When I watched day two of the terror trial against Anders Behring Breivik today, I asked the following questions, which are mostly about ethics:
1- If we can see Breivik as the opposite (and surely not an antidote) of Al Qaeda, which he confessed today that he admired as an enemy, shouldn't we feel more confident as multiculturalists and internationalists, because it really proves that moderation is the only answer?
2- But moderation up to what degree? For instance, should Breivik be waterboarded to force him to identify the members of the secret terror cells that he talked about, if it would save the lives of another 77 people?
3- If Norwegian police is mistaken in its conclusion that Breivik was a lone wolf terrorist, like they were mistaken in their operation to stop his killings, will they be held to account when his comrades, like Germany's NSU which killed eight Turks, organize more terror attacks?
4- Do those superficial people who think that video games can create psychos start trying to ban Wikipedia now, after Breivik's latest revelation?
5- After seeing how Breivik cried when he watched his own propaganda movie, although he had sat stone-faced as prosecutors gave chilling details of the murders, should I change my mind to conclude that he is really insane?
Posts
