Huge explosion in Oslo

[justdrew]

As to photos on the island and such-- well, we do have eyewitness testimony that there was more than one shooter. What about that? Even sans photos one would think that eyewitnesses could identify Breivin. And presumably they will. I'm sure Breivin was one of the shooters; that doesn't mean he wasn't "just a patsy."

I don't think we do have "eyewitness testimony" of two shooters. One kids texted that they were wondering if there was two

[barracuda]

I'm trying to see your perspective on this, truly, but I'm missing it. It's been shown that there were helicopters- seven, it seems. The helicopters were less than thirty miles from the island. The system was already on high-alert, due to the bombing. This is a sophisticated, well-equipped first world country in an age of the "War on Terrorism."

At the risk of repeating myself, here's what I think: if you think the choppers could have made a vast difference in the end result of the shootings, you have to demonstrate in some pretty solid manner that their arrival would have been so much earlier than the arrival of the local police at 17:52 or at least the Beredskapstroppen at 18:09 that the significance in terms of changing the effectiveness of the shooter's results would have been enough to warrant considering a conspiracy obvious. As yet, I haven't seen this exercise accomplished to my satisfaction. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I haven't seen it.

I read your post about not really helping people being built into the system, but I'm not buying that; I mean, it's very vague. What happens during all that time? Over a friggin hour. Four kid-saving trips made by tourists, and the media is already there with its helicopter!

The media choppers were already airborne over Oslo as they filmed coverage of the bombing, and so had a significant head start over the police responders.

I do hope that there's a really good investigation and all these questions get answered, one way or another. What happened exactly, why no helicopter response for over an hour when a psycho or psychos are massacring socialist kids on a nearby island. We have a highly-trained and equipped anti-terrorism task force which was on red alert already- what on god's green earth happened? Is this not a very reasonable question? Well, as MacCruiskeen said in the other thread, it is reasonable, and it's being asked by a lot of Norwegians right now.

I have never said that the questions were in any way unreasonable in and of themselves. But neither is it, in my honest opinion, unreasonable to examine the obverse of these questions. And I agree entirely that there should be an investigation of the response.

IMO it's not fair to compare the lack of helicopter response to the alleged controlled demolitions, when there's a much more apt comparison- the lack of air defense on 9/11. *Over an hour* goes by.

Lupercal has already stated that absent credible photograpic evidence of Breivik actually killing people on the island, he would not accept the identity of the shooter as Breivik. Eyewitness reports will not do for his purposes. Where exactly does this leave you? Does this sound reasonable?

I predict that the Facebook issue and the helicopter response issue will never be resolved to the satisfaction of those for whom these things are smoking guns. And perhaps that is only right.

But the lines are already being drawn between the true and catholic hard-core conspiracists versus the Illuminati tools, cop-apologists and defenders of the official theory. This time it took less than a week. Meanwhile the extreme right wing laughs as the re-write proceeds apace among the fringe til it dissipates history into meaninglessness.

[vanlose kid]

Foreigners just don’t ‘get’ Norway

July 28, 2011

NEWS ANALYSIS: Sympathy for Norwegians who have lived through a violent nightmare in recent days has streamed in from around the world, but so has criticism of Norway in foreign media. As Norwegians tried to return to some form of normalcy nearly a week after two terrorist attacks, many were puzzled by the foreign journalists’ criticism and felt they’d once again been misunderstood.

Reporters suddenly flown into Oslo, with little if any background on the country and its people, simply had a hard time understanding how the police function here, for example, or how people think, and that’s led to lots of head-shaking among the locals over reports they sent home. If anything, the experience and misunderstandings of the past week confirm a widespread belief about this small country in the far north:

It’s different up here. And the difference can lead to the criticism that’s often based on how non-Norwegians think it should be up here.

‘Annerledes land’
That means, literally, “the different country,” a term bandied about often after Norwegians voted for the second time against joining the European Union in 1994. They wanted to go their own way.

An estimated 200,000 Norwegians gathered for an impromptu "rose memorial" three days after the worst attacks on their country since World War II. PHOTO: Views and News

Norway has for decades been built up as an open, transparent, informal society with strong egalitarian principles and a regulated social welfare system based on what the Norwegians love to call fellesskap (fellowship). This is a country where the prime minister bicycles to work, where approachable politicians walk freely around town and where the chief executive of the country’s biggest bank can be spotted doing his family’s grocery shopping, all alone, in short-sleeves.

This is a country where it’s not at all unusual to hear its citizens say that they “pay their taxes with joy,” because they’re keen to spread the wealth and know that they can get a lot back in return, from free university tuition to total coverage of all hospitalization costs.

This is also a country that voted twice against joining the European Union but is an active supporter of the United Nations, and which celebrates its national day with an utter lack of military display even though it’s a member of NATO. Instead of having tanks or soldiers parade on the 17th of May, children fill the streets along with adults in colorful Norwegian costumes.

The police are unarmed, there is no death penalty, the penal system is based on rehabilitation of criminals instead of punishment and the maximum prison term is generally 21 years, with eligibility for parole in about half that time. This often shocks foreigners who view Norway as far too lenient, or even naive.

‘Minimal knowledge’
“I believe that the majority of the foreign journalists (sent to Norway to cover Friday’s terrorist attacks and their aftermath) had minimal knowledge of Norwegian society and culture,” Rune Ottosen, a professor of journalism at the local college Høyskolen i Oslo, told newspaper Dagsavisen on Thursday. And he says it’s a common problem within what he calls fallskjermjournalistikk, when journalists “parachute” into a spot where news is breaking and suddenly have to act like they’re experts on the place.

Most Norwegians seem rather proud of their unarmed police force, no matter what the media thinks. PHOTO: Views and News

That’s what’s sparking the media criticism in return from Norwegians. They were surprised to hear on a major American network, for example, that “it doesn’t seem like you have very good police in Norway,” or comments from a South American correspondent for newspapers in Argentina and Colombia that security was “poor.” He was surprised there were no metal detectors at the courthouse, and that his bags weren’t searched.

Other Norwegians have been amazed, even angered, by the errors made in haste as events were unfolding that weren’t corrected later. In the rush to satisfy demanding editors or producers back home, it was easy to jump to conclusions like the widespread suspicion that Islamic terrorists were behind the attacks on Norway’s government complex and a Labour Party youth group. Ottosen noted that Fox News in the US kept debating the danger of Islamic fundamentalists long after the blond Christian Norwegian had been arrested and confessed to the attacks. Other media focused on immigration issues in Norway, the absence of a death penalty and even the rising popularity of Scandinavian crime novels.

Little criticism within Norway
Some foreign media portrayed Norway as naive, or downright odd. Why weren’t people more angry, full of fight or seeking revenge? That might have been the normal reaction in their home countries, but not in Norway.

Nor has there been much if any local criticism of the police actions, the emergency response or the handling of the crisis by Norwegian politicians within Norway. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg can claim a 94 percent approval rating of his leadership during the past five days and the police have enjoyed praise as well. Far from being defensive, as some foreign media reported, police officials have questioned the foundation for the criticism and apologized publicly for some technical communications problems and failure to respond more quickly to the first calls of shooting on the island of Utøya. It took nearly an hour for the Oslo special forces to arrive on the island after getting their first call. They then arrested the gunman within two minutes.

Stoltenberg has set up a special commission to examine all aspects of the attacks, to learn from them and study “what worked and what didn’t.” He’s quick to say it’s not an investigation or inquiry, and he has full non-partisan support for the commission in Parliament. There’s been no criticism voiced by the opposition in Norway, which usually is quick to pounce on the government otherwise.

Meanwhile, Norwegians were getting back to work. Businesses and stores that briefly closed after the attacks have reopened, the streets have been cleaned and even the sun has re-appeared after five days of heavy rain and gloomy skies. The Norwegians’ lack of visible anger or noisy emotion illustrates their customary restraint, which also could be seen on a small post-it note mounted on the shattered glass entrance of a publishing company two blocks from the blast site: “Please use the other door.”

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/07/28/ ... et-norway/

*

[wordspeak2]

"One kids texted that they were wondering if there was two"

OK, point taken. That's still something, though. It's still very early, in the shock moment here; we'll see what other testimonies emerge.


"you have to demonstrate in some pretty solid manner that their arrival would have been so much earlier than the arrival of the local police at 17:52"

I'm not sure what this means exactly. How would one demonstrate exactly? The system was already on high alert. This is exactly what these elite anti-terror task forces are trained to do. The distance to be covered was less than thirty miles, correct? I realize that helicopters are on running with their keys in them, but capable members of the Elite team were not asleep in their beds. In fact, I would assume that they're already using chopppers to scan the scene around the terrorist attack that just happened, but is that too much of an assumption? Either way, how long can it take to hop into what is undeniably standard operating procedure in such a situation? The trip itself takes only several minutes, so all of the delay must have been on the ground. What exactly is to be demonstrated? It seems seems the onus would be on someone in your position to demonstrate how a response could be so slow.

"The media choppers were already airborne over Oslo as they filmed coverage of the bombing, and so had a significant head start over the police responders."

Fair enough, I guess. Though I still think the police would already be using choppers. I've been to a lot of big street protests, and I've seen a *lot* of cops in choppers. They sure love those choppers; they give the pigs wide aerial view.

"And I agree entirely that there should be an investigation of the response. "
Which it seems there will be, and I hope it's interesting. Unique by its very nature.

"Eyewitness reports [of Breivin] will not do for his purposes. Where exactly does this leave you? Does this sound reasonable?"

Lupercal, what's unsatisfactory about eyewitness testimony? I actually agree with you that it's odd that there's been no video or audio posted yet (cell phones can be quieted, and there were hundreds of kids in a age in which everyone records everything), but what's the implication? Did the cops steal all the cell phones after the fact? Then presumably that will come out. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the survivors. Right now I assume most are in too much shock to do much talking. But, anyway, eyewitness testimony, especially lots of it, is legitimate, but the trial is going to be held behind closed doors, it looks like. Still, one would think kids would speak out if the killer they saw in person looked very different from the one being presented by the media.

[MacCruiskeen]

IMO it's not fair to compare the lack of helicopter response to the alleged controlled demolitions, when there's a much more apt comparison- the lack of air defense on 9/11. *Over an hour* goes by.

Lupercal [???????] has already stated that absent credible photograpic evidence of Breivik actually killing people on the island, he would not accept the identity of the shooter as Brievik. Eyewitness reports will not do for his purposes.[?????] Where exactly does this leave you? Does this sound reasonable?

What the fu fu flipping heck does:

1) Lupercal's (or anyone's) issues with photos from the island or the lack thereof

have to do with

2) wordspeak's (and my) very, very, very, very, very clearly stated question about the lack of helicopter response and your sneering comaprison of it to the alleged controlled demolitions (not to mention to "no-planers" and to those few fools (or worse) who deny that any massacre ever took place on Utoya??

What, exactly?

Your blatantly evasive and unfair 'response' speaks for itself, and it is just unconscionable.

And you have the cheek to ask what "sounds reasonable". And you wonder why people swear at you.

[Vulgarly overformatted for crystal-clarity and in the hope of at last getting an honest response from Mister Sophisticated Reasonableness.]

[vanlose kid]

^^

Mac, having some problems with quote attributions? that quote was by wordspeak2, from here: viewtopic.php?p=417001#p417001

not Ahab.

*

[MacCruiskeen]

thanks, vk. ahab made the same point elsewhere, i mixed them up. i've corrected the attrribution.

i am not the only one who wonders what the hell barracuda is at here.

[lupercal]

Lupercal has already stated that absent credible photograpic evidence of Breivik actually killing people on the island, he would not accept the identity of the shooter as Breivik. Eyewitness reports will not do for his purposes. Where exactly does this leave you? Does this sound reasonable?

Okay that's the second time you've tried to twist that statement, which I expressed very carefully, into a self-serving pretzel, and it probably won't be the last, so for ready reference, here's what I said, complete with a handy link:

Subject: Huge explosion in Oslo

I'm talking about evidence that should be readily available that isn't, and whether I'm willing to make improbable assumptions in its absence. I'm not.

I understand. If pictures of the crime actually occurring do not surface (because, let's face it, they might not for one reason or another), what evidence would be sufficient to convince you of the identity of the shooter?

Let's put it this way: Breivik from what I've seen is some poor drugged-up patsie who probably thinks he's getting prepped for a sex-change operation or some damned thing, which incidentally was Manning's top concern. So I think the possibility that he carried out ANY of his alleged deeds is exceedingly slim, and it would require extraordinary evidence to convince me otherwise, and in the absence of credible cell phone photos or video, which should be available in abundance, I can't frankly think of anything.

Word to the wise: when barracuda says somebody said something, it's usually a shade or two off from what they actually said.

[vanlose kid]

*

with all due respect Mac, i'm honestly wondering what it is people think barracuda is at. the points he's raised are much the same as ones made by Joe, Jack, Searcher, 8-bit, and, at the risk of tainting them by association, for which i apologize beforehand, myself. (those i've named, you all will have to correct me if i'm wrong.)

also, the point Ahab made seems to me to be quite the opposite (p.69):

...

Really, a few IMOs could've gone a long way in this thread, which has a definite strong undercurrent of "believe my theory or GTFO, cop apologist/naive dupe/gatekeeper" running through it. Which is not coming from Barracuda. IMO...

*

[barracuda]

Mac, i can just barely understand what you are asking, and I think the answer to your question is already outlined by me fairly clearly in the thread. But here goes:

So I think the possibility that he carried out ANY of his alleged deeds is exceedingly slim, and it would require extraordinary evidence to convince me otherwise, and in the absence of credible cell phone photos or video, which should be available in abundance, I can't frankly think of anything.

I predict that the Facebook issue and the helicopter response issue will never be resolved to the satisfaction of those for whom these things are smoking guns.

Conspiracy theories have been rampant all over the web regarding this story, ever since it turned out the killer was a conservative and a christian. Those theories will quickly codify and point the finger of blame upon the social democratic government of Norway, i.e. the left. It's not a shocking discovery. That it's happening has been obvious since Pam Gellar started uploading facebook screencaps, the new explosive squib.

I offered an idea for examination which I feel is the logical conclusion of some of the insistent focus on things like police response times and lack of cell phone photographs as some kind of evidence of conspiracy.

And ten years from now when this subject comes up, there will be those who will still be adamantly discussing controlled demolitionhelicopters. It's as if the extreme right has been taking notes from the extreme truthers.

Otherwise man, I don't really want to simply exchange ad hominem insults with you. I think you enjoy it almost more than I do.

Lupercal, sorry, but you are officially a "no-breiviker".

[wordspeak2]

Right, I compared it to the "standdown" on 9/11. The time frame is extremely similar, for one. I think Mac is just frustrated and rushing- not important who said it, really.

Anyway, some media are saying that there's not a lot of anger in Norway about the failed police response, like the article VK just posted, but other media said there is. Hopefully we'll learn more. Yes, I realize that Norway is very different than the U.S., and the police don't have guns. That doesn't mean they're all half asleep and totally unprepared for a terrorist attack. Especially since one just took place a couple hours before! Norway was, as has been pointed out, attacked by the Nazis, and defended itself very well. Its military and police high command is fully capable and equipped.

However, to be fair, some folks at Norway Indymedia do not think it was a false flag attack: http://www.indymedia.no/
I wonder if they're aware of the CIA infiltration of their police high command.

[lupercal]

As to photos on the island and such-- well, we do have eyewitness testimony that there was more than one shooter. What about that? Even sans photos one would think that eyewitnesses could identify Breivin. And presumably they will. I'm sure Breivin was one of the shooters; that doesn't mean he wasn't "just a patsy."

I don't think we do have "eyewitness testimony" of two shooters. One kids texted that they were wondering if there was two

We also have a survivor's quoted statement, his name, and the name of the publishing newspaper:

Ria Novosti cites the Norwegian VG newspaper, which claims victims report shots fired at the summer camp on Utoya island coming from "two different places on the island at the same time."

Survivor, Alexander Stavdal said;

"I believe that there were two people who were shooting."

Norwegian police Friday arrested 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik; the suspected second shooter in on the attack is believed to be still at large.

http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/ ... mpage.html

And what the Guardian quoted Emma Martinovicas saying in her blog was "There were some reports of there being two gunmen":

Then came the text from my friend Pernille: "He's by the school building, he's shooting through the door. We are a group of 30 who are trying to hide. Are you safe?" I replied as concisely as I could: "What does he look like? Is there more than one? Has he got into the building? We are hidden, but not safe."

Finally came her description. He was in a police uniform and had a weapon. There were some reports of there being two gunmen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... a-massacre

from: Subject: Huge explosion in Oslo

But I'm sure by tomorrow this will melt into a blissful "No one could have predicted a crazy madman running loose on a faraway island, there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary and it's pure malicious madness to question this or any official story! And all my facebook friends agree!!!"

[AhabsOtherLeg]

*
also, the point Ahab made seems to me to be quite the opposite (p.69):

Yeah, I'm agnostic on the helicopter issue so far, and on the police response ( but leaning towards incompetence, unpreparedness, and the "effectiveness" of Breivik's pre-planning on both I'm afraid, so far). It doesn't make me a bad person, or a tacit approver of mass murder through police negligence, except on this thread apparently. Everyone agrees that questions need to be answered on both those fronts, of course, and many others, like the CIA's acknowledged infiltration of Norway's police service. Everyone's asking them too.

What really doesn't need to happen is for everybody to declare an undying loyalty right now to one side or another and then stick to it unto death, while calling the other side heretics and unbelievers. But it's happening.

Why is this incident being made personal here? I think I was the first on the thread to mention the possibility of a Gladio angle - comparing the first report of a killer in a cop uniform shooting civillians to the Brabant massacres - but now there are people going on as though CIA/NATO/State involvement was a proven fact, which it isn't, and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and shouldn't even be here(?). The end result of that will be an internet pissing contest over the bodies of these kids, and I don't believe anyone here wants that at all. Maybe we could all draw back just a bit from our prematurely entrenched positions.

[norton ash]

But I'm sure by tomorrow this will all melt into a blissful "no one could have predicted a crazy madman running loose on that faraway island, there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary and it's pure malicious madness to question this or any official story and all my facebook friends agree!"

Are you talking about us? Have no fear, Lupe, we're not that stupid.

[vanlose kid]

Right, I compared it to the "standdown" on 9/11. The time frame is extremely similar, for one. I think Mac is just frustrated and rushing- not important who said it, really.

Anyway, some media are saying that there's not a lot of anger in Norway about the failed police response, like the article VK just posted, but other media said there is. Hopefully we'll learn more. Yes, I realize that Norway is very different than the U.S., and the police don't have guns. That doesn't mean they're all half asleep and totally unprepared for a terrorist attack. Especially since one just took place a couple hours before! Norway was, as has been pointed out, attacked by the Nazis, and defended itself very well. Its military and police high command is fully capable and equipped.

However, to be fair, some folks at Norway Indymedia do not think it was a false flag attack: http://www.indymedia.no/
I wonder if they're aware of the CIA infiltration of their police high command.

i think they're very much aware of it. it's been all over the news for yonks. loads of embeds at link:

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/07/28/ ... ance-case/

*