the infamous mulla Krekar was shot at by unknown assailants around 2.00 am. It was a “failure” and only his son in law was hurt according to all the Norwegian newspapers. Now I don’t want to make blogs about currant affairs as it feels more like gossiping than reflection, but here are some thoughts that sprang to my mind as I heard it.
1) “There’s no justice like vigilante justice“.
I have had dreams about doing the same things myself. I have no knowledge about who or why Mr. Krekar was shot at, but if he got shot at by Norwegian civilians than that is another example of how Norway, because of globalization, has become more aggressive and violent. There’s a growing anger in Norwegian society that has no constructive outlet. There’s a “see no evil, hear no evil and laugh about others who claim to see evil” mentality in government and media that slowly builds up a pressure that could be the reason for such an attack. The Krekar problem, that is “knowing a terrible person will not be brought to justice because of idealistic reasons“, have become really inflamed.
As most Norwegians (I guess) I am against the death penalty. I am against it in every instant (be that a child-killer or war criminal) but I do believe in consequences for wrong doings. I just don’t think killing another person will bring balance or justify evil. But with the problem of Krekar our Norwegian ideals has been brought to the surreal. One person should not bring as much trouble as this Krekar has done. Let’s just ship him to the country who wants him and rather send angry letters when he is dead. It is my opinion that sometimes we have to think realistic (“is”) rather than ideally (“should”).
2) Is Norway under siege by Americans?
If so STAY OUT! If there has been American soldiers carrying out a mission on Norwegian soil then you are in big trouble! We will complain and whine you to death. Perhaps you will even get an annoyed official letter from our Prime-minister. TAKE THAT!
3) Drive-bys belong in Compton and is not Norwegian.
Now we all hate Krekar, as we all hate people who kills other people and gets away with it. But is there any real difference between what mr Krekar did at what the assailants did (except, you know, in scope)? If we take the moral argument that “to kill the terrorist and mass-murder Krekar is good” as “he deserves it”, then shouldn’t the persons who did it come forward to receive praise and/or consequence for what they did? If a person believes they are in right to do what they did then they should come forward and take responsibility and if they don’t believe they were in right then they shouldn’t do it (I too can speak ideally (should)).
(I love Radio Broker in GTA IV. It really have my sound and attitude. “It isn’t much of a cultural revolution any more, is it?” No, it isn’t Juliette Lewis. No, it isn’t. But why do all the cool spaced-out kids (you and Beck) belong to that sect… oh, sorry “alternative to psychiatry”?)