British news anchor questions how authorities were aware of Breivik’s identity in advance
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Monday, July 25, 2011
Despite being portrayed by the media as inept due to the length of time it took them to reach the island of Utoeya, it has now emerged that police knew the name of gunman Anders Behring Breivik before they even arrested him, a startling admission that prompted one of Britain’s top news anchors to question how authorities were aware of the gunman’s identity in advance.
During his Channel 4 News broadcast on Friday evening, host Jon Snow asked “why police knew the killer’s name by the time they had arrived on the island,” reported the Telegraph live blog.
“He surrendered the moment police called his name 3 minutes after they arrived. What we don’t know is how the police knew the terrorist’s name before they arrested him,” said Snow, who is recognized as one of Britain’s most trusted news anchors, and cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”.
How authorities knew the gunman’s identity before his slaughter of young Norwegians on the island of Utoeya had even come to an end, and while the overwhelming speculation still centered around Islamic terrorists, is a mystery, as is the question of why the cops didn’t shoot Breivik immediately.
“I believe that there were two people who were shooting,” survivor Alexander Stavdal toldNorwegian VG, while other eyewitnesses reported hearing gunshots from “two different places on the island at the same time.”
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
Trusting media portrayal of gunman foolish given how press got it spectacularly wrong in blaming Muslims
Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Monday, July 25, 2011
Given the fact that the establishment media got it spectacularly wrong by instantly jumping to the conclusion that Friday’s deadly attack in Norway was the work of Al-Qaeda Muslims, placing complete trust in the details emerging about gunman Anders Behring Breivik would be foolish, especially since there are innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions that need to be studied before a fuller picture of what motivated the bloodshed can be established.
The rush to blame Muslims for the carnage, hastily parroted by an onslaught of mainstream “terror experts,” was a startling insight into how the propaganda that fuels the war on terror is so unquestionably bounced around the echo chamber of the corporate media.
It’s also a reminder that the mainstream press instantly falls in line with whoever the establishment designates the enemy du jour to be at any given time. Now that Muslims have been so vehemently demonized as terrorists, it’s the turn of so called “right-wing extremists,” or anyone who disagrees with mass immigration, loss of sovereignty and globalist financial looting, to feel the heat.
The effort to smear European conservatives as unhinged radicals who harbor simmering urges for bloodlust is now in full swing, and it’s a demonization campaign firmly founded on the carefully crafted public portrayal of Anders Behring Breivik.
Indeed, there are two different Facebook profiles for Breivik, one from before the massacre and one from after. The latter profile appears to have been embellished and deliberately altered to emphasize the notion that the gunman was motivated by his “Christian conservative” beliefs.
Compare the two profiles below (click to enlarge). The first one in Norwegian was deleted minutes after Breivik’s identity became public. The second profile in English appeared after the original was deleted, and became the de facto profile of the killer.
“Several things have been doctored up to alter the suspects political views. First a section titled “Philosophy” has been added to include “Christian,” and “Conservative.” The media has used this to great lengths,” notes the Council of Conservative Christians website.
In the second profile, Breivik’s interest in Winston Churchill and Max Manus, the leader of the Norwegian anti-Nazi resistance, have been deleted, presumably because they don’t fit with the psychological profile that Breivik was a right-wing neo-Nazi who had links with the English Defence League.
There was clearly manipulation surrounding Breivik’s Facebook page after the attack. AsMadison Ruppert notes, “Someone was active on Breivik’s Facebook accepting friend requests after the massacre took place.” People were also tricked into registering on a fake Facebook page set up in support of the gunman’s actions.
Additionally, in a series of Internet postings, Breivik clearly characterizes himself not as a populist Christian conservative, as the media has attempted to push, but as a Bill Kristol style neo-con, an enthusiastic supporter of Israel, attacking racists and accusing others of being “anti-gay”.
“None of the comments are extreme or hint at a desire to commit violence,” notes the CCC website, adding that Breivik was a supporter of the website which was run by Hans Rustad, a former Jewish left-winger turned neo-conservative.
It seems as if there are two Breivik’s, the original, a socially liberal, pro-Israel neo-con, and the second post-massacre profile of a Christian conservative, white supremacist. The second profile has clearly been embellished to push the notion that Breivik’s rampage was driven by his Christian conservative beliefs, which is convenient given the fact that governments recently introduced the meme that white, Christian conservatives were the leading terror threat.
Breivik’s character of an enraged psychopath intent on butchering as many people as possible in the name of his cause is also contradicted by people who knew him personally.
In an interview with Russia Today, Ulav Andersson, who worked closely with Breivik, said that the killer showed behavior “absolutely nothing anywhere near that” depicted by the media’s characterization of him, and that his apparent racism was never expressed in terms any harsher than mild and “mundane” annoyance at being rejected by women. Andersson said that Breivik was not opinionated, “never came across as some kind of religious fanatic or anything,” and did not have a well developed ideology.
Adding that he never imagined Breivik would be capable of committing such an atrocity, Andersson says that he thinks Breivik was “brainwashed,” a judgment which correlates with eyewitness reports stating Breivik carried out what would have undoubtedly been an intense and stressful rampage with complete calmness and a blank expression on his face.
Andersson’s portrayal of Breivik seems to fit far more with the pre-massacre Facebook profile of the gunman as oppose to the post-massacre profile which seems to have been embellished to a significant degree.
A plethora of other questions continue to circulate surrounding Breivik and his motives. Why did this supposedly anti-Muslim crusader slaughter dozens of white Norwegian teenagers? Why didn’t he target a mosque? Why did this supposed “Christian conservative” list a television series that glorifies vampirism (True Blood) as his favorite show? How did Breivik’s ties to freemasonry and his obsession with the Knights Templar play into his rampage? Why did Breivik lift entire portions of leftist Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto and incorporate them into his own screed?
Just like the Oklahoma City bombing, which the case has been obsessively likened with, the evidence is starting to point to a wider plot, but concurrently there seems to be a deliberate effort to manufacture a profile of Breivik as a lone-nut psychopath who was influenced by racism, nationalism, Christianity, and a hatred for Europe’s predominantly neo-liberal elite, who coincidentally will reap the greatest political benefits from this tragic massacre.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
Gunman reverses position, says he did not act alone
Steve Watson Infowars.com July 25, 2011
After initially stating that he acted alone in carrying out Friday’s massacre, Anders Behring Breivik has now suggested in court that two other “cells” of extremists collaborated with him.
During an initial hearing today, which was closed to both the public and the media, Breivik stated that there are “two more cells in our organisation” that will carry out further attacks.
The information was relayed to reporters via a statement from the Judge presiding over the hearing:
The court further finds that the conditions for remanding the accused in custody have been met, as there is an immediate risk that the accused would tamper with evidence if he were now released. Reference has been made to the accused making statements that require further investigation, including a statement about “two more cells in our organisation”, and as such the investigations must be carried out without the accused being able to interfere with the investigation or to disturb it.
Penal alternatives to the penal code 168 are not applicable in this case. Remanding in custody for up to eight weeks is a proportional measure. The court finds out of consideration to the investigation, the accused not be given the op[portunity to communicate with others [and so Breivik will be denied access to media and prevented from communicating].
The prosecution has also requested complete isolation, with regard of the loss of evidence. The court finds that the seriousness of the case means that the conditions are met. The isolation has been set at four weeks.
Anders Behring Breivik, born 13 February 1979, will be held by the court not beyond 20 September 2011. He will be held in complete isolation until 22 August 2011. That is the ruling.
As the statement outlines, Breivik will be held in isolation for a month to prevent him from interfering in police investigations into potential accomplices or attempting to communicate with them.
Breivik had requested a public circus show trial in which he also wished to appear in a pre world war one national military uniform.
Breivik’s claims that he did indeed have accomplices dovetail with eyewitness reports that at least two killers were involved in the deadly shooting.
The Norwegian VG newspaper has claimed that victims reported shots fired at the summer camp on Utoya island coming from “two different places on the island at the same time.”
“I believe that there were two people who were shooting.”
Survivor, Alexander Stavdal said;
The witnesses described the second man as a 180-centimeter tall, dark-haired man with Nordic appearance with “a pistol in his right hand and a rifle on his back.”
An anonymous 16-year old girl told VG paper that the gunmen seemed to be in a hurry, but nevertheless “always made sure that their victims were shot dead.”
Further eyewitness accounts described shooting incidents in two different areas on the island, one with a handgun and the other with a ‘sniper rifle’.
Norwegian Police have said “there are no concrete reports of a second gunman, although we’re not excluding any possibilities”.
A further police press conference is scheduled this afternoon to address the claims of accomplices.
As we have also reported today, despite being portrayed by the media as inept due to the length of time it took them to reach the island of Utoeya, it has now emerged that police knew Breivik’s identity before they even arrested him, raising yet more questions surrounding the attacks.
According to an interview interview with Breivik’s lawyer in the Oslo newspaper Aftenposten, the shooter has said that in 60 years, society will understand why he did what he did.
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
After Anders Behring Breivik claimed responsibility for the atrocious killing spree in Norway, and his manifesto was discovered and published, the facts we are presented with continue to be quite strange.
Oslo police spokesperson Einar Aas reported to the online edition of theNorwegian newspaper VG that they had “heard the same accounts of a second gunman, and are working hard to establish if that was the case.”
Why would they be only attempting to establish the possibility of a second gunman if multiple eye witnesses report the same thing?
While it would assuredly be a lot easier for the police officers responsible for tracking down a second suspect to say that they all had a collective hallucination and settle for the one that confessed, they would be doing a disservice to those innocent people slaughtered at the hands of this (or these) psychopath(s).
Strangely, in direct contrast to the reports of eye witnesses at Utoya, Breivik claimed he acted alone when he admitted responsibility for the murders of at least 92 people on July 22nd.
While we know absolutely nothing about the possible second gunman, we are learning more about the enigmatic murderer Anders Behring Breivik by the day.
Breivik’s social media presences have been shown in many videos on YouTube, although his original profile has been removed. According to the creator of one video, someone was active on Breivik’s Facebook accepting friend requests after the massacre took place.
Interestingly, the first of the videos shows a picture of Breivik posted on his alleged Facebook profile in full Freemasonic regalia.
In the wake of the attacks, there has been a swarm of activity on Facebook surrounding Breivik.
VG published an article about a woman who had her identity hijacked in order to create a Facebook group in support of Breivik’s horrific actions.
This unfortunate 26-year-old, Linn Cesilie Fosse, was victimized by someone who created a Facebook profile in her name complete with her picture and all.
Soon after she told others that the group was actually run by people who support Breivik, the original administrators disappeared to be replaced with a fake profile in Fosse’s name.
Apparently, the original creators of this group tricked people into joining under the name “A minute of silence for the victims of Oslo and Utoya,” but after Fosse discovered one of the administrators was a strong Breivik sympathizer, she warned the rest of the group.
Understandably, Fosse has been receiving a great deal of hate mail and derision for someone else’s actions.
To make matters even more confusing, it appears that Anders Behring Breivik’s Facebook profile could be a complete fraud.
What this all means, I cannot say. At this point we are simply compiling evidence and trying to make sense of a senseless tragedy.
Coverage of this topic will continue in detail on End the Lie, but as of now I am not comfortable with making any concrete conclusions about anything surrounding this case. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and conclusions, please e-mail me at email@example.com
Washington DC, July 24, 2011 – The tragic terror attacks in Norway display a number of the telltale signs of a false flag provocation. It is reported that, although the world media are attempting to focus on Anders Behring Breivik as a lone assassin in the tradition of Lee Harvey Oswald, many eyewitnesses agree that a second shooter was active in the massacre at the Utøya summer youth camp outside of Oslo. It has also come to light that a special police unit had conducted drills or exercises near the opera house in downtown Oslo which involved the detonation of bombs during 2010– exactly what caused the bloodshed a few hundred meters away this Friday. Further research reveals that United States intelligence agencies had been conducting a large-scale program of recruiting retired Norwegian police officers with the alleged purpose of conducting surveillance inside the country. This program, known as SIMAS Surveillance Detection Units, provided a perfect vehicle for the penetration and subversion of the Norwegian police by NATO.
A motive for the attack is also present: as part of its attempt to mount an independent foreign policy, including the imminent diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state as part of a general rapprochement with the Arab world, Norway was leading the smaller NATO states in dropping out of the imperialist aggressor coalition currently bombing Libya. Norway was scheduled to stop all bombing and other sorties against the Gaddafi forces as out of August 1 at the latest.
Finally, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks has already furnished a prefabricated off-the-shelf case for incompetence and malfeasance against the current Norwegian government that is doing all these things – in the form of a series of real or doctored dispatches which document the alleged negligence of this government in dealing with the terrorist threat, all in the view of US State Department officials.
VG of Oslo: “Several” Eyewitnesses Say there were Two Shooters on the Island
As noted, world press and media of the Anglo-American school have immediately battened onto Breivik as an archetypal lone assassin cast in the mold of Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and so many others. The problem for the terror mythographs is that , in most of these cases, there is credible to overwhelming evidence that these figures could not have acted alone. Among more recent loan assassins, Breivik could be compared to Major Nidal Hasan of Fort Hood, Texas, whose shooting spree dates back to November 2009. Hasan is accused of having killed seven people. At the time, it was considered remarkable that Hasan had managed to kill so many armed soldiers on the military base. But early reports suggested that there were one or two other shooters in addition to Hasan. As usually happens, these extra shooters were soon expunged from the hegemonic media narrative.1
In the Norwegian case, the evidence that Breivik was not alone in claiming his fearful toll of victims is clear and convincing. Here are some excerpts from a report published by the Oslo newspaper VG:
“Several of the youths who were at the Utøya the shooting drama, told VG that they are convinced that there must have been more than one perpetrator. Marius Helander Røset believes the same thing: – I am sure that there was shooting from two different places on the island at the same time, he said.
Witnesses: – There were two people
Police believe Anders Behring Breivik (32) is the perpetrator who was dressed as a policeman , and have charged him for two terrorist attacks. Young people interviewed by VG describe an additional perpetrator – who was not wearing a police uniform. The person was following them around was 180 centimeters tall, had thick dark hair and a Nordic appearance. He had a pistol in his right hand and a rifle on his back. – I believe that there were two people who were shooting, says Alexander Stavdal (23)….
At the press conference Saturday morning opened the police said that there could have been several perpetrators and emphasized that there is an ongoing investigation.”2
The presence of a second shooter is of course most inconvenient for the lone assassin theory, since it represents incontrovertible evidence of a criminal conspiracy, the very thing which the media coverage is usually anxious to avoid. In the Norwegian case, the reports of a second shooter seemed to be persistent enough 36 hours after the main event so as to hold out some hope that the entire official version can be brought down on this particular.
Police Had Drilled Setting off Bombs in Same Area During 2010
Another telltale critical sign of a false flag operation is the holding of drills or exercises –allegedly for counterterrorism purposes — by the police or the military at the same time as the terror attack, or shortly before the real terror attack begins. Sometimes, the terror drills or exercises are scheduled to begin slightly after the time when the actual terror attack occurs. For large-scale terror actions, which the Norway attacks were, it is not uncommon for the drills to occur well in advance – 9/11, for example, was the result of capabilities which had been built up over a period of several years, as well as of future drills stretching well into 2002. In these cases, it is often discovered that the self-styled anti-terror drill or exercise contains a simulated action or event which strongly resembles the real world terror attack, the one which actually kills people. The media will then refer to an astounding coincidence or a weird happenstance, but the reality is that the terror drill has been taken live or flipped live in the form of real killings. Once the drill has occurred, the capabilities, hardware, etc., which it has created can remain in place to be mobilized at the desired moment. The secret is that the legally sanctioned drill has been used to conduit or bootleg the actual butchery through a government bureaucracy whose resources are required to run the terror but in which there are many officials who cannot be allowed to know what is happening.
The Norway events provide a very clear illustration of this principle. In Oslo, a powerful bomb went off in or near the building which houses the office of the Prime Minister. Exactly as we would expect, special anti-terror police had been drilling setting off bombs in a nearby part of the Norwegian capital in advance, specifically during 2010. The public had not been informed in advance, but found out what was happening when they began hearing bombs in the opera house district, less than a kilometer away from the prime minister’s office which was attacked on Friday. Here is a report from the newspaper Aftenposten:
“Armed police were seen in the area around the opera house in Oslo, and violent explosions could be heard over large parts of the city. No one knew that this was all a matter of practice. The Information Section of the Oslo police deeply regrets that the public was not made aware of the seemingly dramatic exercise….It was the emergency squad, the national police special unit against terrorism, which was conducting a drill in the cordoned off area at Bjørvika pier. According to a press release from the police, nearly a day after the exercise, the drill consisted of training in the controlled detonation of explosive charges….The exercise will continue for the rest of Wednesday night and a few more explosions are expected….The exercise followed a familiar pattern for all anti-terror forces around the world: The men lowered themselves down from the ceiling and into through the window that had just been blown out, while they fired hand their weapons.”3
Peter Power of Visor Consultants told BBC Radio Five in the wake of the London subway bombings of July 7, 2005 that his firm had been conducting an exercise based on explosions going off in substantially the same stations of the London underground at the same times when the real explosions had actually occurred. The Norwegian events exhibit the same kind of strange coincidence.
A Motive: Norway Had Decided to Stop Bombing Libya August 1
The targets of the Norwegian terror attacks are all expressly political, including government offices and a summer youth camp of the ruling Labor Party, and thus point in the direction of politics. The government of Norway is currently a coalition composed of the Labor Party, the Socialist Left Party, and the Center Party. Norway has traditionally attempted to cultivate a pro-Arab foreign policy, as seen in its sponsorship of the Oslo peace accords between Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in the mid-1990s. The current government has announced its intention of granting diplomatic recognition to a Palestinian state in the near future. When the destabilization of Libya began last February, the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of the Labor Party warned Norway’s partners in the NATO alliance against getting involved.
But soon after this, Norway gave in to US pressure and agreed to participate in NATO’s bombing of Libya for an initial period of three months, sending six planes which have carried out an estimated 10% of all the bombing raids mounted by the Atlantic alliance. However, as the end of its three-month commitment had passed, Norway had reduced its contingent to four planes during the month of July, and had announced on June 10 that it was planning to withdraw altogether from the NATO bombing coalition no later than August 1.
The Norwegian decision to drop out of the NATO attack coalition was associated with a similar move by the Netherlands, which was announced on that same day of June 10. The Dutch had decided to maintain their contingent of six planes, but will no longer take part in bombing attacks on ground targets. Henceforth, the Dutch are willing only to help enforce the no-fly zone through air interdiction. There was therefore the potential that Norway’s example could trigger a general tendency by the smaller NATO states to quit the bombing coalition, in which their collective presence is highly significant.
Leading figures of the Norwegian government were among the first to undercut the supposed rationale for the NATO bombing, while urging negotiations: ‘”The solution to the problems in Libya are political, they cannot be solved by military means alone,” Norwegian Prime Minister Stoltenberg told reporters gathered for a conference in Oslo on May 13. “We are very much supporting all efforts to find a political solution to the challenges we are facing in Libya,” he added. Norway’s government …pledged to scale down its role in NATO-orchestrated air strikes on Libya after its current three-month commitment ends on June 24.4
This was the policy of the entire Norwegian government: ‘Norway will scale down its fighter jet contribution in Libya from six to four planes and withdraw completely from the NATO-led operation by Aug. 1, the government said Friday…. Defense Minister Grete Faremo said she expects understanding from NATO allies because Norway has a small air force and cannot “maintain a large fighter jet contribution during a long time.” Norway’s air force, meanwhile says its F-16 jets have carried out about 10 percent of the NATO airstrikes in Libya since March 31. The parties in Norway’s center-left coalition government had been at odds over whether to extend the country’s participation, which was scheduled to expire June 24. The most leftist faction in the government, the Socialist Left Party, opposed an extension, but a compromise was reached to stay in the operation until Aug. 1 with fewer planes. “It is wise to end the Norwegian fighter jet contribution. Now Norway should apply its efforts to find a peaceful solution in Libya,” Socialist Left Party lawmaker Baard Vegar Solhjell said.’5
State Department Complained of Norway’s “Lack of Commitment” to Libyan Adventure
The Norwegian decision to stop waging war against Libya, the first of its kind by any member of the Atlantic alliance, has attracted the attention of diplomatic observers, one of whom commented that the current government in Oslo has advocated “a distinctly more peaceful approach to global policies by the Norwegian government…. [despite] recent pressure from the US on Norway to contribute more in Libya military campaign. Norway has been resisting that pressure and pushing for a more peaceful approach to the US-led NATO attacks on Libya and refused to provide weapons to NATO, finally announcing last month that Norway would quit its military role in Libya by August 1. In March, as the US was rallying unilateral support to invade Libya, Norway’s minister of foreign affairs Jonas Gahr Støre was one of the few nations to warn the US against armed intervention in Libya. Norway initially supplied six fighter jets for Libya operations and has carried out about 10% of the Libya strikes since 19 March. However, US officials singled out Norway and Denmark for their ‘lack of commitment’ to the mission to oust Gaddafi… Other Norway-Libya links include Norway’s major oil- and fertilizer-related interests in Libya: the Norwegian state-owned Statoil, which has about 30 employees at its Tripoli offices….[Norway’s] businesses have conducted major business operations in Libya, in co-operation with Qaddafi’s regime.”6
At the present stage of the inquiry, the best estimate of a motive for the Norwegian attacks is to punish the country for its independent and pro-Arab foreign policy in general, and for its repudiation of the NATO bombing coalition arrayed against Libya in particular.
Are SIMAS Surveillance Detection Units the New Gladio for Norway?
US and NATO intelligence have been shown to possess extraordinary capabilities inside Norway, many of which may be operating outside of the control of the Norwegian government. 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 Although the goal was supposedly merely surveillance, it is possible to imagine some other and far more sinister activities that could be carried out by such a network of retired cops, including the identification and subversion of rotten apples on the active-duty police force. Some of the capabilities of a network of this type would not be totally alien to the sort of events that have just occurred in Norway.
The official name for the type of espionage cell which the United States was creating in Norway is Surveillance Detection Unit (SDU). The SDUs in turn operate within the framework of the Security Incident Management Analysis System (SIMAS). SIMAS is known to be used for spying and surveillance by US Embassies not just in the Nordic bloc of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, but worldwide. The terror events also raise the question of whether SIMAS has an operational dimension. Could this apparatus represents a modern version of the Cold War stay behind networks set up in all NATO countries and best-known under the name of the Italian branch, Gladio?
The Norwegian government needs to find out. Thus far Norwegian ministers have asserted that they never approved the SIMAS network of SDUs. “We never knew about it,” claimed Norway’s Justice Minister Knut Storberget and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre in chorus. Hillary Clinton stated instead that the Norwegians had been informed.
CIA’s Wikileaks Limited Hangout Has Rationale for Toppling Norway’s Government
Thanks to document dumps by the CIA limited hangout subsidiary generally known as Wikileaks, an obvious path for using the Norwegian terror attacks as a rationale for overthrowing the current government has already been provided. Real or doctored State Department cables obligingly made available by Wikileaks portray the Norwegian government which NATO hates as a collection of bunglers and misfits, unable to take effective measures to safeguard the national security of the country.
Some of these tables have been published in the immediate wake of the terror attacks by theLondon Daily Telegraph, a newspaper reputedly close to NATO intelligence circles. According to this article, while ‘talking about an attempt by the Police Security Service (PST) to track one particular suspected Al Qaeda terror cell, a cable written by the US Ambassador to Norway, Barry White, describes [how Norwegian authorities] … refused the help of the UK authorities to put surveillance on a potential suspect and adds: “Not only will they not put their own resources on him…but they also just turned down the visiting UK intel service’s offer of two twelve-person surveillance teams.” The cable goes on to say the UK and US intelligence services analyzed coded conversation between terror suspects and decided it warranted surveillance. But, says the cable, “PST instead found a way to interpret the same translated coded conversation in a rosier, less threatening light, an interpretation which makes little sense to the US or UK.”’ A catalog of even the most recent failures and fiascos of the FBI and the CIA in the so-called Global War on Terror would help to put these hypocritical judgments into proper perspective, but it would also be too voluminous to be appended here.
Another damaging particular appears made to order for an attempt to blame the alleged bungling of the Norwegian government for the Oslo bomb attack: ‘The memo also reveals how, despite apparently having surveillance on the suspect, the PST lost track of bomb-making equipment which was being stored in an apartment after it was apparently removed without investigators’ noticing. The PST then failed to track one suspect for 14 days because the investigator assigned to him was called away on another job. The memo concludes: “The PST is in over its head…it simply cannot keep up.”’
Another State Department memo dished up by Wikileaks, supposedly written in 2007… adds: “The official police (PST) threat evaluation…states that international terror organizations are not a direct threat against Norway. A memo written in 2008 shows how the US felt that Norway was not awake to the possibility of a potential terrorist attack. The cable reads: “We repeatedly press Norwegian authorities to take terrorism seriously. We will seek to build on this momentum to fight the still-prevalent feeling that terrorism happens elsewhere, not in peaceful Norway.” And a cable written just last year adds: “The PST still viewed Denmark as more of a target than Norway, for reasons very specific to the cartoon controversy.” 8
The government of Norway needs to go on the offensive and establish the whole truth of what has just occurred. Otherwise, that government is likely to succumb to the internationally orchestrated campaign which the Wikileaks documents so clearly foreshadow.