Dude, there was video shot on that day of that psychotic shooting people who were begging for thier lives in the water. Literally, in praying position in knee deep water. Do we have to wait for a judge to verify a videotape?
Is that not proof enough? There are better (not better, but clearer) photos as well.
EDIT: https://coto2.wordpress.com/tag/anders-behring-breivik/ - look at the man in the red (lower left hand corner), probably seconds before he was murdered…
The whole case about Osama Bin laden seems to have died down in comparison. No one cares for DNA evidence or Photographic evidence- or any evidence at all that it was indeed him who was killed in a town where every single pakistani would recognize an outsider arab family.
The osama thing was obviously a fabrication…he’s been dead since tora bora…the establishment had always planned to roll that out on us. My guess is that it was done as a counteraction to the Raymond Davis incident.
While I actually believe that they are having the shooter in custody and that it is really Anders Behring Breivik, I’d know a couple of people that could pass just as good as the shooter on the pictures.
Yes, the clearer photos were even on his facebook page right. But it isn’t about the the proof, it’s more about the sub judice rule. Now, if a journalist bends it a bit, I can still live with it. But, if his own lawyer doesn’t assume innocence before the trial, I find that seriously more funny.
That said, I am not that devasted that it actually did strike members of the Norwegian Labor Party. They were supporting the ANC/SACP alliance morally and financially, while their henchmen (MK) were planting bombs and land mines in SA targeting innocent civilian or necklacing dissidents (ask me for more details on this, if you want to know). I am just sorry that they had learn the taste of their own medicine the hard way and most of those biting the dust were only born after what I just mentioned.
“Yes, the clearer photos were even on his facebook page”
Yes, but those photographs are clear candidates for “photoshoppery”, yes? For example, [the white background is a dead giveaway or, if you prefer , “highly suspect” ].
"But it isn’t about the the proof, "
Just as with 9/11, the released Oslo/Utoya photos/videos and reported “eye-witness testimony” in reality “prove” nothing at this stage.
Anyone who does not have his/her head buried in the sand [or stuck up you know where] ,knows these days that both still photos and “live” video can easily be digitally manipulated to “prove” anything you want.
There is even face-morphing software available to change any face into any other. It’s all been around for at least 15 years.
Until the photos/videos are subjected to rigorous analysis for fakery they are all nothing more than hearsay “evidence” [i.e. non cross-examined, unsubstantiated “witness testimony”] that can be taken either way, depending on the pre-existing mindset of the viewer, as is hearsay “evidence” all of the reported aural, claimed “witness testimony” quoted by the press to date.
“But, if his own lawyer doesn’t assume innocence before the trial, I find that seriously more funny.”
I assume you mean “funny”, not in a good way [i.e. it stinks]. This “should” ring " alarm bells" [but for L.Rockwell and J. Raimondo, apparrently not].
It sounds to me as if the Breivik persona [if it is even a real, living person and not an artificial construct] is being deliberately set up as the undisputed perp. Or do defense lawyers in Norway routinely give statements to the media admitting to their clients guilt, pre-trial?
"That said, I am not that devasted that it actually did strike members of the Norwegian Labor Party. "
I believe that a good question to ask here is :" who benefits?".
Could it possibly be the Norwegian Labor Party itself [or some other part of the Norwegian government]?
If so [and I’m not saying it is -I don’t know at this point], then it seems reasonable to suspect them as being at least partly behind this affair. And if so- who else benefits?
It could even possibly be a US financed/run offshore psy-op that directly benefits the US government in some way - who knows?
Regards, onebornfree.
pretty sure the US didn’t plot that, onbornfree. My guess is Israel and the Moussad
What??? All the pilots were on vacation? Why didn’t I hear of that before? Was that a joke? I’m confused…???
Yeah!!! Why haven’t I read about this? I think these are just rumors just to worsen out things.
I was actually being a bit sarcastic, when I said the photos on facebook are better. That this isn’t all hard proof isn’t in dispute from my side. And some things are really a bit odd, but that isn’t hard proof either. It’s also not odd for the initial owner to fotoshop either. And, if that would have been really part of a conspiracy, it most certainly would have been done more professional.
Again that’s not in dispute, but the same rigour should be applied to any “conspiracy theory”, shouldn’t it?
It’s odd coming from a the accuseds lawyer. But Breivik did possibly instruct him to do so.
That’s where my problem is, I am not sure what the normal procedures in Norway are. And I also found it strange that the first appearance in front of a judge was in camera, allegedly to prevent him from “using this as an opportunity for propaganda”.
Note the European right, those that opppose immigration, multiculturalism, islamisation that’s for sure. Those that got his “Manifesto” in the email, a document that was 1500 pages copied together from web sites of European right-wingers.
They’ve gained lots of sympathy by being the victims and it helps them also against competing right-wing parties. Not to forget that this is a useful joker against anyone critical of multiculturalism, islamization, immigration. Issues that have become more pressing for people in Europe recently, especially when they had the dubious pleasure of being culturally enriched by criminals so diversely different from them. In Oslo for example, all reported rapes during the last year were committed by non-Norwegians with almost all the victims being Norwegian girls or women.
It’s not illogical to expect many Norwegians may consider changing their stance on multiculturalism.
I actually meant to say that the Norwegian left, when in government did support terrorists in Southern Africa that did exactly what they are complaining about now. Read the following article for more insight:
http://praag.co.uk/columns/joseph-secreve/759-an-inspector-calls-in-norway.html
According to the “Manifest” Breivik is said to have prepared the attacks for 9(!) years, while having no regular income and assets that are a mystery for someone in his twenties whose financial records don’t add up. There is reasonable doubt in the claim that he acted all alone.
Police harrassment of the blogger most quoted by Breivik:
This is really the only point that you make that I have any disagreement with, and then only a slight one.
I would ask: as the government “conspiracy theory” is the only version of any real consequence at this time, is it not sufficient for now to merely hold all [and I mean all!] of it’s purported evidence in support of its own theory to that “higher standard of proof”?
Therefor I do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that my version [should I have one] of what really happened is the real version [except perhaps to myself], nor any other version - all that is necessary is for me to seriously question/“disprove” the governments version if “doable”, surely ?
The Oslo “car bomb facts” in particular ring hollow to me, [car bombs can not cause the extensive damage seen in the photos/videos, and suspiciously, the government buildings damaged were apparently scheduled for demolition ] , as does the extraordinarily high kill to wounded ratio [i.e where are all of the wounded?], as does the "my client is guilty " type statements from his supposed defense lawyer, as do the various photoshopped pics of Breivik, as do his supposed finances that you mention.
Regards, onebornfree.
P.S do you have any links to Breiviks in camera court appearance, or are those filmed appearances before the judge not released to the public but only reported as having occurred, by the media?
They are included. While anything skeptical of government theories about incidents is often called “conspiracy theories”, one shouldn’t exclude them from that. Governments can come up with their own conspiracy theories and have done that in the case of Breivik (single perpetrator, but working as part of an anti-islamic network).
That depends on what you’d like to do with your version and what status you’d like to assign to it.
Car bombs can cause extensive damage and kill a lot of people. It al depends on circumstances.
Take for instance the church street bomb it ultimately 19 people and injured more then a hundred.
http://www.afriforum.co.za/english/background-information-church-street-bomb-20th-of-may-1983/
It was planted by the ANC, which BTW was sponsored by the Norwegian government at that stage. Note the hike it took in 1983, when the car bomb was planted.
Table VII Official support to the liberation movements in South Africa
-----------ANC---------PAC
1977 2 000 000 650 000
1978 3 000 000 1 000 000
1979 3 000 000 500 000
1980 3 000 000 500 000
1981 3 500 000 900 000
1982 5 000 000 500 000
1983 32 700 000 / 14 750 000
1984 28 800 000 3 300 000
1985 32 000 000 1 400 000
1986 39 100 000 1 300 000
1987 46 000 000 2 000 000
1988 41 500 000 2 600 000
www.liberationafrica.se/publications/91-7106-447-8.pdf
That "in camera’ was tmk without camera. So no other info available, except press releases. I got somewhere a chronology and would have to look it up.
1] The Oslo bomb was supposedly a fertilizer bomb, a la OKC/ McVeigh[or whomever]. Are you saying that the S.A bomb damage was caused by a fertilizer bomb also?
2] Are you 100% sure that the bomb was planted by the ANC?If so , why?
3] “That depends on what you’d like to do with your version and what status you’d like to assign to it.” .
Why? What does it matter [to you, or anyone else] what my version is [if I have one] and what status I might “assign” it? Am I , and everyone else, not free to theorize any version we choose to and and to “assign” any status we wish? I’m not sure I understand your point here.
Regards, onebornfree.
The Oslo bomb was apparently made of ammonium nitrate won from fertilizer. I am not sure of exactly what explosive the church bomb was made, but take a guess that it was a military grade explosive. From what I’ve read ammonium nitrate explosives can actually reach something close to military grade explosives, but I would have to consult the literature on that.. If you disagree, perhaps you could point me to a reference in the literature on that?!
It’s as certain as it can get that they or rather the military wing MK they shared with the South African Communist Party (SACP) planted the bomb. There reasoning was that the bomb was planted close to offices of the South African Air Force (amongst many others). It was part of their campaign to overthrow the South African government and replace it with a socialist one party state under their leadership. They later applied for amnesty on that:
http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/decisions/2001/ac21003.htm
You just assigned a purpose and status to your version: Personal theorizing, just opinion. If you’d like it to be believed by others or make a charge, standards applied would be stricter IMO. That would of course also account for the government version, which claims a status of officiality
http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport
regards, onebornfree.
