17 April 2012

Breivik the coward

Daily Mail: I did it for Norway

Quote: Mass killer Breivik boasts of committing 'most spectacular attack on Europe since World War II' and tells court he would do it all again.

Spectacular because it was a brutal attack against innocent misguided Norwegian children on a summer camp which has caused widespread revulsion forcing people to question the reasons why.

Breivik has his reasons why in his manifesto which is supported by the small group of cultural conservative's behind Breivik's political agenda that is stated in the video.

And there is a whole extreme right-wing community out there across Europe who agree with him and his actions, and a wider audience who agree with him ideologically.

It’s the difference in political thought and agendas within Nation States.

Left & Right wing

Quote: 'These were not innocent, non-political children'

Murdering children is the easy option and is the work of a coward.

He justifies it by claiming they were not innocent because they were political children so that justifies murdering them.

The opinions of teenagers change over the course of their lives into adulthood so it is a very weak justification for a coward who saw children as an easy target to murder to promote his personal extreme right-wing Norwegian agenda which is written in the manifesto that he is hoping will draw a wider European audience of support and direct action.

How many people have wayward children who change as they enter adulthood?

How can any real man follow someone whose message was born in the blood of a bunch of innocent children?

Quote: 'motivated by goodness not evil'

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Breivik is a cultural conservative not a Christian and is attempting to further the ideological agenda of a group of cultural conservatives out there who have been willing to take their agenda to the next level, and unite the wider right-wing political community who agree with the ideology around his attacks and message (manifesto). Alan Lake stated himself that he is an old school conservative which when translated means cultural conservative.

Its is an extreme right wing political ideology and not faith based ideology although they have attempted to wrap it up in the clothes of faith and Templarism which go hand in hand and set me up in the process.

Breivik has claimed today that he is a Christian Norwegian when in the manifesto I have been told he clearly states that he is not a Christian but believes Christian values are the values that need to be upheld and defended.

Breivik was not a Christian at the time of his attacks.

Call it a cultural Christian who is not a Christian in God's eyes, it’s just someone who believes in Christian values, just like most moderate moslems who only claim the title moslem because of their cultural background and the Islamic dominated communities they live in - Law of apostasy

How can someone who is not a Christian commit a terrorist atrocity in the name of Christianity?

And look at how repulsive Breivik's were.

Defending Christian values does not make you a Christian, only accepting Jesus Christ into your life as your Lord and Personal Saviour can you be a Christian and that is a bridge that cannot be crossed, so to commit such acts in Someone else’s name is abhorent.

If Breivik has truly accepted Jesus into his life over the last 8 months in prison then his claim of being a Christian Norwegian is true, if not he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I say he has not...which makes him a wolf as any Christian will agree!

They deny the Authority of the Living God so disbelieve His existence upon the throne of heaven. They do not believe its is true so thought they could do what they have done in His name with no repercussions because they do not understand the Power of God or believe in it.

Breivik states that his manifesto video was his first 'youtube' video.

So where is the catalogue then, because to say 'first' implies he created more. Where are they?

No comments: