rigorousintuition.ca

lupercal, i've never used the "ignore" function of this site for anyone, but i am about to make my way to my computer so that i never have to read another of your psychotically insipid posts ever again.

life's too short and i don'y want you to ruin this place, or even this thread, at least to my perception.

considering the horrific nature of this thread, the last thing it needs is a complete idiot saying insanely idiotic things. it's offensive as all hell, right up there with saying "why didn't the rape victim just fight off her attacker, or better yet, take his photo! after all she had a camera. she must be lying unlss she can prove it with a photo.

fuck you you goddamn nutcase.

Here's what I asked:

lupercal wrote:

barracuda wrote:What kind of evidence might convince you as to the identity of the shooter?

How about some legible photos of Breivik in his cop uniform? Surely somebody on the island or ferry must have snapped one? How about some legible photos of Breivik in his cop uniform pointing a gun? How about some legible video of Breivik in his cop uniform walking around, pointing a gun, and perish the thought, saying something? Cell phones do record sound ya know.

Incidentally, do police in Norway normally wear scuba suits while on duty? Because that's what it looks like the guy in the video is wearing, although, of course, it's impossible to be sure.

This does not seem to me unreasonable or idiotic, and you haven't pointed out why you think it is, so I will simply say your reaction appears to be irrational.

Nordic, keep the language in check, man.

lupercal wrote:How about some legible photos of Breivik in his cop uniform?

Photos like that could be easily faked, though, don't you think? But really, do you feel that photographic evidence of the crime in progress should be mandatory for all murder cases, or just this one? How would you assess a murder case in which there was no photographic evidence?

barracuda wrote:Photos like that could be easily faked, though, don't you think?

Yes, but not as easily as that highly dubious scuba-suit still posted everywhere, and video would be even harder to fake, especially if it was sent out from the scene. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen any?

But really, do you feel that photographic evidence of the crime in progress should be mandatory for all murder cases, or just this one? How would you assess a murder case in which there was no photographic evidence?

I'm talking about evidence that should be readily available that isn't, and whether I'm willing to make improbable assumptions in its absence. I'm not.

vanlose kid wrote:

Before the deadly attack in Norway that killed 76 people, suspect Anders Behring Breivik left a long trail of material meticulously outlining his political beliefs. His 1,500-page political manifesto titled, "A European Declaration of Independence," seeks common cause with xenophobic right-wing groups around the world, particularly in the United States. It draws heavily on the writing of prominent anti-Islam American bloggers, as well as Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. His writing reveals he is a right-wing nationalist fueled by a combined hatred of Muslims, Marxists, multiculturalists and feminist women. Even after the massacre in Norway, some right-wing pundits in the United States have come out in defense of Breivik's analysis. Democracy Now! interviews Jeff Sharlet, an author who has written extensively about right-wing movements in the United States [The Family], and who has read much of Breivik's 1500-page manifesto. "What struck me most about this document is just how American it is in every way, a huge amount of it is from American sources," Sharlet says. "He is a great admirer of America because the United States, unlike Europe, has maintained its 'Christian identity.'"

*

Glenn Greenwald


Ali Esbati


*

I think it's quite possible that they do not WANT to release any such photos that may or may not exist. In the absence of any other candidate, I think they got the right man. why wouldn't they have? I just don't see any reason to think this wasn't the shooter. maybe they've even been asked not to. I don't see any reason why this monsters handiwork should be paraded around. I've never seen a single photo of the sidewalk outside the WTC on 911 either, yet I believe what I've been told. I do not want to see. If that "not wanting to see" is part of some evil strategy, a component of some psiop/whatever, then I'll just admit they win on that tactic and move on.

I don't want to see pictures from previous such camp events either. It's none of my business and there's no reason why such pictures have to be public.

lupercal wrote:I'm talking about evidence that should be readily available that isn't, and whether I'm willing to make improbable assumptions in its absence. I'm not.

I understand. If pictures of the crime actually occurring do not surface (because, let's face it, they might not for one reason or another), what evidence would be sufficient to convince you of the identity of the shooter?

barracuda wrote:

lupercal wrote:I'm talking about evidence that should be readily available that isn't, and whether I'm willing to make improbable assumptions in its absence. I'm not.

I understand. If pictures of the crime actually occurring do not surface (because, let's face it, they might not for one reason or another), what evidence would be sufficient to convince you of the identity of the shooter?

Let's put it this way: Breivik from what I've seen is some poor drugged-up patsie who probably thinks he's getting prepped for a sex-change operation or some damned thing, which incidentally was Manning's top concern. So I think the possibility that he carried out ANY of his alleged deeds is exceedingly slim, and it would require extraordinary evidence to convince me otherwise, and in the absence of credible cell phone photos or video, which should be available in abundance, I can't frankly think of anything.

Okay that's clear enough - only unimpeachable photographs or video of him actually killing people would be enough to convince you of the identity of the shooter. I just wanted to be clear on that so I don't waste your or my time trying to present some other type of evidence or information.

I don't think your request is that odd, actually. Maybe a bit insensitve, but this is a mass murder we're talking about here, not a tea dance. And young people with cell phones do crazy shit, though you have to admit such a move would have been remarkably risky under the circumstances. I would frankly be startled to find that such pictures existed.

One of the civilian rescuers, Kasper Ilaug, shot some photos during the incident, not of the shooter, but his story has some interest:



Norwegian islander ferries children to safety

lupercal wrote:

barracuda wrote:There are literally hundreds of witnesses to this crime (if you believe, as I do, that it happened at all), so I assume those witnesses have seen the images of Breivik and concur that he is the shooter.

I believe there were 76 assassinations, yes, but as to who carried them out, I'd like to see some actual evidence before making any assumptions. That's about as politely as I can think to put it.

I want to contrast two events - one is the Japanese tsunami

There was a very large amount of high quality pictures and video -

Why?

Because people knew the phenomenon that was taking place - it wasnt an 'unknown'. Much of the footage was also taken from 'islands of stability' - places of perceived stability like the fourth floor of a building providing shelter. There was very little footage of people when they were running. These people were fixed in a place and it made no difference to their safety whether they kept a record or not.

The situation on the island was very different.

There was not a constant, clearly visible external threat like a tsunami rushing towards you -
You were on a wooded island,
Your friends were hiding in terror,
You did not know which friends were located where,
Your communication was sporadic -
Your call could give someones location away and result in a friend being killed
Receiving a call could get you killed
There was an ambigously camoflaged gunman present
He, the threat, was moving was in an uncertain, mobile pattern , not static.

When outside, it can be very difficult to determine WHERE a sound comes from due to sound reflection. I personally have been in a forest and was SURE a friend was approaching from BEHIND, then they arrived IN FRONT of me.

In short, the information of the people being hunted has to be added together.

It is diametrically opposite shared perception of a clear external theat from a position of (relative) safety.

However in doing that, I see a very clear, unambiguous picture of one person engaging systematically in a very evil act.

Regarding the bomb in Oslo - the damage was EXACTLY what I would have expected from a big IRA fertiliser bomb, like the ones in Bishopsgate. Blast waves can go round corners, appear to 'jump' a street and then flatten the next one.

I am loathe to have a pop at lupercal or stickdog. The skepticism regarding Libya for example is well brought out (BTW did you read that one of the FIRST things the 'REBELS' did was set up...... a fucking Central Bank?????? and discuss joining the BIS (the b o s s of the FED and Bank of England etc???)

Back to topic

I think in this case however, that your mental models are avoiding the sheer 'banality of evil', not to mention that a combination of detailed planning ability, schitzophrenia and semi-automatic weaponry is not good thing to be around.

The delays in police response if anything reminded me of the UK police resposnse to
during the Hillsborough disaster.

Didnt this guy decide to blow several thousand £££ on a "high class hooker"? This speaks to me of extreme narcisism / insipient schizophrenia. I worked once with a guy who vanished - one week later he turned up clothed head to foot in Armani (not usual for a systems engineer!!!), stinking of sweat, unshaved for days, telling me excitedly how traffic lights were speaking to him and he had worked out the code of how to talk back, how he had blown his life savings in a week of high class whores and casinos in London. It was a different time - we chatted with him and wished him well as he gave individual bizarre presents to people; there was no security with the paramedics of the 'sectioning' ambulance crew and off he went.

I think it is important to look at information as 'cleanly' as possible and to factor in what often happens in large organisations / groups of people in crisis, which is communication breakdown, delay, rumour and crossed wires.

If I was a cop I wouldnt have gone NEAR that island until the army were there - if that meant he shot every child on the island FINE.

Why?

Because in the scenario of someone doing that, they would be a prime candidate for
releasing a

Bio-weapon
Dirty bomb
Suitcase nuke

Are you two such great Risk Analysts that you would go in there, guns blazing like John Wayne, in THOSE scenarios? When you dont even know WHO is doing it?
If you try to kill the sitting Government, that is getting into possible coup de etat territory. That means you wouldnt know WHO to trust.

It is a tricky thing this - sometimes what is present looks clear and it is NOT, the 'clarity' is manipulated; at other times a situation looks UNCLEAR but it isnt, the unclarity is brought by one's own way of looking.

The only videos I would expect to see would be "Goodbye Mummy Goodbye Daddy".

barracuda wrote:Okay that's clear enough - only unimpeachable photographs or video of him actually killing people would be enough to convince you of the identity of the shooter. I just wanted to be clear on that so I don't waste your or my time trying to present some other type of evidence or information.

and considering that there's no such thing as "unimpeachable photographs and video" in this day and age, it seems he won't ever be convinced.

Right, which is why I wanted to get that understood asap.

barracuda wrote:Right, which is why I wanted to get that understood asap.

Wrong, as usual. The term I used was credible, not unimpeachable, and there's a difference. However, you're still right waugs, because if past is prologue, I don't expect credible photos to surface, and I will be very, very surprised if they do.

It's a distinction without much of a difference, though. If they're impeachable, you can hardly call them credible.

JackRiddler wrote:Omar coming!

who is omar?