The second attack in today’s massacre in Norway took place on the island of Utøya just outside Oslo. Below are a few final notes provided the Scandinavian Gang of Five just before they went to bed.
The police now confirm at least ten dead at Utøya (Norwegian), from execution-style murders. They fear that the final death toll will be higher than this. They are still searching the area. They have also found undetonated explosives there.
The police are also increasingly certain that the same individual with a fake police uniform was indeed at both locations. It’s definite that he was Caucasian-looking. They have identified him, and stated that he never worked for the police.
The island has 8-10 buildings. Besides the swimmers who escaped, at least 20 different boats came to the island to evacuate those fleeing.
Finnish news says the Utøya shooter was 30-40 years old and spoke with an Oslo accent.
The Norwegian news reports say he is Norwegian, 32 years old.
The youths at Utøya used Twitter and Facebook to communicate (Norwegian).
Also: a video from Oslo just seconds after the blast.
Hat tips: Fjordman, Henrik, Reinhard, Kitman, and KGS.
34 comments:
This is the suspect (apparently): https://www.facebook.com/people/Anders-Behring-Breivik/100002651290254?sk=info
That's certainly the name which is being given out - Sky News Australia (00:41 GMT Sat 23d July )
And there are some photos here which do appear to be of the fellow on that Facebook page - Mail Online (accessed 00:44 Sat 23d July)
I've read that the guy's Facebook page was only set up a few days ago. (See link.) I've never bothered with Facebook, so I don't know if that's true, or how to check it.
There is a Twitter page which some blogs are linking to this guy. It has an interesting comment on it. (It appears to be the only comment on the page, too.)
Let's grant for the sake of argument, just for a moment, that the FB page is indeed the handiwork of the fellow named at the top of the page. The books and movies he apparently likes are interesting. Of course we have Orwell's 1984 and Kafka's The Trial, which are about state oppression, together with John Stuart Mill's On Liberty which is about personal freedom.
We have a photo of Machiavelli and an apparent interest in political science. Machiavelli of course gave us The Prince, which deals with the 'dirty hands problem' - the necessity of doing things that are 'not good' in order to bring about a greater good (thereby questioning whether those acts are in fact 'good' or not.)
We have Dexter as one of the TV programmes he likes, which is about someone murdering wrongdoers who the state has failed to bring to justice.
The Shield, which as a lone wolf cop who takes the law into his own hands regularly. In the pilot episode of season 1 he murders a cop in order to protect himself.
And movies which he appears to like include Gladiator an 300 - heroic warrior material there, obviously.
All in all, an interesting profile. Given what's just happened.
Of course who can say if this guy Breivik who's been arrested actually set these pages up. The photos on there do appear to be of the same guy on the previous Daily Mail page though. So it looks like it probably was him.
At least one website with an unhealthy obsession with jews is claiming that Fjordman is the alleged shooter from Utøya, Anders Behring Breivik.
Perhaps Fjordman would like to comment, seeing that he is supplying GoV with updates on the events? :)
Unhealthy is one word. So old F just asked the cops to take off his handcuffs and asked to borrow someone's laptop, so he could fire off a quick comment to GoV, as they arrested him & marched him off to the cells, eh? Crazy stuff.
Let's face it - it's now beyond reasonable doubt that this was the act of a home grown, white, right wing loon. Let's also face that this person has unfortunately dealt the counterjihad a tremendous blow - and then deal with that.
Is he one of us?!?!
We've all been told endlessly that just because some Muslims are also suicide bombers, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are, possibly could be, or in some way support the methods used by suicide bombers.
So if anyone points the finger use their own argument against them. Tell them they're being intolerant and racist. See how they like it.
It seems to me that the incident today might legitimately be seen not as an act of 'terrorism' at all, but as a 21st Century version of spree killing.
Using Al Qaeda methods.
A deadly cocktail.
And spree killing's nothing new.
It's just our knee jerk reaction nowadays to shout 'terrorism' whenever there's a loud bang, or someone is killed in a 'man-caused disaster'.
So did this guy 'go postal'? Or what?
There certainly seems to be previous examples of spree killers striking in different locations. Bath School Disaster, Uiryeong massacre, Eric Borel, Winnenden school shooting and so forth ..
Working link.
This is clear terrorism, it even has a political target. We in the counterjihad can do nothing to shoot ourselves in the foot more effectively than to put up some kind of defence or denial for these acts.
So, just why do some folks assume a guy with blond hair and a Norwegian name who blows shit up and kills people has to be "right wing" and could not possibly be affiliated with or at least sympathetic with disaffected Muslim radicals. Seems like a perfect scenario for mutual admiration and benefit, if you ask me.
Louise, maybe doesn't make it so. We can only do ourselves harm by putting out speculation of that sort - until evidence to that effect actually surfaces.
@MRiggs,
Terrorism?
Terrorism?
Or spree killing?
Spree killing?
Or terrorism?
Did this guy go postal?
Perhaps some of the difficulty is defining exactly what 'terrorism' is in the first place. I'm sure the people trying to avoid being shot by Charles Whitman experienced the emotion of terror, but were his actions considered an act of terrorism at the time? Would they be described as such today?
Isn't 'going postal' just another way of referring to a 'man-caused disaster'? There are different terms that can be used to describe multiple murders. Which is the best one to use here? A legitimate question. After all spree killing is the term used to refer to people going on murderous episodes where multiple victims are killed in a short time in different locations. Which happened here.
Andrew Kehoe went postal because his taxes had been used to build a new school wing, or some such nonsense. Next stop, dynamite city! Was that terrorism? Or was it a lone nut going postal - losing the plot, & trying to bring his world, which he didn't like, down around his ears? Was Andrew Kehoe a terrorist?
It's an interesting question. Maybe the Western media & politicians should never have started using the world 'terrorism' in the first place. Our politicians certainly don't like to use it too much nowadays. Maybe 9/11 should have just been called an act of war. Or mass murder. Depending on how we wanted to deal with it.
Nick: OF COURSE THIS IS TERRORISM! The perp had an obvious political motive in his choice of targets, his actions were carefully planned and calculated to plant the greatest possible fear and terror in the national psyche and to strike at the heart of society. It is ludicrious to have to even debate this.
Fort Hood - terrorism?
Apparently not.
Nimbus and MRiggs,
No, he is not one of us.
There is some hoax going around the web claiming that this dude is Fjordman.
He isn't.
Obviously, somebody wants to use this as a way to damage the counterjihad, by falsely claiming that he blogs on GoV.
@MRiggs
Care to actually address any of the points I raised?
Or do you think that USING CAPITAL LETTERS is the way to go?
Terrorism is just a word after all. It can be used, or misused, just like any other word.
"Nick said...
Fort Hood - terrorism?
Apparently not."
Well it was, and we all know it.
Nimbus: no this guy is not one of us, but this will damage us nevertheless.
@MRiggs
And if you're so concerned about how this will be used to portray the CJ I suggest you try arguing against that which you are so concerned about - or at least you might want to listen to something that can legitimately be used to argue against it. Instead of USING CAPITAL LETTERS and IGNORING what other people say.
Well, obviously you can do that if you want. But it won't impress me one iota, pal.
Just so you know.
@MRiggs
But the point was, it wasn't called that.
Now once again, would you like to actually address the points I raised?
Because USING CAPITAL LETTERS and repeating yourself wont' make your 'argument' any more convincing.
Just so you know.
I don't get how a guy assembles a bomb, and plants it, and blows up a goodly portion of the PM's office (my understanding of the bomb plot). Then races over to an island, with a police uniform (how'd he get that) and ... shoots a whole bunch of kids at a Labor Party connected youth camp?
Maybe I'm being dense here, but looking at all spree/terror/mass killing attacks, fairly rapid response leads individuals or duos to get "fixed" fairly rapidly.
@MRiggs,
Try to look at it this way. If as you say this event could be used to portray people in the CJ movement in a negative light, then as you say it might be worth trying to figure out how to deal with that.
One way is to prevent what's happened from being 'framed' (as they say in NLP) in a way that can be used to portray people in the CJ in a negative light.
One way to do this might be to portray this 'man caused disaster' as an episode of spree killing. We could at least try to bring forward the similiarities between the many episodes of spree killing we know about, and today's 'horrific outburst of violence'.
We're singing off the same hymn sheet here. You just don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact that I'm already doing what you suggested we need to do.
Spree killing is defined as embarking on a murderous assault with multiple victims killed in a short time in different locations. Which this guy today appears to have done. So I think my argument has merit. I've presented links to various spree killing incidents. The question arises about today's events: Are they more like those spree killings (which involve shooting a lot of people)? Or are they more like modern-day AQ attacks (which normally involve the perpetrator blowing themselves up as well)?
The guy didn't blow himself up. He went the Charles Whitman route. So ...
Nick - with respect I already addressed this very point:
"We in the counterjihad can do nothing to shoot ourselves in the foot more effectively than to put up some kind of defence or denial for these acts."
Or put it another way, if a lone actor this guy had to assemble a bomb, plant in a building with good security, either remotely detonate it or set a timer, then make his way to the Summer Camp, don a police uniform, and use a scoped rifle to kill lots of people. Each act alone presents some fairly significant obstacles for a guy acting alone with no training.
While a fertilizer bomb is not difficult, they require things like big trucks to store them in. It is my impression that the bomb was planted in the upper offices of the building, making it a plastics explosives matter. Then there is the detonator, no small technical matter. Then the timing device or remote detonator, which requires both practice and training to get right with improvised devices (as we found out fortunately with the Times Square bomber).
Then there is the question of how to exit the area (or exploit the diversion with a timer) to attack the island. Which in turn required a rifle with a scope, both subject to Norway's rather stringent gun laws. And there is the matter of a police uniform, they don't hang about in the street.
To me this suggests training, it suggests support, it suggests ... Khadaffy who explicitly threatened this in retaliation for the bombing. I can't see a guy doing this and wanting to go out in a blaze of glory without ... extensive public statements, released documents, and so on. That was the case with Sodini, Cho Seung-Hui, the Columbine killers, and all the jihadis wanting to die for glory.
@MRiggs,
No one's defending them. No one's denying that they took place.
I'm talking about using the correct terminology to describe them. A completely different thing. So when you say you addressed 'this very point' you are obviously not referring to any of the points I actually put forward.
You clearly aren't going to address any of the points I put forward, either.
Well, fair enough. Just do me a favour, and don't waste my time in future.
@Whiskey,
It did appear to me that at least some of the explosives must have been inside a building, because some of the footage shown this pm seemed to show stuff from inside the building that had been blown out into the street. Not that I know much about it, but it is difficult to see how a car bomb outside in the road could blow stuff that is inside the building outside. There were also reports this pm on TV that there were two car bombs. So it's difficult to know just what happened.
As for the gun & the police uniform - yes, maybe those are relatively easy to get hold of in America but over here in Europe those would be significant problems. Certainly in the UK. The uniform itself would be very difficult - how on earth would you get hold of a police uniform? And how would you do so without setting off alarm bells? Then there's the gun. Could one guy actually pull this off? Without specialist training? Who is this guy anyway? What's he been doing for the past six months? Who's he been doing it with?
@Nick
"Could one guy actually pull this off? Without specialist training? Who is this guy anyway?"
According to the German newspaper Die WELT Breivik served in the Norwegian military at some point in the past.
Whiskey's analysis leads to a planned, multi-person attack by a paramilitary organization. We have political offices/officers being attacked - if I read correctly; and please correct me IIAW - in the building and outside; and we have a lone gunman who has manged to obtain an assault weapon, a policeman's uniform, and while carrying that weapon access to a group of young people.
1. Who was the main target?
2. Who drew whom away from a the key target?
3. Who provided the weapon? Did this one man have the connection to acquire fertilizer, the the plastics for the inside work, his uniform, and his weapon; how was he able to plant the explosives over time without questions being raised: was it park the truck and run into building; or was it plant plastics in building then go get truck?
I am betting on one of the following:
1. a false flag operation by internal agencies of the government;
2. a well planned operation by jihadists designed to misdirect attention/blame to "right-wing enemies of Islam" thereby pushing forward their agenda.
Why would an Islamic organization first claim responsibility then withdraw it: taking credit would improve their "cred" and, in general, push the Norwegian politicos further into dhimmitude.
Assuming the killer turns out to be anti-Left and leftist policies, he is certifiably insane. Besides using the unforgivable tactics of Muslim terrorists, i.e. mass slaughter of innocents the result of his carnage will be entrenchment of the leftist policies he was supposedly protesting. Any sane person conservative or otherwise could predict that. No wonder this person had to act alone, who on the right would share his insanity? Norway that was teetering on the brink of an awakening is now done for, and he has accomplished that single handed. He has also struck a huge blow against the wider anti-jihad.
This incident and McVeigh totaling TWO separated by decades will now be presented by leftist media to an unthinking public on both sides of the Atlantic as somehow equivalent, nay indicating a greater danger than thousands of incidents of Muslim terrorism around the world with hundreds of thousands of victims, 500,000 in Darfur alone. Everyone who has a blog must list, graph, visually represent 2 incidents on the right* (and total number of victims numbering in the hundreds) vs thousands of incidents (and victims in the hundreds of thousands) in the Muslim column. *under the asterisk explain the doubts raised about McVeigh being aided by a third (Muslim) terrorist in the book of the same name The Third Terrorist by an actual investigative reporter Jayna Davis (a disappearing breed).
A conservative mathematician should work out the comparative probabilities of dying in a terror attack from a white Christian male vs an Arab Muslim and present it in some visually understandable way for the mathematically impaired which is most of us. Otherwise, the Left will succeed in causing continued wasting of resources by fending off profiling etc. The public needs to have PROBABILITIES explained to them and for long term decisions see numbers, not emotions which are understandably running high after such a horror.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.