The post you are reporting:
Had a peep on the Net - after opening this thread - to see what it's all about .
It seems he didn't make a Nazi salute, but raised two hand-cuffed arms, which could mean anything.
My research into the case brought me to the following piece of information, quoted from the Guardian:
"He is not claiming to have acted out of "self defence", as originally reported, but using a defence under section 47 of the Norwegian penal code, which states: "No person may be punished for any act that he has committed in order to save someone's person or property from an otherwise unavoidable danger when the circumstances justified him in regarding this danger as particularly significant in relation to the damage that might be caused by his act."
I also found that Breivik claims the people he killed were not non-political children, but children not under the age of 14 from affiliate families of the Norwegian Labour party, who he claims is responsible for allowing immigration of Muslims into Norway on a large scale.
The debate on his trial is certainly not that of a mad man, he is not mentally insane. His defence in court to justify his actions is based on his personal perception of danger to his country and on an article of the Norwegian law, as well as his previous study of the victims he chose to kill, to annul the accusation of indiscriminate killing.
In other words, he claims he did not kill indiscriminately, but selectively.
His great crime, in my view, is to have brushed aside the law of (in my words) conversing and expressing his views peacefully, and to have chosen violence in its ultimate form.
We should reject violence as a means of bringing home a message, starting in small things, such as beating up, punching, and even threatening.
We only live mortal life once on this beloved Earth of ours, that is given to us to enjoy, and when expressing views, we must make use of reasonable arguments, and not treasure recourse to violence.