There has been a lot of coverage in the mainstream media on the cold blooded murders by the Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, and all have put their particular spin on the events and the personality of the perpetrator. On report stated the “he was a man who was aware of what it was to be civilised, but chose not to be” this is probably true. He was a man with a set of beliefs and felt it right that he should kill for those beliefs. The killing of innocent individuals was acceptable to support his beliefs. How does that separate him from our leaders, Prime Ministers, and Presidents?
The main difference is that he decided that it was acceptable for innocent people to die to further his cause, took his weapons and in person, carried out the act. In the case of Bush and Blair, they had their beliefs on Iraq and accepted that it was acceptable for innocent people to die to further those beliefs. However they didn't carry out the act, they took public funds and paid others to carry out the brutal killing of thousands innocent people.
The other difference is in scale, Breivik carried his hand guns and killed 77 young people, Bush and Blair's paid killers rained down unimaginable and sustained terror on thousands of innocent civilians with some of the most destructive weapons in their armoury with the boastful “Shock-and-Awe” tactic. It can be said that Bush and Blair were individuals who were aware of what it was to be civilised, but chose not to be. We pay, and the media applaud and honour those who committed the greater crime with by far the most sustained and brutal killings over a much longer period, and and put the other on trail. To the innocent victims of Breivik and those of Bush and Blair, it was still a brutal death and to their relatives it was still a brutal unforgivable crime. It seems that in our distorted society, individual murder is condemned, state mass murder is acceptable.
ann arky's home.
ann arky's home.