I saw this video on another site and I thought it was interesting because it details the progression of Breivik’s radicalization in his own words; and provides a fairly dramatic contrast from the message that was delivered through the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3uTPcxLsFo

You might want to summarize it. I imagine many like me didn't get through the early part in the beginning.

TLDR; or something like that?

Essentially, there were 3 steps to his radicalization ...

First, through observations he made as a teenager (mostly acts of violence committed by immigrants) he decided that there was a problem with immigration. Then he studied Islam and determined that there were significant problems with Islam that made it incompatible with western society. Finally, through politics and other venues he tried to speak out against what he saw as a threat and was marginalized by the media and this made him realize that there was no peaceful way to address his concerns; and he quotes JFK to make this point "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" ...

In other words, he became violent because the media tries to silence criticism of Islam and marginalized people who hold those criticisms.

In the wake of the shootings, the media has focused on silencing criticism of Islam and used these events to marginalize those individuals who hold those criticisms.

So you trust the words of a terrorist more than the media? Classy.

It should me clear right now and immediatly that you cannot trust a single word written by that asshole. Large portions of his so-called "manifesto" has been revealed to be lies, or at least deranged fantasies for more than a week now.

I should also make utterly clear that the man was a regular commenter in both main stream media and in the sphere relating to his specific interests. Remember that shouting "cencorship" is a regular occurence among his ilk, whether they are met with criticism or sometimes deleted from newspaper commenting fields - which is perfectly fine if all you intend to do is label your opponents "traitors" or in general contribute nothing but hate speach. Their opinions have never been cencored.

Anyway, here's a blog that discusses the terrorist and the environment he sprung from in some detail. A mixture of English- and Norwegian-language articles: http://oyvindstrommen.be/

It should be educating.

Quick question, if Breivik claimed that Mark Steyn shaped his thinking and was the reasoning behind his attack, and Mark Steyn continued his rhetoric while blaiming the media for the attack, would you say "So you trust the words of a terrorist more than Mark Steyn? Classy."?

I didn't think so ...

At the same time, while I believe it is important to take the words of Breivik with a gigantic grain of salt (after all, I doubt anyone would question his sanity or lack thereof), I find it sickening that the media has avoided discussing what Breivik's reasoning was and continued the behaviour he claims drove him to his acts. I don't see it any different from our hypothetical of him citing Mark Steyn and having Mark Steyn continue his rhetoric completely unphased.

While I don't agree with any portion of his thinking that drove him to his act, I think ignoring it and continuing with (or ramping up) the behaviour he claims drove him to his attacks is a dangerous game to play; after all, if he came to that conclusion based on the current conditions you can bet that there will be other people who come to similar conclusions if we don't change the current conditions.

Diagnosis was correct but the solution he found clearly shows he went insane at one point.

I'm Norwegian, living in Oslo, I think I'm amply qualified to say that the terrorist had ample opportunity to express his views through normal, democratic channels, an opportunity he also made frequent use of. He chose to withdraw from that on his own.

There has been loads of articles both in Norwegian and foreign press about his motivations and about freedom of speach, I suggest you look for them, and read them.

Personally, I believe the core problem is neither with immigration or Islam and is based on abysmal handling of immigration and integration within Europe.

Essentially, most european countries have imported a large population of people who are mostly unified by being poor, having no opportunity, never being able to be considered part of the society they live in, sharing a religion and being full of anger at their host country.

I can't speak about any non-North American press, but I can say with near certainty that the North American media has refused to acknowledge Breivik's justifications and chooses to blame individuals like Mark Steyn.

His ideas were as insane as his actions.

As for his so-called experiences, all likelyhood points to them being as manufactured as his appearance.