It seems that this is proof that violence begets violence. This young man, in an insane concern for the multi-culturalization of his own country turned to extreme violence as an answer. When he had bombed the buildings and already killed, he then went to a youth camp to kill more. This time children, young people whom he considered the future leaders. 93 dead in the entire debacle. His purpose? To waken his people to the dangers of allowing the immigration of people of Islamic background. But the children he killed were Norwegian, not necessarily immigrants, not necessarily close to the source of his angst.
That, of course, is the difficulty with answering violence with violence. The people we hurt are usually not the ones that hurt us. The camp wasn’t of a religious nature, it was a Labor Party camp. Yes, he blames that party for the multicultural stance of his country, but these are not people that espouse violence in any way. Will his actions help his cause? Probably not, in fact, it may hurt it in many ways, and for years to come.
The violence that begat this violence is blamed on extremist Muslim jihadists, and because they claim the Islamic faith as their own, they taint the view of much or the world regarding the Muslims who truly see their faith as the House of Peace. There are, of course, things I am uncomfortable with, regarding the Islamic faith. I’ve never pretended otherwise. Devout women of the faith must wear the Burka and Hijab to cover themselves from head to toe. This engenders a lack of sexual responsibility among the men, as it’s “all right” to rape women whose skin is exposed. But, violence toward the peaceful practitioners of this faith is not going to make this go away, and the violence that was engendered wasn’t even toward Islamic folk, it was toward secular Norwegians.
Ouch! That’s the problem with answering violence with violence, those who get hurt, and in this case dead, are not the cause of the pain in the first place. If the violence did not spread like fireworks to injure others not involved, I am not sure any of us would do more than just stand back and let those involved fight it out. But, here is a prime example of the very explosiveness of such a stance. The violence that rocked Oslo was not a direct answer to Extremist Islam, it was an outpouring of angst on people only indirectly involved. And it was children who paid the price in this awful debacle.
It seems that no matter what side this is fought on, children are the targets, that is, itself, most frustrating. Why children? Is it because the soldiers and infighters in both extremes are nothing but cowards? They lack the balls to fight each other on equal ground, so kill the children? I have never had much patience with child killers, I have less now. The children are used to make us cringe, I know, and it is succeeding. I have come to believe that, whether extremist Islamist, or extremist anti-Muslim, the death penalty should ensue every time a child is raked into their fight.