These are his words, not mine. They speak for themselves
His lawyer is simply doing his job, trying to come up with justifications for his client's behavior that will reduce his eventual sentence - but why on earth would a corporate media outlet repeat such claims in this unquestioning manner? Compare and contrast this soft-handed treatment of the radical right-wing movement with, say, Anwar Al-Awlaki:
"Anwar al-Awlaki is a radical American-born Muslim cleric. He is perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, and uses the Web as a tool for extremist indoctrination. The Obama administrationhas taken the rare step of authorizing the targeted killing of Mr. Awlaki, even though he is an American citizen."
Clearly, the Norwegian terrorist was involved with similar Internet hate groups that advocated violence - and it is very possible that he was recruited into this movement by others (Pamela Geller, perhaps?)
"In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims."
So - is Norway now justified in carrying out 'targeted killings' of the sponsors of terrorism in their own country, even if they are American or British citizens? Will we see the FBI carrying out sting operations and surveillance in politically active right-wing Christian churches and communities, as has been the norm in many Muslim communities in the U.S.?
The fact is, radical violent extremists of all stripes are a threat to democracy and open societies - and their true goal is likely the same in all cases: replace democratic pluralist societies with authoritarian states.