent support, etc. Some of us did condemn him publicly, some considered condemnation as an admission of guilt and said we had nothing to do with it, etc.
I guess this is all just different ways of different people for dealing with it. Personally, I don't connect condemnation to guilt, and of course I do condemn him (one could have figured that out from my rhino rape comments). And no, I don't consider myself guilty in any way just because a terrorist happened to have some of the same political goals as myself.
Some people, however, tried to score points on the terrorist attack (I don't want to single out anyone, there was unfortunately too many) saying things like that Breivik's actions were a result of a misguided immigration policy, etc. Basically saying that if the society had agreed to whatever Breivik wanted in advance he wouldn't have killed all those people.
Yeah, I understand that a lot of people are upset that Breivik's act has hurt the anti-multiculturalism and anti-islamism movements. But terrorist acts are supposed to hurt the causes in the name of which they are committed. Even when those causes happen to be ours. Otherwise terrorism works, and you get more terrorists.
We (well, apart from the people who actually encouraged him to take up terrorism, if any) are not responsible for Breivik and what he has done. But if we start trying to score political points off his murders, or, God forbid, succeed in scoring those points, we sure as hell are gonna be responsible for the next ones. Terrorism shouldn't be rewarded.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As pointed out by Professori, the difference between Islamic terrorists and Breivik is that, although both seek political change, only the latter is a sign of a stifled democratic voice.
Is he? What exactly stifled his voice, or who? He used to write on these topics, and so do many other people. He used to be in a party. He could vote, and probably did.
Yes, voting has a rather limited effect when done by one person, and his ideas like "why don't we murder a whole bunch of Muslim women, and some politicians while we are at it" would have been illegal and a bit unpopular, but such is democracy.
We can always blame halla-aho or refugees.
I think the problem is that now people got his voice heard. I think it should not be so, but I see no cure less worse than the disease for the problem.
"As pointed out by Professori, the difference between Islamic terrorists and Breivik is that, although both seek political change, only the latter is a sign of a stifled democratic voice."
Srsly, WTF? Well, for once I get to agree with Vera...
Post a Comment