[adamwagg]

And because the island was hosting the youth group of the main left wing party which he was against.

[Dwight Schrute]

yeah I read the location was chosen in part to its isolation, there was a lot of difficulty in getting people out, many drowned in the freezing lake trying to escape. the guy wore police gear so people would come to him, then he executed them as they did so. supposedly the real police were focused on the bombing and didn't get out there for a while, giving the guy time to do massive damage. it was supposedly a youth camp for the left wing party, of which the right wing guy opposed. and when the real swat team showed, he calmly laid down his weapons and gave himself up. clearly he wanted to make a statement both in word and deed, and had this whole thing well planned out. I read a few reports from people that were trapped on the island, what an absolute tragedy. and talk about tossing a match into an already politically charged world. other than reading eyewitness accounts, I've tried to maintain media silence on it. I don't think I will be able to stomach both sides of the political machine using this catastrophe to shovel their opportunistic agendas.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Of course. You pay more money for lesser medical care;

Actually, no I don't. But that's not really the point and a strange side street for us to try and walk down in this discussion, isn't it?

Tell me about the lack of weapons again.

I'm not sure what the photo is supposed to show me about how this situation would be different if their law enforcement carried actual weapons on them. That looks to be a swat team. Unless I'm completely wrong and their beat cops wear full riot gear and carry semiautomatic weapons.

Wouldn't take anything nearly that bad (well organized and financed cell) to do that level of damage in most any country.

I'm not talking about that level of damage, I'm talking about a greater level. ie, flying commercial planes into buildings.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Actually, no I don't. But that's not really the point and a strange side street for us to try and walk down in this discussion, isn't it?

You will; but: OK, let's not walk down it.

I'm not sure what the photo is supposed to show me about how this situation would be different if their law enforcement carried actual weapons on them. That looks to be a swat team. Unless I'm completely wrong and their beat cops wear full riot gear and carry semiautomatic weapons.

Since there were no "beat cops" on the island: what they carry is immaterial.

The first police to make it to the scene were more than sufficiently armed.

I'm not talking about that level of damage, I'm talking about a greater level. ie, flying commercial planes into buildings.

Which has never happened in Norway, and has happened in the US. Which system is more effective?

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You will

Just another pretty good reason to repeal Obamacare....

Which has never happened in Norway, and has happened in the US. Which system is more effective?

The two systems being? Civilian forces that carry weapons and those that don't? Or the system that assumes serious crime will happen and the one that doesn't?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Just another pretty good reason to repeal Obamacare....

So much for not wanting to go there huh?

Your unsupported rhetoric is dishonest. The lasse' fare system of healthcare you support is about the worst approach tried. It creates, as it has in the US, spiraling healthcare costs which are distributed in a manner that does the most damage (some go bankrupt, some die, some get unscathed by luck).

Universal healthcare has well established itself as superior: it provides better, more accessable care at a lower cost... which is why every other first-world country has it.

If you want to continue "not going there": start a thread.

The two systems being? Civilian forces that carry weapons and those that don't? Or the system that assumes serious crime will happen and the one that doesn't?

The two systems being "whatever the US is doing, and the resultant crime, violence, and corruption rate here" and "whatever Norway is doing, and the resultant crime, violence, and corruption rate there".

Norway has proven itself *far* safer than the US overall; and they do it (as you point out) for less money.

[adamwagg]

Let's stay off the healthcare debate in this thread. Thanks all.

[Dwight Schrute]

and back to the topic at hand...

I haven't seen much more in the news about this, have they gotten anywhere in solidifying a motive? or to say it another way, have they found some way to make sense of this tragedy?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Dwight Shrute

and back to the topic at hand...

I haven't seen much more in the news about this, have they gotten anywhere in solidifying a motive? or to say it another way, have they found some way to make sense of this tragedy?

Breivik (the shooter) released a 1516-page manifesto entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence. It's pretty crazy.

What’s Actually in Breivik’s “Declaration of Independence”

[Dwight Schrute]

what a horrendous publicity stunt. at the risk of a tangent rant, I will only say that our media provides way too much undue attention to the wrong people. how else could you explain why "Snooki" is practically a household name? did she cure cancer or save orphans from a burning building? end rant.

perhaps my not hearing a lot in the news since the attacks is a good thing.