It seems to me he was pro, not anti......
Nope. In his screed, he calls out militant Islam as an enemy, but that he would considerin working with terrorist cells to achieve his own ends.
“Enemy of my enemy” type stuff.
Short sighted as it never works out well in the end. Parable of riding a tiger comes to mind... It may get you where you are going and the ride may be without compare, but you can never dismount or it will eat you.
Don’t think so.
Here’s a rundown of his views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Breivik#Religious_and_political_views
Anti-EU and UN
Anti- US attacks on Serbia
Strongly pro-Zionist
Anti-Muslim, wants them all deported
Strongly “cultural Christian,” though not particularly religious
None of his reported political opinions, as opposed to actions, are a bit out of place here on FR, adjusting as needed for US/Norway. Which is not an attempt to smear FR, just a reporting of the fact.
Old John Brown was an abolitionist. He took his abolitionism to its logical conclusion of a violent (though ineffectual) attack on the slave power.
Scott Philip Roeder was anti-abortion. He took his opposition to its logical conclusion of shooting an abortion doctor. If you really believe that abortion is murder, is not the killing of an abortionist not justifiable homicide?
Most people who hold strong anti-slavery, anti-abortion or anti-Muslim views do not carry them to this extreme. But I used the “logical conclusion” structure above to make a point.
If you run around loudly denouncing slavery, or abortion or Islam as being ultimate evils (which IMO at least two of the three are), then you are, IMO, morally obligated to also point out why violence against these practices or institutions is not justified, if you indeed believe it is not.
IOW, you need to logically point out why a violent response is NOT the “logical conclusion” of your rhetoric.