Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » Bombing in Oslo

Bombing in Oslo

A BOMBING and a separate shooting in Oslo, which appear to have targeted Norway's prime minister and have left at least 11 people dead, are believed to be linked, police say. Police say seven people have been confirmed dead following a bomb blast outside prime minister Jens Stoltenberg's office in Oslo. Acting Police Chief Sveinung Sponheim told broadcaster NRK that investigators suspect today's bombing was linked to a shooting spree that killed four people at the Labor Party's youth camp later in the day by a gunman in a police uniform. The bomb left seven people dead and another 15 injured, two seriously, police said. Acting Police Chief Sponheim said: "We can confirm that we have seven dead and two have been seriously injured (in the bombing).'' On the outskirts of the city, four people were killed in the shooting.

You know its only natural to suspect that followers of a certain faith are responsible for this outrage…



Or maybe not…

Tragically the death-toll  is substantially higher than it was when I first posted this post in the pre dawn hours this morning:

TWIN shooting and bomb attacks left at least 87 dead as a Norwegian gunman disguised as a policeman opened fire at a youth camp and a bomb blast tore through government buildings in downtown Oslo.

“We have confirmation that at least 80 people are dead. We do not exclude a higher toll,” police spokesman Are Frykholm told AFP, speaking of the shooting spree a summer school meeting of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s ruling Labour Party on Utoeya, an island outside the capital.

Police had earlier confirmed that seven people were killed as a powerful bomb ripped through central Oslo — where the prime minister’s office and several government buildings are located — and nine were critically injured.

A 32-year-old Norwegian was arrested after the shooting spree. According to the TV2 channel, he has links to right-wing extremists and possessed two weapons registered in his name.

Not at all cheerful about this Comrades


  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Whoa, Iain! You might have to change your slant on this. From the ABC website:

    Police are questioning a 32-year-old Norwegian man over the attacks and there are reports he has links to right-wing extremist groups.

    Maybe he’s an anti-cyclist? Norwegian riders have been doing pretty well in Le Tour de France.

  2. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, I get it, Iain. This post is to divert attention away from a rather embarrassing story about a rather loopy Liberal ‘Hokey Pokey & Time Warp Dancing’ Senator, Mary Jo* Fisher, who has been charged with stealing groceries and assault. Wow!:


    You gotta wonder about her mental health here.

    (*Another “Jo” gone loopy?)

  3. The Other Iain says:

    Just can’t leave off with the personal attacks on others, can you Ray?

    Iain, last reports suggest 87 dead. The gunman was a right-wing nutjob. The youth camp where the victims died was run by Norway’s Labour Party.

    Think you’d better update your post!

  4. Iain Hall says:


    Liberal ‘Hokey Pokey & Time Warp Dancing’ Senator, Mary Jo* Fisher, who has been charged with stealing groceries and assault. Wow!:

    I’ll leave that story to you mate. because I’m sure that I would not be harsh enough for you lefties 🙂

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Post updated LOI

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Personal attacks? That’s another LOL for you, TOI, LOI, LOL, whatever you call yourself. Btw, I already told Iain that!

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    More info from The Age:

    Norway’s national broadcaster, NRK, has named the suspect in the attacks as 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik. He was arrested on the island of Utoeya and authorities have begun interrogating the suspect, police said at a press briefing today.

    The man, who has been described by police as a Christian fundamentalist, has been charged with two counts of ‘‘dangerous crime to society,’’ which means he could be sentenced to 21 years in prison, Norway’s toughest punishment, Roger Andresen, deputy Oslo police chief, told reporters today.

    According to the TV2 channel, Breivik has links to right-wing extremists and possessed two weapons registered in his name.

    A police official said the man appears to have acted alone in both attacks, and that “it seems like that this is not linked to any international terrorist organisations at all”.

    The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that information had not been officially released by Norway’s police.

    “It seems it’s not Islamic-terror related,” the official said.

    “This seems like a madman’s work.”

    The official said the attack “is probably more Norway’s Oklahoma City than it is Norway’s World Trade Centre”.

    What … only 21 years for that?

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Yeah that is not enough Ray but maybe they can sentence him to 21 years for each individual murder to be served consecutively…

  9. Richard Ryan says:

    As Howard once said,” Be alert, but not alarmed”, the fridge magnets were cute, were they made in China?

  10. Richard Ryan says:

    DO we have right wing extremist’s in this country?—-yes we have, I reckon Alan Jones is one—–the shock-jock, with the man-bag.

  11. Richard Ryan says:

    We have plenty of other types of under-cover right wing extremists, who supply the bullets to the uneducated on the blog-sites, how man times have you heard someone say, it must be true, Bolt, or Akerman, or Jones said it. These sheep take it as Gospel from these failed journalists with no media skills.

  12. Richard Ryan says:

    AS I said to my wife this could happen anywhere, but I don’t understand how can he shoot so many without a mob of people rushing him, but then we had a similar case in Tasmania. It looks like a person like that, has to be shot on sight.Still I hope it never happens in this country, again.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Do you have a point Richard?
    You obviously hate anyone with a conservative point of view but do you really have such a simplistic view of the world?

  14. Richard Ryan says:

    YES Iain! I like to keep my views “simple”. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  15. Iain Hall says:

    Its automatic weapons Richard they allowed him to kill many people with ease long before they would get near enough to disarm him. Norway is one of those “progressive” places with limited access to fire arms so there was no chance that anyone could have taken out this scum-bag and looking at pictures the Island there was just no where to run to either. Have you heard the expression “fish in a barrel”? Doesn’t it make you think that there are times when a capital sanction is justified?

  16. Iain Hall says:

    The trouble with simplicity Richard, is that sometimes you are just simply wrong.

  17. Zane Trow says:

    Wrong, yes LOL.Wrong like Iain who consistently attacks Islam, “its only natural” if you are a xenophobic white man with a massive inferiority complex.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Thank you for being simply wrong, Its the Jihadists, their interpretation of Islam, and their apologists that I constantly criticise here, are you incapable of understanding that distinction?
    I guess that its too simple for you 🙄

    I love the diversity of the human culture and I fear none of it, frankly I am pretty sure that I am not suffering from an inferiority complex either, maybe you are just projecting your own existential angst here , which would explain your unjustified rancour.

  19. Jilly says:

    The court transcripts of Martin Bryant are available online. Read them and you will see that ambush was not possible. There was no mob crowd, he picked off victims individually as he walked around. Port Arthur is also a remote location so help was not immediate.
    Oslo was kids on a camp. What did you expect they do? The element of surprise was a weapon as many did not understand killing was happening, in both situations. They were kids!

  20. Sax says:

    Come off it Zane.
    You have it a*se about.
    Iain, as well as others, myself included, only criticise those followers of Islam, that demand their youth strap explosives, to their chests, in the name of Allah, to go and kill a few hundred people. That is not religion, rather a bloody cult !

    Hell, is that what you’re defending ?

  21. Jilly says:

    Zane, I too made that same initial assumption as Iain. The media even suggested that first off. Why would people jump to that conclusion if Islamic extremists were not the main offenders. Seemed reasonable to me. Quit trying to paint the extreme Islamics in a pretty picture as any assumptions towards them are well founded, due to their own actions. Sure it wasn’t them this time, but we all know there will be another, are we not threatened with jihad constantly.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for that comment Jilly. Now if Zane had taken the time to think about what I actaully wrote in my post (which went up before much was known about the atrocity) I was merely speculating and as you say making a reasonable assumption based upon past events and the fact that the Jihadists have been threatening some big atrocities to avenge the death of Osama Bin Laden. Further as you suggest when their rhetoric tells us constantly that they want to kill as may infidels as they possibly can I am rather inclined to take them at their word.

  23. Richard Ryan says:

    YEAH like when the dingo was found guilty of killing Lindy’s baby boy, as many dingo’s as possibly were shot in the N.T.

  24. Iain Hall says:

    if you are going to draw a long bow at least make sure that you string it correctly, there was no cull of dingoes in the NT in the wake of Lindy’s daughter’s disappearance.

  25. Jilly says:

    Not making sense. Are you suggesting the usual course of events would be for us all to go shoot a Norwegian?

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain & Jilly, I’m just amazed that anyone who first suspected Islamic terrorists were responsible (and I understand how you might jump to that wrong conclusion) could still not back down and acknowledge that hatred & fear of Muslims in general by hard right nutters like this bloke is just as big a threat to western countries. It’s the enemy within.

    WTF was his reasoning & motive anyway? What, muslim immigration is damaging our way of life so I’ll just kill the people I claim to be speaking up for? Crazy stuff.

  27. Jilly says:

    Honestly Ray, how could that not be your first thought? Virtual simultaneous bombing and shootings. Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck.

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    Jilly, I said that I understand how that would be your “first thought’. But I reckon there’s a bigger message here.

  29. Richard Ryan says:

    The media are telling us that this person posted anti-Muslim rhetoric on his blog-site—–wonder where he got his thoughts from. A lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric on our blog-sites, just click over to Akerman’s or Bolt’s blog sites.

  30. Richard Ryan says:

    What a pack of Burqas: click over to Piers, and read the 71comments,

  31. Ray Dixon says:

    Yeah, the rhetoric that goes on can influence nutters to go ballistic.

  32. Jilly says:

    Political correctness drove him over the edge, according to the news report. Is it time finally to treat all humans equally.

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    Political correctness drove him over the edge

    So if eveyone were politically incorrect and spouted right-wing hatred (like he did) he wouldn’t have done it? Wow!

  34. Jilly says:

    No not everyone,but it is high time that reverse discrimination and political correctness made way for common sense. Are you saying that to disagree with the current situation of political correctness gone mad means the person has to be an extreme right wing?

  35. Ray Dixon says:

    I’d respond to that if it made any sense.

  36. Craigy says:

    The fact is that acts of terrorism or extreme violence are not carried out exclusively by Islamic extremists.

    Over the past 50 years the majority of acts of violence causing death have been carried out by many different people, some of whom are from our own cultural and religious background.

    That wingnuts like to blame the people they fear and in Australia that is all Muslims. Whipped up by Bolt and his supporters in the largest selling daily newspaper, is it no surprise that Iain and other wingnuts think it MUST be Islam that is responsible.

    The right has lost all sense of balance or ability for rational assessment of so many things, their fear of Islam that brings this knee jerk response from Iain is a good example.

    Iain, Sax and Jilly, you do understand that most sensible people didn’t immediately think is was Muslims like you did?

  37. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy read what I actaully wrote here
    ” You know its only natural to suspect that followers of a certain faith are responsible for this outrage…” I stand by that suspicion even though It turned out the be wrong in this case.
    Put simply there have been how many terrorist atrocities in the last decade?
    Bali (1 & 2)
    London 7/7
    Mumbi massacre and bombings
    ect ect
    And how many plots foiled?
    What percentage of them have been done in the name of Allah?
    As Jilly suggested in this very thread it was entirely consistent to think that an atrocity with the usual MO of the Jihadists is probably their work but you will notice that I did not actually definitively attribute this vile atrocity to followers of Islam, instead sharing my suspicion with readers and waiting for further information.

  38. Richard Ryan says:

    IF this act was committed by a Muslim=Terrorism. but, but, this act was committed by a Christian= massacre or madman, even the use of the language discriminates. OH yes! War, rich man’s terrorism. Terrorism, poor man’s war. Shalom.

  39. Richard Ryan says:

    I will blog this slowly: This was a terrorist act committed on Norway’s soil by a citizen or citizen’s of that country.

  40. Sax says:

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is only reasonable to think that…….

  41. The Other Iain says:

    I will be honest, my first thought is that it might have been Islamic fundies. But that was just a suspicion based in recent history and the MO (bombs and armed gun men) and I would never voice it until knowing more of the facts.

    Iain did the right thing, he just pondered who it might be then corrected his post when more info came to light. Bolt was more assertive about who it might be though.

  42. damage says:

    But CraigY you don’t read Bolt. Remember?

  43. Luzu says:

    What is it with humans and violence?

    “War is a rich man’s terrorism.
    Terrorism is poor man’s war.”

    Bit simplistic, maybe? But worth thinking over.

  44. Craigy says:

    “What percentage of them have been done in the name of Allah?”

    See this is your problem Iain, you and others have been totally sucked in by the distortions pedalled mainly by News ltd and you don’t have the personal insight to see it.

    Go to this wiki page,


    ….and click on any year from 1970 on. You will see many acts of terror not carried out by followers of Islam but in fact carried out by Christians and others.

    If you had the insight to actually avoid News Ltd and took what your wingnut guru and his mates say on their blogs with a grain of salt (like sensible people do) then you wouldn’t automatically blame Muslims for every terror attack.

    Sax, if someone keeps telling you the duck is a chicken and you believe them, then eventually you will think all chickens walk like a duck!

    To all those who think Islam is the biggest terrorist threat, you have been sold a lie, time to wake up.

  45. Craigy says:

    Matt, your a troll of the worst kind, one with no wit at all…..and a nasty streak a mile long. Piss off will you.

  46. Iain Hall says:

    I’ve been to your link Craigy and it does not make your case, because it includes all sorts of incidents like the assassination of single individuals for political reasons under the category of a “terrorist act”
    Now why don’t wipe the Latte foam from your lip and just admit that there is a problem with the Jihadists and that those of us who criticise them are just calling like it is, If you are so sure that Islam is not an intolerant faith then why don’t you try selling bacon Sarnies outside the Lakemba mosque?
    Let me know what kind of floral tributes you want beforehand though.

  47. damage says:

    Graigy you’ve avoided my earlier question. How does one who does not consume Bolt, know so much about the attitudes of Bolt and those who may or may not read him? How does one who reads no Bolt write for PP – where honesty in publication is the benchmark – honestly critique his work without having read it? It seems to me that you are either critical for its own sake, dishonest about your reading of Bolt or both.

  48. Jilly says:

    Lets look forward then Craigy, not back 40 years.

    Abu Sayyaf Group, al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, Armed Islamic Group, Asbat al-Ansar, and thats only the A entries. These are on the list of the Australian Government as terrorist organisations. Can you pick the common denominator?

    The Christian and civil wars were not a threat to Australia. The IRA stuck to Ireland/England as that was where their fight was. The problem with Islamic extremists is that the borders are now down and there is no safe haven country.Yes I thought he was Muslim first off, duh!.

  49. Sax says:

    Well, if you are gullible enough to believe them Craigy, more fool you ?
    Sounds like a classic cult-like approach of brainwashing, to me ?
    You need to wake up yourself, have a look at what is happening around the world ?

    You guys have all short memories, about the damage religion has done on this planet, and even only in the last few decades. A brief reminder may be pertinent ?

    Jews and Arabs in Israel ?
    Irish – Catholics v Protestants ?
    Then there are the Mulsum extremist actions of the nineties, onwards. Too many to mention here, but stop and have a think about it.

    But, keep your heads in the sand, and perhaps it just might all go away. Why are people, who have the guts to get up and criticise what is going on, branded as racists ? Not just religion either. It is our responsibility to get up, and say something, when we know we are under attack. Don’t fool yourselves either, cos that is exactly what it is going on here.

    Islam wants to rule the religion business, and will do anything it can to achieve that. Even allowing radical wings of that religion, go out, hell bent on blowing up any opposition to get their silence, and absolute obedience. That is what it is about. Blood power and control.
    That is what it has always been about ?

  50. Richard Ryan says:

    Surely if this person is responsible for the terrorist attack in Oslo, John Howard must be held responsible for plunging Australia into the Iraq war.

  51. Sax says:

    I think it goes further back than that.
    Try the United Nations, and NATO’s fault, for allowing numbnuts such as Bin Laden, Hussein and his pals, to get a power base in the first place ?
    Crikey, when has that happened before in history, with historically similar results ?

  52. Richard Ryan says:

    Nice to see our Christian Terrorist, gave a good report on John Howard, and Cardinal Pell.

  53. The Other Iain says:

    Try the United Nations, and NATO’s fault, for allowing numbnuts such as Bin Laden, Hussein and his pals, to get a power base in the first place ?

    I like how it’s the UN and NATO who created Bin Laden, Sax. Not the US and the CIA, who paid, trained and backed him in Afghanistan for many a year.
    Or was that your ‘blame-the-UN-for-everything’ kicking in?

  54. Iain Hall says:

    Now you are just being SILLY 🙄

  55. The Other Iain says:

    No Iain, Richard is right on the money.


    “They have taken serious steps towards actually enforcing their own borders, despite the predictable outcries from various NGOs and anti-racists, and Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly proven to be one of the most sensible leaders in the Western world,” he wrote.

    Sounds like one of your blog commenters 😉

  56. Iain Hall says:

    Well Jeremy gets a Guernsey in that game as well So what?

  57. The Other Iain says:

    No big deal. It’s just interesting which pollies the Norway gunman was a fanboi of.

    If he’d shot up the place in a Hugo Chavez t-shirt I’d sure you’d be making much of it.

  58. Craigy says:

    This just in…….

    “Earlier, arson and explosive squad detectives and members of the heavily-armed special operations group arrested a 32-year-old man in Lyttleton Street just before 11am.

    The investigation relates to the alleged possession of substances and items to assist in the manufacture of explosives.

    The Castlemaine man was arrested in Lyttleton Street just before 11am and is currently assisting police with their enquiries”


    Anyone want to guess if he is Arab or White skin??

  59. Craigy says:

    He must be from Islam…..right sax? right iain?

  60. Ray Dixon says:

    Anyone want to guess if he is Arab or White skin??

    Andrew Lovett?

  61. Ray Dixon says:

    Actually, my “first thought” is that the 32 y.o. from Castlemaine with a cache of explosives is probably a member of a bikie gang. Oh, but then again, they have Lebanese members too so maybe it’s Jihad after all!

  62. Iain Hall says:

    I’m with Ray on the Bikie thought actaully Craigy, But I have a pretty good inkling of where you are trying to go with the quote,
    But look you have to admit that although I suspected a Jihadist here I did express my suspicion as just that, a suspicion and one that we should confirm before we condemn anyone or any faith for a vile atrocity.

  63. Ray Dixon says:

    The Oslo bomber/shooter/terrorist cites John Howard’s anti-muslim stance in his manifesto as a good example of leadership. So good that it influenced this nutter to kill nearly 100 of his own people? That might be a long bow but I think it highlights the dangers of politicians and the like stirring up anti-muslim sentiment.

  64. Iain Hall says:

    Ray from what I gather his manifesto is 1500 PAGES with lots of cut and paste crap as I pointed out even Jeremy (Clarkson) gets a look in so I would not go laying ANY of the blame at the feet of those he cites for his evil acts, he was obviously looking for any kind of excuse to justify what he has long planned.
    He is just a murdering fame whore who killed children for fun, don’t make the mistake of thinking that deep and meaningful is in the mix here.
    remember Charles Manson cited the Beatles as a reason for his spree…

  65. Ray Dixon says:

    I agree that madmen like Manson have cited obscure references like those in the Beatles ‘Helter Skelter’ track – but that is more like interpreting messages that are not even there (not to normal people). Whereas Howard’s anti-muslim quotes he cites were exact and not made up in his twisted mind. I’m not suggesting Howard directly incited violence or that he intended to, just that leaders need to be careful with their rhetoric in case it is seized upon and used as justification for horrible acts, as it clearly was in this case – in part at least.

  66. Sax says:

    Skin colour doesn’t determine anything here Craigy. Surprised you even brought that up, unless of course, you intend on calling anyone that has the guts to speak up, racists ?

    Again, you lot have all forgotten what this is all about. It’s about power and control , and by blowing people up, is the easiest way to frighten people into absolute submission. But, it didn’t work in Ireland did it ?

    You people have forgotten that the UN is more than the US. Even NATO is more than the US alone ? I love the way you bleeding hearts, say, yep all is ok, and let these creeps continually, time after time, gain their power bases, let loose with their threatening rhetoric, and when the s*it finally does hit the fan, start throwing the criticisms as to why these wnkers weren’t stopped ? Rebuttals like, hell, surely you could see this coming ?

    Look at the hot spots around the planet at the moment ? Guarantee 90+ % of the causes of these “love fests” are religion based. As for Islam Bashing ? Hardly, merely, Islam is just the latest in the long list of religions attempting to dominate the rest ?

  67. Jilly says:

    Anyone want to guess if he is Arab or White skin??

    News says he is English born. So my guess is Indian or Pakistanian.

  68. damage says:

    Interesting that Howard should be blamed because his words were misinterpreted, but Islam should not when it’s words are carried out to the letter.

  69. Ray Dixon says:

    News says he is English born. So my guess is Indian or Pakistanian

    Huh? Aren’t English-born people, um … English? And how many English-born people are of Indian or Pakistani descent? What percentage? It’d be a very small minority, I reckon. So you just automatically assume he’d be a dark-skinned English-born person then? Why?

  70. The Other Iain says:

    I think we know the answer to that question.

  71. Richard Ryan says:

    I BET you a latte, this guy would have been welcomed with open arms on Bolt’s blog,—- oh come on now! All his bloggers would be nodding their head’s in unison, as he sprouted words of venom.

  72. Iain Hall says:

    I think that you would have lost that bet!!
    Mate you must suffer form the very worst hay fever in the country, with all of the straw men that you keep making 🙂

  73. Jilly says:

    Ray, Indians about 1.5 mill, Paki’s 750k. My point as before was that borders of the world are down. Country of origin means nothing anymore. Why would anyone automatically assume this guy would be white skinned English born then?
    As Sax stated “Skin colour doesn’t determine anything”. It’s their beliefs we should be worried about.

    Also, if a freak has praised John Howard, this does not put them in the same category. Likewise Jodie Foster, she cannot be blamed for the bullet Reagan got.

  74. Ray Dixon says:

    Indians about 1.5 mill, Paki’s 750k

    Yes, but not all of them are ‘English born’ and England’s population is well over 50 million so your assumption appears more than a tad biased.

    Why would anyone automatically assume this guy would be white skinned English born

    I didn’t. You assumed he was black.

  75. Richard Ryan says:

    “There are many humorous things in the world, among them, the white man’s notion that he is less savage then the savages” Mark Twain.

  76. Jilly says:

    I didn’t assume he was black or white. What I suggested was a blunt point that we can no longer assume this, nor should we assume this. A persons current residence or even where they were born will no longer infer their background. Those figures are for non mixed descent also. How many aboriginals claim to be black when they are infact only 1 eighth mix. Halle Berry got in a frizzle when her ex said their daughter was not black. The girl is one quarter, so in my calculation the majority is white.

    What I am saying is that colour means nothing anymore and political correctness is doing more harm than the good it expected. Colour is superficial and is now being used as a weapon. Take the racial element in the Lovett footy case. Everyone needs to move on and accept racism is a term misused and not what originally intended for. Why is it only a white be racist? I had nothing to do with Hitler, am not German descent, and strongly disapprove of the movement, why should I be labelled a racist because I am white? Would I be a racist if I was black?

    Isn’t this a bit hypocritical?

  77. The Other Iain says:

    What I am saying is that colour means nothing anymore

    If that’s so then why did you presume he was Indian or Pakistani?

    You’re in a deep hole Jilly, might be time to stop digging.

  78. Ray Dixon says:

    Um, yeah, er … wow, Jilly.

  79. Jilly says:

    TOI, Not in a deep hole at all. I said that to show that English may not necessarily mean white pom. England is a melting pot of nationalities.

  80. Ray Dixon says:

    Not in a deep hole, Jilly? Here’s a shot of the ‘English born Indian or Pakistani’ from the HSun:

    Must be an albino.

  81. Jilly says:

    OMG Ray you can’t say albino, that may be racist.
    Of cause its not as we can describe a white person using the colour of their skin, it’s only racist if they are non-white and we use that as a descriptive, See the double standards I have been speaking of.

  82. The Other Iain says:

    This is what you said Jilly:

    Anyone want to guess if he is Arab or White skin??
    News says he is English born. So my guess is Indian or Pakistanian.

    So even though 7/8ths of English are actually white, your “guess” was that he was from the sub-continent. Plus your rants about political correctness sound frighteningly like those of Anders Brievik.

  83. Ray Dixon says:

    you can’t say albino, that may be racist

    Albino is not about race. It describes a genetic condition that inflicts itself on people from all races.

    You know, I just think your take on race matters is out the freakin’ window.

  84. Jilly says:

    Albino is white, its not freakin’ green and polka dot red Ray.

    What is so wrong with suggesting that colour should be disregarded and EVERYONE is the same. This will stop the discrimination & reverse discrimination. It only creates a divide and exaggerates the differences between people all living in the one country. Discrimination policies segregate the community.

  85. Iain Hall says:

    Actually Jilly if you want to be entirely and pedantically correct an albino has a total lack of pigmentation and their eyes have pink irises and a disincentive sensitivity to light.

  86. Ray Dixon says:

    What is so wrong with suggesting that colour should be disregarded and EVERYONE is the same.

    Nothing is wrong with that but I think your mention of “reverse discrimination” is what undermines your statement. Are you suggesting that whites in Australia, for instance, suffer some kind of discrimination by aborigines and other races? Please explain Pauline.

  87. Jilly says:

    Yes Iain that was pedantic. A medical definition is not required when the discussion was regarding colour.

    Ray, OMG what is not getting through to you. Why remove discrimination and retain positive, or reverse, discrimination. Scrap the lot and enact equality. How do we teach society to be fair and equal when we promote and encourage inequality. Once again I have been labelled racist (Pauline). Why can we not take a person at their value without having to break it down into what colour they are. When we carry on about racism (as you do Ray) then people will always be fixated on the colour of a person’s skin and not the fact that we are all the same on the inside. Look beyond the colour Ray.

  88. damage says:

    What is it with the left and violence?

    “Breivik describes himself as a disaffected product of the Norwegian liberal political elite, furious at the way sexual instability has affected his own life. His father was a diplomat, stationed first in London and then in Paris. His parents divorced when he was a year old, after which his feminist mother married a Norwegian army captain, and his father wed a fellow diplomat who Breivik calls a “moderate cultural Marxist and feminist.”

    Though he describes his stepfather as somewhat conservative, he nevertheless complains of a “super-liberal, matriarchal upbringing,” which he says has “contributed to feminise me to a certain degree.” “

  89. Ray Dixon says:

    Why remove discrimination and retain positive, or reverse, discrimination

    Would you mind explaining what that means Pauline Jilly?

    Sorry for the “Pauline” reference but it is NOT calling you a racist to say you seem to be espousing similar views to hers. And why remove discrimination? Um , because that is what decent people want, no discrimination based on race, creed, religion etc.

    Look beyond the colour Ray.

    Yeah, okay – look to what? You are making noises here about something you call “reverse racism” but you are talking in a roundabout and general way and not explaining exactly what you mean by that. And, judging by past comments, you do seem a tad biased against minority groups.

  90. Jilly says:

    I’m not biased against minority groups, no problem at all. I am biased about the governments’ interventions that discriminate. Decades ago this was needed when there was a divide between equality for women/men, white/black but not now. Policies to counteract that do not and only tip the scales the other way. Discrimination will only cease when all discrimination is removed and we can view each and all the same.

    Going by what Damage said above re the feminism, then is it not clear now Ray. Feminists discriminate against mainstream females and certainly against males, and they believe they have the right to due to history and the current government policies which enforce that through positive or reverse discrimination. I do not see the sense in discriminating to remove discrimination.

    To explain it exactly – No gender is better than the other, no colour is better than the other. The agenda pushed by the government policies do not support this.

    Over it Ray, call me a racist if you must. You seem to throw that term around quite liberally.

  91. Jilly says:

    To call a person “Hitler” you would be calling them a Nazi. Is it not the same as by calling a person “Pauline” implying they are racist.

  92. Ray Dixon says:

    That’s about as clear as mud, Jilly. I haven’t called you a “racist”, I’ve asked you to explain what you mean by “reverse discrimination”. And you haven’t.

    So I’ll take a wild guess and suggest you are saying that somehow white/european/anglo saxons (call them what you will) are somehow discriminated against in this country by the special programs and assistance packages we have for disadvantaged minority groups like aborigines and refugees. Is that what you mean? Do try to give a straight answer.

  93. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, I think there is no doubt Hitler was a Nazi and even he wouldn’t deny that. But Hanson says she’s not racist and so do a lot of other people. Can you answer the question?

  94. The Other Iain says:

    Feminists discriminate against mainstream females and certainly against males

    Oh really Jilly… and what is a “mainstream female”?

    You, Brievik and Brain Damage seem to have the same twisted view that feminism is bringing down the western world. Perhaps the three of you could find a deserted island and set up your own colony.

  95. Iain Hall says:

    Just how much feminist dogma have you assimilated TOI?

  96. Craigy says:

    Looks like we have our own Norwegian terrorist right here…….

  97. The Other Iain says:

    Your credibility on matters pertaining to women is at a new low after your efforts in the Andrew Lovett thread, Iain.

  98. Richard Ryan says:

    Terrorism is not new to black people——–just ask the Aborigines of this continent.

  99. Iain Hall says:

    Total Bollocks Ovaries TOI!
    If sprouting feminist dogma was required you might be right but in the real world and with real women I do better than OK mate.

    I never knew that there were aboriginal terrorists, what do they use exploding boomerangs or suicide didge players?

  100. Jilly says:

    Wikipedia definition
    ”Reverse discrimination, also known as positive[1] discrimination, is a controversial specific form of discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, including the city or state, or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, or other factors”

  101. The Other Iain says:

    If sprouting feminist dogma was required you might be right but in the real world and with real women I do better than OK mate.

    Are you bragging about your sexual conquests?
    Does your wife know about this??

  102. Jilly says:

    TOI – I am a mainstream female. We raise our children, we earn a living etc. I in no way think because I am female that I am superior to my male counterparts. Mainstream females just get on with life, make their own opportunities and don’t cry woe is me cause I’m not male. Have you heard me mention equality.

    Feminists DO NOT believe in equality.

  103. The Other Iain says:

    No they don’t, they believe in equality of choice. There is a difference, though I’m not sure if you understand it.

  104. Richard Ryan says:

    Segregation of Aborigines was terrorism. Uprooted from their land was terrorism. Massacres by whites was terrorism.

  105. Jilly says:

    Every woman has rights, we are in that era now. Feminism is rebellion.

    Is that the difference TOI?

  106. Ray Dixon says:

    ”Reverse discrimination …. is a controversial specific form of discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group … or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, or other factors”

    Yes, that’s what I said. Note the term “controversial”. In other words its existence is disputed. So, now would you mind explaining specifically why you think that whites/anglo saxons/ europeans are being discriminated against in Australia?

  107. The Other Iain says:

    Every woman has rights, we are in that era now.

    Rights and equality of choice and opportunity, Jilly. Women should not only be defined by their biological ability to bear or raise children. Women should have the same ability as men to choose and pursue a career. Or have children, if that’s what they want.

    That’s how I see it, from a liberal male perspective.

    The idea that Western women are betraying their countries by not having children (and being “out-bred” by Muslim women) is ridiculous. I seem to remember a certain Austrian bloke who told women they had to have lots of kids to ensure the survival of their race. Even gave them medals and money for it.

  108. Jilly says:

    TOI – Women do have the ability to choose. How is that something to fight for when it already exists. Do you not see it that way? Every woman I know does have the choice. Who are these women that you hang around that say they don’t?

    Ray – Are you serious? “In other words its existence is disputed” Its existence IS NOT disputed. You have a very strange method of interpretation. Of course it exists (You are like trying to reason with a teenager). The controversy is in its application and the question of whether there is a genuine need for it. Reverse discrimination is the term used for any policy that favours a minority group over the majority of the population. Any housing, employment, schooling services targeted at a specific group for the benefit of only a select group is such. I suppose your ignorance can be explained by living in a country town that has very few services, let alone any schemes established for funding minority group services.

  109. Jilly says:

    “The idea that Western women are betraying their countries by not having children (and being “out-bred” by Muslim women) is ridiculous”
    I have never heard that one TOI. If these are the women you are hanging out with, then tell them to stop being so insecure and pathetic. I would like to believe one day there will be no distinction between us and them, whether it is colour, gender, or religion.

  110. Ray Dixon says:

    As usual you dance around the question and choose to attack rather than answer. No need for insults, Jilly. Of course “reverse racism” is disputed. Plenty of people don’t believe it exists in any serious form in this country. Yours is a technical definition (as is the Wikipedia one) but why do you think they describe it as “controversial”? That’s because it’s a term used by *some* people to suggest aborigines et al are receiving “special benefits & privileges” that are not open to the vast majority and that, therefore, the vast majority is being discriminated against. That’s what you believe isn’t it? Why don’t you just come out and say it clearly for once, instead of making insulting remarks about where I live etc, of which you obviously know zero? And yes, we have much the same services here and we are reasonably multi cultural but what the hell has that got to do with it? I spend a fair bit of time in Melbourne too, which is where I came from.

  111. Sax says:

    How did this suddenly become an argument about gender discrimination, or racial discrimination ?

    I thought it was about religion ?
    Lets face it, and it looks like you guys have forgotten this major fact, women have no rights under fundamentalist islamic law do they ?

    Every woman has rights, we are in that era now.
    They do, at least in our society. Not the case in down town Islamabad though is it ?

    Like to see how Billy Graham would go, attempting an open air sermon anywhere in the region as well ?
    And they call us uncivilised, and discriminatory ?

  112. Ray Dixon says:

    The thread evolved that way, Sax, when Jilly made her guess at the race of the Castlemaine bloke. You know, the one with the explosives and bomb-making stuff. The one she said must be an Indian or Pakistani ‘English born’. He’s not. If you don’t mind, please don’t divert her away from answering more specifically.

  113. Iain Hall says:


    Are you bragging about your sexual conquests?

    No as it happens I’m not, I’m talking about being able to understand and get on very well with women.

    Does your wife know about this??

    Actually my wife just loves the way that I am at total ease with women, you see I start out from an unshakable belief that men and women are both entirely equal in their humanity and all of my interactions with women and men proceed from that fine foundation. Maybe you should try it sometime.

  114. Jilly says:

    Ray, You are like arguing with a teenager. I am repeating myself over and over, and still you will not listen and insist on flogging the dead horse over one point.

    So your point is that is said “News says he is English born. So my guess is Indian or Pakistanian.” Yes Ray I did say that. Can you not pick the sarcasm? You were stereotyping in the assumption that the guy was white just cause he was British. He could have been any colour, any background. Odds were he was white, but I am suggesting that we look beyond a person’s colour. That guy was a dic*head as well as the Oslo bomber. I do not support violence. I do not support segregation based on gender or colour. I do not support reverse discrimination as I see it for just what it is, discrimination. Need I be any more specific?

    Nice spin you put on the controversial meaning too.

    Now how about we put this to bed like your puppies. I prefer to see people colourless, you prefer to see a colour distinction in people. Over rover.

  115. Jilly says:

    Sax – I agree 100%, but what can we do when even the feminists won’t even go near the issue with a barge pole. How do you stop discrimination when to attempt would only be discriminatory against Islam. Political correctness gone mad once again.

  116. Ray Dixon says:

    You are like arguing with a teenager

    Yeah? I’m not the one using insults, Jilly.

    I do not support reverse discrimination as I see it for just what it is, discrimination. Need I be any more specific?

    That’s hardly specific. A non answer again. I asked you a specific question about how whites etc are “reverse discriminated” against in Australia. And you answer like that?

    I prefer to see people colourless, you prefer to see a colour distinction in people

    You might prefer that, Jilly, but the fact is people are discriminated against on colour, race, religion and creed and many of those are in disadvantaged positions and require our help to get to a level playing field. You know, people like aborigines & refugees. It’s only once they are raised to equal opportunity and status that their race etc becomes unimportant.

    how about we put this to bed

    We might as well because it’s self evident that you are running from the debate without fully explaining your views and that, instead, you prefer to use insults and personal references as a diversion. Thanks.

  117. The Other Iain says:

    That guy was a dic*head as well as the Oslo bomber. I do not support violence. I do not support segregation based on gender or colour. I do not support reverse discrimination as I see it for just what it is, discrimination. Need I be any more specific?

    Fair enough Jilly. I just found your one comment a bit odd. But no big deal.

  118. Sax says:

    The unfortunate thing Jilly is, that under the guise of “religion”, control of the valid minorities has been attained, and under threat of everything and everybody, maintained.

    Discrimination is discrimination however these trolls care to put it. For an example, if society captures a life time crim, put him behind bars finally getting them off the streets, would we put up with a discrimination suit being put forward on behalf of all crims, saying that tracking them down, placing them in front of a judge, and finally behind bars is in fact discriminating against criminals ? A bizarre premise, but that, in principle, is what they are defending.
    Even worse still, the cry hard lefties are falling for it ?

    The extremists are using our hell bent aim, of being seen as political correct, against us.
    The last thing we want to be seen as, is discriminatory. There are no problems with mainstream Islam, just as there are no problems with other mainstream religions. But, the extremists (and not only Islam either btw), use this to gain a foothold. When the s*it hits the fan, they raise their hands, (just like that tosser in Sydney for example), and say, hey not our fault.

    A crime is still a crime, is still a crime.
    In most societies on the planet, a verbal threat is still taken seriously. Just because it comes from an Islamic (or whatever religion really it doesn’t matter which) extremist, why should that get them off the hook ?

  119. Jilly says:

    “I asked you a specific question about how whites etc are “reverse discriminated” against in Australia. And you answer like that?”
    Any employment placement that requires a minimum quota based on gender or race. Any service available only to a minority. Before you jump on me I am not referring to disability services. People whom are disabled have a genuine need. What I resent is people not being taken at what they achieve, rather superficial qualities such as gender or race.

    ” people are discriminated against……..You know, people like aborigines & refugees.”
    Can you please provide an example Ray?

    ” It’s only once they are raised to equal opportunity ..”
    Do you believe this is achieved through further discrimination?

    I believe I have fully explained myself, can you clarify the above now please.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: