wordspeak2 wrote:I certainly don't take Webster Tarpley at face value, but one interesting tidbit from his article:
"In early November 2010, the Oslo television channel TV2 exposed the existence of an extensive network of paid assets and informants of US intelligence recruited from the ranks of retired police and other officials. The ostensible goal of this program was the surveillance of Norwegians who were taking part in demonstrations and other activities critical of the United States and its policies. One of the Norwegians recruited was the former chief of the anti-terror section of the Oslo police.7" http://tarpley.net/2011/07/24/norway-te ... alse-flag/
Well, that is not Tarpley's tidbit. It's a story from TV2 Oslo, which you can look up. (He doesn't mention that it was backed up by leaked State Department cables, since he's on a jihad to paint Assange as a mind-controlled CIA robot etc. etc. blah blah blah.)
Right. So- not only did Norway just opt out of the failing NATO mission in Libya, but Norway is the prime embodiment of a model democratic socialism that imo is being viewed favorably across the world. It has innocence, charm, universal health care, and only 40 murders a year. What better way to send a blow- both direct and psychological- to progressive socialism than mass-murdering the children of its leadership. What could possibly be more evil? Cui Bono? The entire global fascist capitalist apparatus. Neo-nazis are used as patsies.
The "strategy of tension" in Europe until now has always employed leftist (more recently Islamist) fronts as the false flags, presumably for the reason that portraying leftists or Muslims as murdering fanatics actually and obviously does "send a blow" to both, cultural tolerance and progressive socialism (the latter term doesn't necessarily apply in all ways to the oil-rich mercantile nation of Norway, but let's allow your description to stand). Why in this case do you think a Nazi was used (and for various reasons I do think Nazi is the proper term for Brevik)? Won't the effect be to taint the right and strengthen the left? The survivors aren't going to be turned into conservatives. On the contrary, they're likely to be more passionate and more radical in their views. Some of them will turn into lions.
And why is this talkative Nazi telling the authorities that there are other cells? To have his buddies rounded up? Seems to me he's trying to play them into panicking about an imaginary army. Also, by what logic could this act be interpreted as a punishment for withdrawing from the Libyan campaign? How will it encourage support for interventionism among Norwegians against anyone, other than Nazis?
I'm hesitant to get too deep in this thread because I don't see a reason for all the anger and smarminess in the responses on both sides. Come on people, can't we all get along? No one knows very much, a full picture of the island events has not been pieced together from survivor testimonies (and it will be). The authorities themselves are still wondering about accomplices and second gunmen.
Suffice to say, I don't see anything like the rotten official story of 9/11 in play. By comparison, this was a simple operation aimed at the softest, most vulnerable, indeed most inconceivable target: a bunch of unarmed teenagers on a camping trip. (As far as I know, the Norwegian government has not been preparing a series of wars and police-state measures that this pretext will now enable, like the Bush regime demonstrably was, and that's one of many differences from 9/11 and other suspected synthetic terror attacks.)
It's believable to me that after the bomb, the authorities were in a panic about what might come next. Doubtless resources were deployed to the bomb scene and around Oslo, and no doubt they also were on the guard for other bombs, and specifically for an attack on first responders. When they then hear reports about multiple gunmen on the island, they're going to want to go in fully prepared. They don't know who they're facing or if they're going to be blown up when they approach. You can say that's heartless and wrongheaded of them while children are dying, and maybe it is, but I bet it's standard procedure. Who knows where their unsinkable dinghy was just at that moment? From my very incomplete knowledge, I just don't see an incentive or an opportunity for those involved -- local police and the counter-terror unit -- to intentionally delay the response.
That is not an "apology" for the police -- any more than those on this thread who see reasons for suspicion in the response are apologizing for the Nazi.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me the greatest danger politically out of this will be if the Nazi's fulfillment of a typically Nazi wet dream (of the kind that Beck was also prompted to dream about on the radio yesterday) is instead portrayed as an apolitical act, as the symptom of mental illness. This was not a mere psychotic outbreak or the result of some generic "extremism." The targeting was unmistakable: kill the open society, kill liberals, kill the weak and defenseless, kill the tolerant and idealistic, kill the Other, kill modernity. Shock and awe the world with your will to personally commit violence up-close on children in the name of your openly declared higher purpose. What a man! This was a Nazi at work.
From what I see, this Nazi wants to be a Hitler, and has been planning it for many years. He expects to stick around in prison, publish his own Mein Kampf, inspire copycats, build a following. The real challenge he's posing to the Norwegian state is to its progressive criminal justice and penal system. Now that he's won so much attention, he's a potential danger as long as he is alive. Non-malevolent incentives to have him killed will eventually be enormous. (I have NEVER thought this before in my life about any prisoner, by the way, and don't mean to justify such action.)
.
