Taxi Driver Online

I was hoping that I might have converted you to having an inteligent/sensible discussion, having said that I looks like I am about to fail.

Skull, in order to defeat your enemy/people who wish to do you harm you have to try and get in tune with their thoughts/thinking/mind.

Try to look at the O.P and why!! there will be a reason and if it was happening to you shall we say via a foreign enemy, then you might very well act in the same manner. The difference being, is that you would be called a freedom fighter by your own people and many find glorification in that. However the other side will call you a terrorist, so as they say one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

You have to look at their targets and how their thought is changing!!!!

For years they (the terrorists) have killed innocent people (joe public) who have nothing to do with what is going on. In this case you being the psychologist that you are not, instantly dismiss him as being off of his head, (silly thinking really), when I said he attacked the chain of command i.e the political people who actually cause the problems. If you chip away at the bottom as they did in this case, then eventually the person at the top would not be able to do his job, and they would have to allter their train of thought as to how they do things.

That is a sea of change in so much that (not that I wish) if carried on throughout the world, then you would see less wars/conflict happening because those who thought that they were immune from the conflicts (you know the ones who send others to war and their deaths), had now become the targets, that is why I said that he is intelligent. To put that into persective many back handed compliments are used/given by the police in describing an intelligent criminal (never under estimate your opponent).

It does not mean that you admire what they do, but it does mean that you should give decent thought to the person concerned and not just casually dismiss him as a crank.

Skull if you are going to reply/get involved in a topic, then have the decency/intelligence to put your reasons in a coherent manner that we can all understand, and not in the bottom of the barrel way that you come across.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

You are talking [edited by admin], but I shall indulge your little fantasy just this once.

I would agree with you sentiments if he was an “enemy” we could all identify with in the true sense of the word, but this is simply not the case.

You also use of the word "terrorist" which, in my opinion, is out of context. Terrorists who act upon an ideological belief resort to terror tactics to make people listen to their argument, Nelson Mandela and apartheid being a case in point. If I was to find myself in the same position as Mandela, I might be prepared to commit atrocities to get my point across - “one man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter.”

For the most part, an act of Terrorism is a tactical war fought with limited resources by those fighting to free themselves from oppression and on a grander scale, it becomes a revolution.


Anders Brevivik is a completely different kettle of fish.

Anders Breivik,Timothy McVeigh‎, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat.

What did they all have in common? Bird, and Moat are probably bad examples but let's run with it and see where this takes us?


oh and btw, I agree that their actions should be examined, but their crazed beliefs should not be given the oxygen to breathe.

Nice to see that you can post without getting personal and without swearing too much.




Before we go any further I think you need to get your head around the fact that"Anders Breivik is recognised as a terrorist, and that is what I am talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

I always understood that terrorist were people who used terror as a means to obtain what they want which is not necessarily to free themselves from oppression, but, to place others under oppression. I think this guy was more into ethnic cleansing rather than terrorism. Having said that I guess it's the other side of the same coin especially if you happen to be of the ethnic group he doesn't like

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

I think you need to get your head around how the media presents information to the public.

However, the media wants to refer to him and his deeds, terrorist or terrorism, extremist or extremism. Islam or Islamism is a pretext for scaring people to death. This is where guys like Anders Brevivik spring from. Ignorance and fear are their starting point.

I agree that within the context of achieving terror, you could call Brevivik a terrorist but as far as working with others to free themselves from oppression, it never happened.

Incidentally, Anders Breivik,Timothy McVeigh‎, Ted Kaczynski, Jared Loughner, Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat, one could claim, were all loners or at the very least had problems with interpersonal relationships and social interaction.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't wake up in the morning looking forward to killing someone from Afghanistan or Iraq. Nor do I give a sh*t if you want to believe in Allah, Islam or Christianity, for that matter. I also find it hard to believe that anyone in the countries mentioned really give a sh*t about me either. Most people just want to get on with their lives without the bloodshed and fear.

Now if you want to discuss this properly Anders Breivik was just a man with a skewed perspective on the world, that lead to his insanity and criminally insane acts.

If we describe every whackjob with a skewed perspective as a terrorist, I don't think anyone would leave the safety of their own homes. The point I am trying to make is about context. Breivik may have developed an ideology, but the man was nuts.

I don't believe in God, or religion, but it doesn't mean I want to kill people who do. If I had my way, I would give all these nutters the opportunity to wipe each other out. I would find somewhere remote, arm them to the teeth and let them get on with it. That's my view.

I would then be happy to live with those who didn't give a [edited by admin] about me, irrespective of what they wanted to believe.

I think that we are getting to hung up on the fact that he is a terrorist OR not, I do not think that it matters as to whether he is nuts OR not because he will believe what he did was right and thoughts in that direction are not going to reverse what happened.

Hitler was nuts along with Pol Pot, Saddam H, Gaddafi and so on, all fit the bill. They all did a lot of killing for their own reasons. The point I am trying to make is that regardless of whether he or them were/are nuts, they were all extremely inteligent.

For a long time I have believed that people get wrapped up too much in the rah rah rah patriotic rhetoric that they are fed. Blair and the Queen did it after the London bombings "Londoners will not be cowed by this, and will be back on the streets/buses/tube trains etc". Yes he is right, but you can bet that neither he or the Queen will be on the streets/buses/tube trains etc, they will not endanger themselves, but for you or I, then that is okay. Because of the same type of rhetoric we get sucked into wars that are based on lies and in reality nothing to do with us, our boys and women lose their lives....................Does Blair or anyone of the same ilk get anyone near a battle field/bus/tube etc!!!!

What this guy has done is to take his fight (right or wrong,nuts or not) and this could be the fight of any enemy to the actual government of the country concerned. For once it is not the general public as such being targeted, but the politicians and future politicians.

That is why I said he is inteligent. He may very well have other underlying mental reasons, illusions of infamy, illusions of grandeur etc etc, but you have to admit that this is totally different and if adopted by other radical groups then it would reshape governments and history, because they have been cocooned from the horrors of what generally happens. The only one who came near to terror was Maggie down in Brighton, but they did not realise that they were going into a terrorist situation. Since that happened security has taken a massive twist and I would bet the cost is through the roof, so it does change things.

It is ironic that you mentioned Timothy McVeigh, as it was only after his atrocity that the Americans realised that they were no longer insulated from the horrors of war/terrorism, they did not like it one little bit with many more now calling for their armies to be pulled out of where ever their latest little jaunt has taken them.

He is not as crazy as you would like to think, it took a lot of planning and a load of money to facilitate it.

What I look for is his reasons! Whether you agree with them or not is something else, but to dismiss him as a loopy which is the first instinct of many people, is a big mistake.

_________________
if you cannot be yourself, then who can you be.

No one is disputing that Breivik was an intelligent individual, but he was no terrorist fighting for an ideological cause. Breivik was a loner with an unhealthy obsession of wanting to be someone. Society and the media provided him with his vehicle to infamy, the fear of the islamification of Europe. Breivik went from zero to hero just as quick as he could pull the trigger.

I have no doubt that psychologist will be scrutinising every piece of information regarding his childhood and upbringing but “terrorist” I don't think so.

Psychopaths are all around us every day as fully functioning members of society, SAS men, doctors, politicians and even taxi drivers. You or I, but they work within the rules of society at least to some degree and most don't even think about it, where for others, it's a choice.

Psychopaths are more common than you think, whereas insane psychopaths are something quite different.

You will probably never know the real reasons behind what Breivik did, but you can be sure he's got what he wanted.

You and I are living proof of that.