The Norway massacre and the question nobody cares to ask

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Aeons

....
I have other leads you can follow up. This should be enough for now for you to start your proofs of his non-existence.

edit on 2011/7/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Ummmm, when did I saw the guy didn't 'exist'?

I just said I am not ready to blindly assume his 'manifesto' is legit.

So prove it. Personally, I'd start with the land purchase, the camera purchase, and his gun shop. Devil is in the details.

edit on 2011/7/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Please elaborate, ma'am. How would any of that 'prove' his alleged manefesto was legit?

It would prove it WASN'T - which is your contention.

See, I'm providing you with the beginning of how to make your case.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I didnt say I contended his manifesto was fake. I said I'm not ready to blindly assume it's real. Instead of talking talking in circles (and making absurd, fictional claims about me saying he 'doesnt exist') , how about you prove to me it's real?

The manifesto is clearly real, so I don't need too. It exists.

You want to prove it isn't real? He didn't write it? That the authour isn't who he claims? That the authour had another purpose?

What is your contention here? I'd gladly come up with ways for you to run down your hypothesis .... if only you hand one.

I've already given you a dozen ways to start running down who he is, and how to prove the manifesto as a plant attributed to him.

Personally, I'm more interested in Mr.Lionhearted.

I'm not going in circles - it just appears that way to you because I think way faster than you.

Originally posted by Aeons
The manifesto is clearly real, so I don't need too. It exists.

Ma'am, the only comment made was that the 'manefesto' MIGHT not be legit. Not that it doesnt exist.

You are attacking a straw man, and still failing.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


GREAT. Now, exactly what do you mean by "legit?" That's a rather wishy-washy term. Let us nail down what you actualy mean here. What would make it "legit?" What would make it not "legit?"

Originally posted by Aeons
It WAS long term programming. He details his program of indoctrination for himself.

He wanted copy cats. Its the entire point of the manifesto.

edit on 2011/7/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

See, that just makes me more suspicious. Programming is an extremely sensitive subject, not much information is readily available about it. And yet, here is this guy's manifesto, for all to see? Certainly it was *meant* to be seen, and I don't think programmers make glaring mistakes like allowing this type of info to become public, unless they want it to.

Which leads me to believe that he may well be the subject of programming, but the information regarding the technicalities and process of the programming is false, for public consumption. Maybe everything in the manifesto was *intended* to be published, by the programmers / agency. I think they may have written it themselves, or at least told him what he should be writing about.

Programming is a human norm, and anyone with have an ounce of interest in it can find quite a bit about it.

Since it was a topic of interest to him, in that he believe society about him was being indoctrinated, he already showed an interest in the details of the topic. One might say it was a large part of his obsession.

He must be an Expert Sniper!
76 kills an NO Wounded?
I can not believe there was no one wounded?
took me some time to see this.

or did I mis that bit?

Originally posted by buddha
He must be an Expert Sniper!
76 kills an NO Wounded?
I can not believe there was no one wounded?
took me some time to see this.

or did I mis that bit?

Expert Sniper? He was shooting at people he had gather around him. Over an hour. That's gotta be the worst sniper ever.

en.wikipedia.org...

There were wounded. Several of them pretended to be dead.

Then he swept through and shot them, laying prone, to make sure they were dead. Not exactly expert markmanship needed there.

Originally posted by Aeons
Programming is a human norm, and anyone with have an ounce of interest in it can find quite a bit about it.

No, manipulation/conditioning is a human norm. From what I have read: expert, ongoing, deep programming such as mind control really is "Top Secret". It requires all kinds of psychoactive drugs, ongoing trauma, etc, and not much is allowed to be known about it.

Again, this is my opinion. I don't think the manifesto was a) written by him, or b) is representative of any "truths", c) I think it *is* intended for the public to see.

Great. Now you can start proving it.

All the points I gave you to start your run up still apply.

And you are correct - the document was meant for public consumption. Expressly. Now you need to prove it wasn't ANDERS who intended it for public consumption, but some agency.

Originally posted by Aeons
Great. Now you can start proving it.

All the points I gave you to start your run up still apply.

And you are correct - the document was meant for public consumption. Expressly. Now you need to prove it wasn't ANDERS who intended it for public consumption, but some agency.

Ok, I'll get right on that, whilst you prove it *was* him.

There is *no way* to absolutely prove either of our points.

Sigh.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

GREAT. Now, exactly what do you mean by "legit?" That's a rather wishy-washy term. Let us nail down what you actualy mean here. What would make it "legit?" What would make it not "legit?"

You are RIDICULOUS. I have quite clearly stated my only contention was that I am not ready to blindly assume his alleged 'manifesto' was actually written by him. It may have been, but to assume it is' legit' as you are doing, seems premature, at best.

Unfortunately, you appear more interested in playing semantic than having an intelligent discussion.

No. I want to know by what criteria something can be consider "legit."

What criteria does this document need to meet to be "legit?"

Damn Simple even.

Originally posted by SevenStarrz

Originally posted by Aeons
Great. Now you can start proving it.

All the points I gave you to start your run up still apply.

And you are correct - the document was meant for public consumption. Expressly. Now you need to prove it wasn't ANDERS who intended it for public consumption, but some agency.

Ok, I'll get right on that, whilst you prove it *was* him.

There is *no way* to absolutely prove either of our points.

Sigh.

Oh. Nothing exists, and therefore proving everything is a matter for the Matrix is it?

I've given absolutely objective points for you to run up, and in doing so it can lend credence to your presumption.

If you have no intention of ever trying to prove something or disprove something because you do not believe in an objective reality, then why do you care at all?

You are all about the "meaning" applied on a foundation with no substance.

Originally posted by Kemal
reply to post by johncarter

 

True, plus, I wonder why no one calls him a "terrorist" or a "Christian extremist". Or have I missed something?

geez, c'mon...no white christian can be called a "terrorist"...that is only for non-christian brown people, oh, and a few jews too. even glen beck said that the island was for leftist nazi youths, and if you can't believe him, well, you're just not insane enough.

Originally posted by Aeons

Oh. Nothing exists, and therefore proving everything is a matter for the Matrix is it?

I've given absolutely objective points for you to run up, and in doing so it can lend credence to you presumption.

If you have no intention of ever trying to prove something or disprove something because you do not believe in an objective reality, then why do you care at all?

How on Earth did we get into the realm of the metaphysical?! Furthermore, you're just not making sense. The Matrix?! I'm not discussing the Holographic Universe theory, here. Nor am I discussing objective reality, in this thread. That's a whole other subject.

You're telling me to prove something I cannot prove. I have no way to do that. I am telling you that *you* cannot prove your point either. You have no way to do that.

We have been told *he* released his manifesto. Obviously, the manifesto exists. *Someone* released it, we just *don't know who, for sure*.

Please don't write a response that's weirder than your last post. This is getting very silly.

Apparently, you are utterly unaware of how silly your idea that something cannot be proved is. You don't WANT to prove it. That's something completely different than it cannot be proved.

The man's in custody. He's said he put the manifesto out.

You don't doubt the man's existence, so clearly you understand that a real person says that they authoured and published online this document.

So now you think that he didn't put it out, even though he said he did? Okay. Your reasoning as to why you think that he is lying is.....

Originally posted by Aeons
Apparently, you are utterly unaware of how silly your idea that something cannot be proved is. You don't WANT to prove it. That's something completely different than it cannot be proved.

The man's in custody. He's said he put the manifesto out.

You don't doubt the man's existence, so clearly you understand that a real person says that they authoured and published online this document.

So now you think that he didn't put it out, even though he said he did? Okay. Your reasoning as to why you think that he is lying is.....

For goodness sakes. It is very easy to understand why I can't prove that he didn't release the manifesto himself. Because *I am not privvy to that information, and I never will be*. Because I am not a programmer, and I do not work for an agency, or a govt body. Because the information is secret, and out of sight. And it will remain that way.

You choose to believe him. I choose to question whether he is telling the truth. Perhaps he is telling the world what his programmers want him to say. Because they want the public to read this manifesto, that they authored and released, but they don't want the public to know that they wrote and released it. They want the public to believe that *he* authored it, so that they can continue to remain anonymous. So, there you have a possible reason for his "lying".

This is circular, and you are making me vociferously defend opinions that I am not fully convinced of. Unlike you, I don't make definite assumptions. I have thoughts, questions, opinions.

Let's just agree to disagree, because this discussion is going nowhere.

Originally posted by buddha
He must be an Expert Sniper!
76 kills an NO Wounded?
I can not believe there was no one wounded?
took me some time to see this.

or did I mis that bit?

I dont know about no wounded, but he was basically shooting fish in a barrel. Not hard to believe the kill count at all.

Originally posted by SevenStarrz
I choose to question whether he is telling the truth. Perhaps he is telling the world what his programmers want him to say. Because they want the public to read this manifesto, that they authored and released, but they don't want the public to know that they wrote and released it. They want the public to believe that *he* authored it, so that they can continue to remain anonymous. So, there you have a possible reason for his "lying".

I think it is more than a little reasonable to ask whether or not his entire 'manifesto' was written by someone else, or if his entire MO was to be able to get these 'ideas' out in the public.

The question here seems to me to come down to wondering if he is really a genuine lunatic, or if he was programmed by someone very powerful. It seems not entirely implausible that he was 'programmed' and supplied with all the necessary bells and whistles, like a crazy-arsed 'manifesto'. Of course, I am also willing to admit he is just a genuine nut-job, if the evidence eventually proves that.

Only an idiot (or someone intentionally attempting to obfuscate the issue with inane banter, straw men, and circular logic) would pretend they KNOW one way or the other at this point.