On Terrorism - To kill a media hype. Proper use, please.

An analysis is forthcoming.

Who are the fake terrorists? Who are the real terrorists? We may list a history of terrorism in the future for a concept that's for sure a /narrow/ concept, i.e., only /rarely/ should it ever have the theoretical possibility for appearing at all, when used correctly.

Then we have the individual terrorists...

UNA bomber - explanation

McVeigh - explanation

Breivik - explanation

Boston bombers - explanation, indeed with the typical radical muslim beard to go, very long beard there, you fans of Jon Stewart show.

With terrorists appearing "magically" with an Al-Qaida-kit for terrorism and police Photshop-ped videos, declaring oneself enemy to all of human kind "because the police's opinion of the "terrorist" isn't one to speak of. They may have had a character, but police must turn it down /this/ time. "Let the future tell, police officer says." Besides, they should have the gone the usual psychiatrists' route "down" society and starting with the torture of kids and youth because then they become "safe", police says more, "but only on the black side"."

So this is it. I can't take more "magically appearing terrorists" declarations in media, only for the illusion of people taking on smugness.

You wouldn't touch the toe of their shoes unless it's HUGE for a country like USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - Originally, terrorism = state terrorism (logical identity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army (in lack of political attempt, see political theory), also ANC, PLO, Black Panther, RAF, individuals, the holes inside laws and regulations for allowing ordinary people's rage against something terribly wrong. Just check yourself, the truly expert political science literature. Now possibly defined as "political activism by violence".

For the IRA, please, pay close attention to the box on the end of the article, citing several aspects to the IRA, Irish_Republican_Army.

Under Breivik and others:
If now it is proven that the police (for example in Norway) has contributed to a kind of "unreasonable culture" by police work, let's say, also by "tough interrogation methods" and "much apprehension", then I'd say this speaks for a type of higher legitimacy of attacking "lower" targets, like a youth camp by the Norwegian Labour Party.

Note (for "interested"):
One is still required to read the political theory to understand the "political attempt", FR: attentat, see also political violence, and how it is intended "to operate" in society, even tacitly under laws and regulations.

The reading requirement is also demanded from the "whelps" connected to Utoya, from the Breivik attack and the close ones to these. This is expert discussion and these "little ones" are simply not up for it! That I do not intend to take part in their (long) process of mourning.

The Notion of "Advocacy of Suicide"

The command of my language. Proper use more?

People can't advocate for crime because there are no laws and regulations for crime to advocate under. Therefore, advocacy of suicide is possible to some extent given that you are wording it correctly and mind the context to the proper limitations.

Therefore, I can justifiably write "advocacy for suicide by the right to die in dignity", such as being struck with terminal cancer and wanting to die from it at a hospice. One has no, by a malice of mind or other, the rightful demand to make people suffer awfully or beyond "reasonably"/mildly. This creates extra force to this notion of "advocacy of suicide" in this rightful sense.

The other, the "criminal advocacy for suicide" is a kind of honing for teasing people to do stuff that can kill them, only because one is able to detect that they may be a bit/more off the balance than people in the right mind, the more steady people. Given that life is hard and that many people go through a depressive phase, whether silently or not, the police strikes down on these cases and given a bit of a misleading naming by "advocacy of suicide" rather than "criminal encouragement/enticing to suicide" or "criminal advocacy of suicide" or "...to suicide".

Good? Proper use message enhanced?

The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture

The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture

by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST.

With Breivik, it may have proven to be a trick for the police to charge him with terror, so as to provide themselves an excuse to torture. Because we don't know if they have tortured, do we? And that he isn't this terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to think, isn't this so? Sorry for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a legal paradox "from a strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that has actualised or blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION TO FORM EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN", (muted) one, perhaps, more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for that...?"

Note: First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile (by public setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012. Note2: Today, I've tried to inform the ECtHR of serious problems in Norway relating to the formulation of the Breivik Pradox. I've tried to phone them by official number: 00 33388412018 and getting "this number is not in use" by NetCom mob.ph.-services. Note3: The message to ECtHR has been (upon sending):
Note3: I'd like You to know about the Breivik Paradox and the very serious problems it offers in terms of legal practice with a police force already marked by corruption and now is looking for individuals, "whether they remember it or not", traumatic experiences can /easily/ disappear from memory! Here:
The Breivik Paradox of Legal Systems - On the Use of Torture
by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 at 20:02 CEST.
With Breivik, it may have proven to be a trick for the police to charge him with terror, so as to provide themselves an excuse to torture. Because we don't know if they have tortured, do we? And that he isn't this terrorist of convention, as they are so fixated to think, isn't this so? Sorry for this Socrates-chain of words. So here we have a legal paradox "from a strange and deficient legal system, that of Norway", that has actualised or blurred when torture on people is supposed to take place, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T USED THE LIST OF EU AND THEY HAVEN'T ALLOWED THE TERRORIST ORGANISATION TO FORM EVEN, BEFORE THEY STRIKE AND CATCH "ONE DAMN EVIL MAN", (muted) one, perhaps, more Christian than them... "Ohh, is there a chance for that...?"
(Note: under the message to ECtHR) First written to Facebook under my Facebook profile (by public setting, Sunday, 24 June 2012.
So this should be it.

Obama and "Right Wing Extremists", Popularly Speaking or Not - Over the Case of Breivik!

It's funny that Obama addresses mr. Breivik's alleged terror as "the greatest threat" against USA for the time being. I find this uncourteous and undiplomatic. First of all it's not clear whether or not mr. Breivik's actions have been intended as terrorism at all (in the classical sense, the verdict is certainly not clear yet)!! And the reason why I put this under Glenn Carle is of course that Obama himself may sit there on blatant state-terrorism by the "unruly CIA and the rest of the military complex" yet he files his "deep concerns" like this, almost as innuendo/implicit encouragement for US to go looking for "a man with a red shoe"!!! We have our own strategies and they are usually FRIENDLY toward the world, and not the d*cking around with an entire army asserting weapons of mass destruction that isn't there, just for the fear that developing nations MAY DEVELOP TOO QUICKLY (maintaining their own superiority and GRIP on the world)!!! No, I don't find this polite, even though I'm willing relent a little regarding the 10 years since 9/11, just days ahead. Your considerations... Finally, I note the innuendo. Their strategies have differed distinctly from the EU to start with, and they are financing a military which has no clear use considering its size, and if they even can't help Mexico on the feet (all the way since est. NAFTA, i.e., some years since then, why the F*CK should they concern themselves with us!!!!??????)

Even then, with Breivik's 77 and Tmothy McVeigh's 200 - 400 or so (please check) what is the real damage? And where does it come from? The developed world! Cause: civil unrest and deep social injustice. I mean, some price tag!!! They seem so easy to pick up their tab on guns' policies that have some 30 000 deaths / a year only in USA. Clearly, this dwarfs both of these two "enemies" (of his worry, uh-uh, don't make me cry!!!).

The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.[2] Just for correcting the "200 to 400 or so".

Source for the Oklohoma bombing is Wikip.

Clearly, this is not important for me anymore. If I am to comment on matters Norwegian again, I want money for it, planning for life abroad instead! It's just for the sake of Europe and for issuing a difference between hate-crime, terrorism, political violence and general unrest of society as such! There is nothing particular about it, other than the facts that in the case against Breivik there is NO indictment ready yet and there is then most certainly NO verdict ready yet either. Thus, the comment from Obama seems immature. Heck, even the Legal Assessment by Psychiatrists isn't ready even! The whole case against him is still suspended in the clouds! We'll see where it goes! Cheers!