rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:22 pm**

It's as if the macro issues have blinded almost everyone to the obvious but perhaps admittedly microscopically deceitful nature of the official story.

Why not start with what we know for sure and work out from there instead of starting with a speculative top down zeitgeist and excusing any obvious discrepancy that does not clash with this zeitgeist?

We know that the kids were calling and texting for help more than 15 minutes before the local police claim they first heard of any problem. So why not start there? Why the obvious discrepancy? What is the real explanation such that this obvious lie was required?

I have never claimed to know what happened in this case. After sifting through the 1,800 page banalfesto, I must admit that I find the superpowered lone wolf theory surprisingly believable.

But it seems to me that many here are letting their personal biases about the culprit cloud their sober assessment of the official crock-o-shit response timeline. Follow me through a little thought experiment here. If the alleged culprit had been al Qaeda or an ELFin "environmental terrorist", would y'all be so quick to throw out these institutional malaise/Norwegians are just like that/fog of war explanations that I keep reading?

If the police did not stand down, they sure did a good job of mimicking a stand down, while leaving the entire rescue operation to roofers, computer geeks and lesbian couples for well over an hour. Even if the cops were afraid to confront the superpowered lone wolf, what was stopping them from at least lending a hand in the rescue efforts? Remember that the ferry makes a round trip to this island in about five minutes. When they saw unarmed civilians saving the lives of scores of bleeding and semi-drowning children with scores still left in the frigid water, did they even consider lending a hand?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:30 pm**

JackRiddler wrote:
MacCruiskeen wrote:I'm just a bit baffled as to why you would discount the likelihood that he had any sympathisers in obscure high places, e.g., among the intelligence agencies, or in the armed forces, or at certain levels of the police hierarchy. These are the kind of places where reactionary, right-wing, authoritarian "thought" tends to flourish, in any society. And the extreme right is far from non-existent in Scandinavia.

I don't. If that's so, we're likely to see evidence of it. The families of the dead as you say are themselves elite, and they are a great many and without a doubt angry beyond what we can conceive, as well as devastated. They're talking to each other. If there's evidence, they won't be silent. I'm not sure we have seen such evidence, so far. So far, the police and counterterror response seems to have been according to the likely protocols for it, not incompetent per se, but geared more to military and hostage situations, rather than a rampage killing in an enclosed space by a completely unrestrained gunman (or gunmen). Honestly, they no doubt had plans for everything we or they can think of, but do you think they had a plan for an attack on the Utoya island teenager camp? (Another huge difference from 9/11, where we now know that exercises simulating hijack planes crashbombing into the WTC itelf were being prepared in the week prior, and scheduled for the day after. Among countless other red flags.)

.

Yeah. What SWAT team could ever imagine a lone nut going on a shooting spree?

Don't you see the functional equivalence to Rice's "we could not have possibly imagined they would fly the planes into buildings"? And to "all our defenses were pointing outwards not inwards, so we were completely helpless"?

If not, why not?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:37 pm**

Canadian_watcher wrote:
stickdog99 wrote:I think this thread has provided ample evidence that the youngsters on Utøya were phoning and texting their friends and relatives within minutes of the shooting spree. Does anyone still disagree with this? If so, then do you think all the kids and parents who reported this are part of some massive conspiracy? If not, then how can you account for the fact that the police claim that they did not learn about the attack until the shooting spree had gone on for more than 19 minutes?

I'm going to give this a shot:

1. There are reports from the kids on the Island that they had trouble getting their cell calls through to anyone.

But there are also several reports of kids whose texts got through immediately. What do you think their parents were doing with that information?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:39 pm**

kenoma wrote:
Searcher08 wrote:
You are putting a model of 1940s Hollywood-based American / Brit 'individual takes charge in a crisis, bangs heads together and makes things happen' onto a Scandanavian response.

"They wouldnt wait if someone needed it."

Yes they would, if that was the consensus

Particularly if there was a procedure for it and 'Health and Safety' said lives might be at risk for not following it. Given it was uncertain how many gunmen there were, that he was killing people in the water, the decision to wait for non-police forces doesnt seem strange to me at all.

Yeah. this is plausible.
The response time of the police may well prove to be a tragic disgrace, but I don't see why it has become the shibboleth by which one's cop-loving gullibility or healthy scepticism should be judged.
Even if the cops had arrived with alacrity, Breivik would still have killed tens of youths. That's not disputed. The political and psychological aims of the massacre, whateer they prove to be, would still have been achieved. There is not some magical number of fatalities by which a madman's rampage crosses over to deep-political psyop.

So it's not how many kids who died that matters, it's whether it's a conspiracy?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:41 pm**

stickdog99 wrote:We know that the kids were calling and texting for help more than 15 minutes before the local police claim they first heard of any problem. So why not start there. Why the obvious discrepancy? What is the real explanation such that this obvious lie was required?

Ten more pages on, and you're still at it. Okay. Here's an earlier post of yours in which the difference was only eleven minutes:

stickdog99 wrote:
Harvey wrote:Guardian Live feed 22/07/2011

5.16pm: Neil Perry in Oslo just sent me this worrying development. I'll try to get more details:

A man disguised as a police officer began shooting where youth were attending a Labour party conference at Utoya, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has just confirmed. He said there is a 'critical and serious situation' but he is safe. He was speaking on the phone to Norwegian TV station TV2.

17:27: The local police district in Buskerud learn about the shooting, and three minutes later the police in Oslo are informed.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ay_attacks

Thank you! What do all you apologists have to say about this?

I suggest you put together an exhaustive and hyperlinked timeline which you believe proves your case, which seems to be that the police were so unconscionably late to the island that it can only be attributed to conspiracy. Otherwise you are requesting proof of a negative - that is, "show me that there is no conspiracy here" or "demonstrate that the police did not act in bad faith".

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:47 pm**

LOL. I love how everyone keeps ignoring the obvious. Anything to avoid confronting the one thing that we know for sure is a blatant lie!

This is the current official timeline as provided by the cops the themselves!

17:07: Breivik arrives at Utøya, where he asks the young people present to gather around him for information.[8] Around 30 seconds after arriving on the island, he starts firing at bystanders.[9] Initial calls to the emergency services are dismissed in order to keep the line clear for calls about the Oslo bomb.[13][14]

17:27: The local police district in Buskerud learn about the shooting, and three minutes later the police in Oslo are informed.[10]

17:38: Northern Buskerud police district ask Oslo police district for assistance.[15] Beredskapstroppen (the Contingency Platoon) is dispatched from Oslo to Utøya.[10]

17:52: The first local police car arrives at Tyrifjorden, but the officers have to wait for a suitable craft before they can cross over to Utøya.[12]

18:09: The Contingency Platoon arrive, but are also forced to wait for a boat.[9] The boat that is finally provided is too small for the amount of personnel and equipment, and nearly sinks during the crossing.[12]

18:25: The Contingency Platoon arrive on Utøya and go ashore.[11]

18:27: Breivik does not resist arrest, and is apprehended by the police.[15]

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:50 pm**

Right, but can you demonstrate that emergency calls to 113 were placed prior to the 17:16 hour we have a tick for, that is, in the eight minutes between 17:07 and 17:16?

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:57 pm**

Julie Bremnes, 16, was one of the youths caught on Utoeya island during Anders Behring Breivik's killing spree on Friday.

She first called her mother, Marianne, at 1710 to tell her there was "a crazy man who is shooting here" on the island. She asked her mother to call the police, and Marianne asked Julie to send her updates by text message to let her know she was still alive.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:58 pm**

Sorry if this is intrusive folks, but I'm finding these memetic correlations hard to ignore:

"Breivik momma's boy": 17+ mil hits.
+

JLLLOW
Assange appearing (on a big screen via satellite) alongside his mum (live on stage) before the crowd at Splendour - très hyperreal.
10 hours ago

And:

Fishing on Magnetic Island, police corruption, Mendax: Julian Assange’s childhood in Australia
by Rogers on 26/07/11 at 7:16 am

[video]

‘I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth’ Julian Assange ‘My son was taught not to blindly respect authority figures, and was often home-schooled because I did not want to see my children’s spirits broken by the school system’ Julian Assange’s mother ‘He struck me as ‘a very impressive person’, with a restless, deep intelligence. These were gifted kids who the system really couldn’t accommodate and so they had exited – mentally, emotionally, physically. These were kids exposed to poorly equipped teachers . . . who were unable to deal with high intelligence, who would spend all night on computers . . . effectively teaching themselves electrical and software engineering and computer science’ Suelette Dreyfus, Author and Journalist, after meeting Julian Assange early 1990′s Credits: Most quotes are from articles in ‘The Australian’, Queensland Fitzgerald is historical footage and some quotes are from the book ‘Underground’ from Suelette Dreyfus Disclaimer: This content is based on our sources and reflects our current understanding, which may contain errors. This content may be updated as new information surfaces. The reason for doing this movie is to show viewers that …

http://www.videomedio.com/fishing-on-ma ... australia/

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:59 pm**

barracuda wrote:
Laodicean wrote:Oh, I see. You were making an assumption with your statement. Sounded to me like you were making a statement of fact. ...Yeah, I can see how that's a totally believable story.

Hey, don't let my opinion get in the way of your beliefs, man. It's got to be kind of a drag, though, to be so intensely committed to an idea you have so little hard information about.

It's insulting comments like this from you especially (bringing the "belief" thing from c_w's thread you locked) that make me not want to post here anymore.

I gave links to evidence of just what Norway's Counter-Terrorism force has at their disposal. They are trained to respond to scenarios exactly like what took place on that island. I don't buy their "boat was sinking because they had too many men/supplies" reasoning for their failure to respond. It's not an idea - it's an intuition that something isn't right with the timeline story given by the media. There are conflicting reports and things don't seem to add up. I found the incompetence of Norway's Counter-Terrorism force on that day to be incredible, given their training and the equipment at their disposal to save lives. You don't. Fine. Your opinion is this line of questioning (finding out the fucking truth) is a waste of time. I do not. We can agree to disagree on this matter. But I would appreciate it if you laid off with the arrogant way you address me here with your posts. I like it here, but you for one make it very difficult to want to interact with the people here I really admire and respect, which includes you believe it or not. Thanks.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:11 pm**

stickdog99 wrote:This is the current official timeline as provided by the cops the themselves!

What is your source that the Wikipedia article is the official police timeline? The events you are referencing seem to be sourced at your link to a Norweigian news website, Dagbladet.

Laodicean wrote:It's insulting comments like this from you especially (bringing the "belief" thing from c_w's thread you locked) that make me not want to post here anymore.

Read through the post of yours I was responding to and decide for yourself if my mild sarcasm, if it can even be called that, was uncalled for. Personally, I thought I was demonstrating great patience. This argument has been going on for twenty-odd pages now, and seems no closer to settlement outside of some new evidence we have yet to see.

And, fwiw, the closest helicopter that the Contingency Platoon Delta has available to them is in Rygge, Moss. That is roughly twice the distance from Oslo to Utøya, and requires a standing fifteen-minute ready time. I pointed this out earlier in the thread, but apparently the logistics under examination by the authorities in the face of this incident failed to impress you. So be it.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:19 pm**

JackRiddler wrote:So far, the police and counterterror response seems to have been according to the likely protocols for it, not incompetent per se, but geared more to military and hostage situations, rather than a rampage killing in an enclosed space by a completely unrestrained gunman (or gunmen).

The space wasn't that enclosed, it was a very small island, not completely wooded, and very close to the capital. The gunman himself could not escape and was easily detectable (he was the only one strolling around firing a gun). And he was "unrestrained" precisely and only because no police officers or helicopter crews or crack army marksmen turned up there for 90 minutes.

JackRiddler wrote:Honestly, they no doubt had plans for everything we or they can think of, but do you think they had a plan for an attack on the Utoya island teenager camp?

Christ no, Jack, of course not, obviously not, any more than I had a plan when my child mysteriously fainted at the age of eleven months. So I did the obvious, when one gives a damn about even one child's life: I grabbed her, rushed out barefoot from the flat, battered on my neighbour's door and begged him in a very loud voice to drive me and her to the hospital immediately, at maximum speed. He did so, immediately and without demurral and very competently, while I talked to the child and shook her gently, and even raised her eyelids with my fingers, in a desperate effort to wake her up and keep her awake, because it felt very strongly like the wisest thing to do.. The doctors rushed out from Casualty when they saw me rushing in barefoot with a near-unconscious baby, and then they did the obvious too, they gave her immediate priority and they tested her blood and did a very few other tests, and then they did the necessary, which was to give her a complete blood-transfusion double-quick.

All of these separate unprepared activities, by several different ordinary people, especially but not only the doctors, almost certainly saved her life.

Now, I rarely tell really personal anecdotes on this board (and I certainly didn't know I was going to tell that one), but we're on page 51 of this infuriating, baffling thread, and there is a real point to this all-too-true story:

FOR NONE OF THIS DID ANY OF US HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLAN OF ANY KIND. AND YET WE ALL COPED.

There is also a political and ethical point at stake here - not just a principle or a fond hope but a clearly observable fact:

PEOPLE ARE NOT ROUTINELY HELPLESS AND INCOMPETENT. THEY OFTEN MANAGE TO COPE WITH THE TOTALLY UNEXPECTED, EVEN WITHOUT PLANNING FOR IT, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY ACTUALLY GIVE A DAMN.

No doubt everyone here will be able to adduce similar examples from their own lives, or from the lives of ordinary people they know, anywhere in the world. On that Norwegian lakeside, for example, the most ordinary people imaginable functioned remarkably well & efficiently as emergency search-and-rescue teams, not because they had worked out some ace hyperprofessional hotshot Contingency Plan in advance, but simply because they did the obvious when they realised that children were in mortal danger: they actually gave a damn and did their best to help them. Above all, quickly.

PS I'm not even going to apologise for the ALL CAPS. I share Stickdog's incredulity at many of the responses in this already-gigantic thread. Have we landed in DU's 9/11 dungeon? The moribund Incompetence Theory appears to have gained a new lease of life in the last week. Whether it was a pysop or not, the Norway massacre appears to have functioned very effectively as such. Even here.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:24 pm**

stickdog99 wrote:Don't you see the functional equivalence to Rice's "we could not have possibly imagined they would fly the planes into buildings"? And to "all our defenses were pointing outwards not inwards, so we were completely helpless"?

Absolutely not. The scenario of hijacked planes crashing into the WTC specifically as well as other high-profile targets, which had been repeatedly wargamed in the years prior, was also being prepared during the very same week of September 11th and scheduled for exercises to be held on the day after. (Do you think the Norwegian authorities had ever planned for a rampage gun attack on the Utroya island teenager summer camp? Because that would be the equivalent, in this case, to the NORAD planning with regard to potential crash-bombings of the WTC and Pentagon. Can you at least wait and see if there is evidence of such an implausibility? If we hear that the Norwegian police dispatcher was asking if the reports were "real or exercise," I might change my mind.)

And that's only the beginning of literally dozens of indicators of specific preparations and widespread foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 events, both in the USG and among foreign agencies; as well as extensive intel-agency surveillance (if not outright control) of the alleged hijackers and protection of them from detection by law enforcement. Furthermore, the top six men in the relevant military chains of command (Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, Eberhard, Winfield and Mies) showed themselves directly to be avoiding command decisions during the attacks through their publicly recorded behavior and/or incredible self-incriminating excuses (something you have documented very well yourself, remember?).

Furthermore, the Sept. 11th operation involved enormous complexity and required coordination and precision from many conspirators, in any version of the events, including the official story. There is no comparison to anything being claimed here. (Sorry, gotta do this: "I knew 9/11. 9/11 was a nemesis of mine. Mr. Breivik Rampage, you're no 9/11.")

What I do see is people understandably still so traumatized by the self-evident and outrageous lies and crimes of 9/11 that they interpret all subsequent events through the same set of expectations and filters, coming to the same types of conclusions even where these are not logical, or in this case, not yet supported by available evidence.

I also see you being so insistent and forceful about it that you're effectively compelling people in this argument to take definitive sides now on questions that are very obviously still open, and where the evidence has yet to be developed. Please don't.

What I also see is that Breivik and his possible collaborators modelled the Norway attack on the psychological template of 9/11, with intent to achieve the maximum possible trauma.

So that's what I see.

Do you see the Nazi, by the way? I've had the displeasure of seeing, and occasionally meeting, more than a few, especially of the classic European kind. They exist. They day-dream about doing what Breivik did. Many of them do it, in more retail fashion, to unlucky people on the street. (All the same, if Breivik turns out to be an MK experiment of some kind, I will not be shocked. If you're looking for synthetic terror the response issue may not be the most relevant, in this case.)

Also, please answer my question from above: Are you getting at something? What do you think the response delays indicate? Scenario, perpetrators, motives, means?

.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:29 pm**

stickdog99 wrote:
kenoma wrote:
Searcher08 wrote:
You are putting a model of 1940s Hollywood-based American / Brit 'individual takes charge in a crisis, bangs heads together and makes things happen' onto a Scandanavian response.

"They wouldnt wait if someone needed it."

Yes they would, if that was the consensus

Particularly if there was a procedure for it and 'Health and Safety' said lives might be at risk for not following it. Given it was uncertain how many gunmen there were, that he was killing people in the water, the decision to wait for non-police forces doesnt seem strange to me at all.

Yeah. this is plausible.
The response time of the police may well prove to be a tragic disgrace, but I don't see why it has become the shibboleth by which one's cop-loving gullibility or healthy scepticism should be judged.
Even if the cops had arrived with alacrity, Breivik would still have killed tens of youths. That's not disputed. The political and psychological aims of the massacre, whateer they prove to be, would still have been achieved. There is not some magical number of fatalities by which a madman's rampage crosses over to deep-political psyop.

So it's not how many kids who died that matters, it's whether it's a conspiracy?

You're a fatuous idiot. You know exactly what point I was making.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:30 pm**

Philip k Dick wrote:As Joseph Adams fitted his eyes to the spool-scanner he thought to himself that they should have been able to remember enough to recognize what they saw on their TV screens to be pure lie.

rigorousintuition.ca

Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo

Re: Huge explosion in Oslo