A few people have been named. (Well there are facebook groups saying "In loving memory" or whatever). It's really, really heartbreaking! What a sick, sick world we live in. What possesses these men who go on rampages and what not for no reason at all? It's disgusting. My thoughts and prayers still going out to those who have been affected by the killings. :(

This is just awful and heart-wrenching. For people to think it's alright to take so many innocent lives is atrocious. Thoughts and Prayers to the families.

A few people have been named. (Well there are facebook groups saying "In loving memory" or whatever). It's really, really heartbreaking! What a sick, sick world we live in. What possesses these men who go on rampages and what not for no reason at all? It's disgusting. My thoughts and prayers still going out to those who have been affected by the killings. :(

 

You're asking for reasons... Well, I could give you a few.. It's the same sort of mentality that massacres the population of entire towns such as what happened in the Former Yugoslavia and caused the Rwandan massacre, it's Extremism... If you listen to this guy, he genuinely wants to start a war, or another Crusade... Remember when George W Bush said "we're on a Crusade?", yeah, a bit like that really... It's the same sort of mentality that leads people like Ratko Mladic to get up in a court, and without any sort of irony at all, claim that they dont recognise the authority of that court because, you know, massacring thousands of people in Srebrenica was somehow an "Okay" thing for him to do.... It's not a mentality that any civilised person understands or has any sympathy with, unfortunately, we're not talking about civilised people, we're talking about psychopaths.....

 

I really LOVE the way the Right Wing media went from their fact-free conjecture that it was "muslims" or "an Al Qaeda plot", because, hey, obviously "muslims" and AQ are the only people in the world who would do something like this, right...? Then, when it transpired that it's some white Norwegian guy, it becomes completely de-politicised and it suddenly becomes the act of a "mad-man"..... The fact that he'd clearly been brain-washed by Neo-Nazi, Right-Wing "Crusader" ideology is a complete and utter coincidence... Yeah, right..... <_<

 

 

 

And, here's another question - WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE POLICE GUARD THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE ISLAND????

Here's a very good piece by Charlie Brooker on the media coverage....

 

 

The news coverage of the Norway mass-killings was fact-free conjecture

Let's be absolutely clear, it wasn't experts speculating, it was guessers guessing – and they were terrible

Source - The Guardian

 

I went to bed in a terrible world and awoke inside a worse one. At the time of writing, details of the Norwegian atrocity are still emerging, although the identity of the perpetrator has now been confirmed and his motivation seems increasingly clear: a far-right anti-Muslim extremist who despised the ruling party.

 

Presumably he wanted to make a name for himself, which is why I won't identify him. His name deserves to be forgotten. Discarded. Deleted. Labels like "madman", "monster", or "maniac" won't do, either. There's a perverse glorification in terms like that. If the media's going to call him anything, it should call him pathetic; a nothing.

 

On Friday night's news, they were calling him something else. He was a suspected terror cell with probable links to al-Qaida. Countless security experts queued up to tell me so. This has all the hallmarks of an al-Qaida attack, they said. Watching at home, my gut feeling was that that didn't add up. Why Norway? And why was it aimed so specifically at one political party? But hey, they're the experts. They're sitting there behind a caption with the word "EXPERT" on it. Every few minutes the anchor would ask, "What kind of picture is emerging?" or "What sense are you getting of who might be responsible?" and every few minutes they explained this was "almost certainly" the work of a highly-organised Islamist cell.

 

In the aftermath of the initial bombing, they proceeded to wrestle with the one key question: why do Muslims hate Norway? Luckily, the experts were on hand to expertly share their expert solutions to plug this apparent plot hole in the ongoing news narrative.

 

Why do Muslims hate Norway? There had to be a reason.

 

Norway was targeted because of its role in Afghanistan. Norway was targeted because Norwegian authorities had recently charged an extremist Muslim cleric. Norway was targeted because one of its newspapers had reprinted the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

 

Norway was targeted because, compared to the US and UK, it is a "soft target" – in other words, they targeted it because no one expected them to.

 

When it became apparent that a shooting was under way on Utoya island, the security experts upgraded their appraisal. This was no longer a Bali-style al-Qaida bombing, but a Mumbai-style al-Qaida massacre. On and on went the conjecture, on television, and in online newspapers, including this one. Meanwhile, on Twitter, word was quickly spreading that, according to eyewitnesses, the shooter on the island was a blond man who spoke Norwegian. At this point I decided my initial gut reservations about al-Qaida had probably been well founded. But who was I to contradict the security experts? A blond Norwegian gunman doesn't fit the traditional profile, they said, so maybe we'll need to reassess . . . but let's not forget that al-Qaida have been making efforts to actively recruit "native" extremists: white folk who don't arouse suspicion. So it's probably still the Muslims.

 

Soon, the front page of Saturday's Sun was rolling off the presses. "Al-Qaeda" Massacre: NORWAY'S 9/11 – the weasel quotes around the phrase "Al Qaeda" deemed sufficient to protect the paper from charges of jumping to conclusions.

 

By the time I went to bed, it had become clear to anyone within glancing distance of the internet that this had more in common with the 1995 Oklahoma bombing or the 1999 London nail-bombing campaign than the more recent horrors of al-Qaida.

 

While I slept, the bodycount continued to rise, reaching catastrophic proportions by the morning. The next morning I switched on the news and the al-Qaida talk had been largely dispensed with, and the pundits were now experts on far-right extremism, as though they'd been on a course and qualified for a diploma overnight.

 

Some remained scarily defiant in the face of the new unfolding reality. On Saturday morning I saw a Fox News anchor tell former US diplomat John Bolton that Norwegian police were saying this appeared to be an Oklahoma-style attack, then ask him how that squared with his earlier assessment that al-Qaida were involved. He was sceptical. It was still too early to leap to conclusions, he said. We should wait for all the facts before rushing to judgment. In other words: assume it's the Muslims until it starts to look like it isn't – at which point, continue to assume it's them anyway.

 

If anyone reading this runs a news channel, please, don't clog the airwaves with fact-free conjecture unless you're going to replace the word "expert" with "guesser" and the word "speculate" with "guess", so it'll be absolutely clear that when the anchor asks the expert to speculate, they're actually just asking a guesser to guess. Also, choose better guessers. Your guessers were terrible, like toddlers hypothesising how a helicopter works. I don't know anything about international terrorism, but even I outguessed them.

 

As more information regarding the identity of the terrorist responsible for the massacre comes to light, articles attempting to explain his motives are starting to appear online. And beneath them are comments from readers, largely expressing outrage and horror. But there are a disturbing number that start, "What this lunatic did was awful, but . . ."

 

These "but" commenters then go on to discuss immigration, often with reference to a shaky Muslim-baiting story they've half-remembered from the press. So despite this being a story about an anti-Muslim extremist killing Norwegians who weren't Muslim, they've managed to find a way to keep the finger of blame pointing at the Muslims, thereby following a narrative lead they've been fed for years, from the overall depiction of terrorism as an almost exclusively Islamic pursuit, outlined by "security experts" quick to see al-Qaida tentacles everywhere, to the fabricated tabloid fairytales about "Muslim-only loos" or local councils "banning Christmas".

 

We're in a frightening place. Guesswork won't lead us to safety.

And, here's another question - WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE POLICE GUARD THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE ISLAND????

The report I saw suggested that there was only one officer who is presumed to have been shot. There was heavier security earlier when a former PM was present. There has been some speculation that Breivik had initially planned to be on the island while she was still there. If that had happened, there would presumably have been far fewer victims as one of her guards would have shot him.

The report I saw suggested that there was only one officer who is presumed to have been shot. There was heavier security earlier when a former PM was present. There has been some speculation that Breivik had initially planned to be on the island while she was still there. If that had happened, there would presumably have been far fewer victims as one of her guards would have shot him.

 

That's odd, a report I read yesterday said that the guard was missing and they had no idea where they were..... But, you have to wonder why it is that with a bomb going off outside a Government building, just why it wouldn't occur to the Police or SWAT to shore-up all possible Government targets just as a formality, including the kids on the island who were attending a Govt-sponsored camp..... I know that Norway has no history of this kind of thing, but still.....

 

That's odd, a report I read yesterday said that the guard was missing and they had no idea where they were..... But, you have to wonder why it is that with a bomb going off outside a Government building, just why it wouldn't occur to the Police or SWAT to shore-up all possible Government targets just as a formality, including the kids on the island who were attending a Govt-sponsored camp..... I know that Norway has no history of this kind of thing, but still.....

You answer your own question. Norway has no history of having to respond to this sort of thing. The initial response would, presumably, have been to send armed officers to the scene of the bomb. In a country with relatively few armed officers, that immediately made it difficult to protect other potential targets.

 

It seems pretty obvious that this formed part of Breivik's plan. Create havoc in the capital thus leaving him with more time to carry out his evil intentions on the island.

You answer your own question. Norway has no history of having to respond to this sort of thing. The initial response would, presumably, have been to send armed officers to the scene of the bomb. In a country with relatively few armed officers, that immediately made it difficult to protect other potential targets.

 

It seems pretty obvious that this formed part of Breivik's plan. Create havoc in the capital thus leaving him with more time to carry out his evil intentions on the island.

Which basically sort of confirms that it's impossible that he worked alone. He must have had some accomplices working with him. In one word: religious terrorism. Just not by Muslims this time. Or the proof (if we needed any) that religious terrorism isn't exclusive to any sect/faith/etc. But that is what a lot of people are finding hard to accept. As Charlie Broker's article above says so eloquently, when people found out we were in the presence of a White Christian, all of a sudden conversation wasn't about "the Muslim threat" or "European identity", but rather "an obviously insane man".

Makes you wonder, right?

Here's the irony to all this, this prick hates "liberlism".... Funny that, eh..? I mean, it's this very "liberalism" that he hates so much that means he aint gonna be facing the Death Penalty... He MAY want to ponder that one for the next 15-20 years...... Oh, you know, unless, he meets a less liberal in-mate who hates "nonces" who kill kids, and sticks the prick with a knife in the showers...... -_-

Which basically sort of confirms that it's impossible that he worked alone. He must have had some accomplices working with him. In one word: religious terrorism. Just not by Muslims this time. Or the proof (if we needed any) that religious terrorism isn't exclusive to any sect/faith/etc. But that is what a lot of people are finding hard to accept. As Charlie Broker's article above says so eloquently, when people found out we were in the presence of a White Christian, all of a sudden conversation wasn't about "the Muslim threat" or "European identity", but rather "an obviously insane man".

Makes you wonder, right?

 

Spot on....

 

BREAKING NEWS

 

Norway gunman 'has accomplices'

Source - BBC News..

 

Norwegian police are investigating claims by Anders Behring Breivik, who has admitted carrying out Friday's twin attacks in Norway, that he has "two more cells" working with him.

 

Mr Breivik made the claim as he attended his first court hearing following the bombing in Oslo and a massacre on an island youth camp that killed at least 93 people in total.

 

Mr Breivik said his attacks were a "shock signal" to Norway's people.

 

He was detained for eight weeks.

 

Oslo police asked for Mr Breivik to be held in full isolation for the first four weeks.

 

Judge Kim Heger agreed, saying Mr Breivik could not receive letters or have visitors except for his lawyer.

 

Judge Heger said police must be able to proceed with the investigation into Mr Breivik's claims without the accused being able to interfere.

 

Mr Breivik has been charged under the criminal law for acts of terrorism. The charges include the destabilisation of vital functions of society, including government, and causing serious fear in the population.

 

The judge said Mr Breivik had admitted carrying out the attacks but had not pleaded guilty to the charges.

 

Judge Heger had earlier ruled that the hearing should be held behind closed doors.

 

He had said: "It is clear that there is concrete information that a public hearing with the suspect present could quickly lead to an extraordinary and very difficult situation in terms of the investigation and security."

 

There had been concern among many Norwegians that Mr Breivik would use the hearing to deliver a speech seeking to justify his actions.

 

Instead Judge Heger summarised Mr Breivik's words in his post-hearing statement.

 

The judge said Mr Breivik had argued that he was acting to save Norway and Europe from Muslim colonisation.

 

The gunman had said his operation was not aimed at killing as many people as possible but that he wanted to create the greatest loss possible to Norway's Labour Party, which he accused of failing the country on immigration.

 

Separately, Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, in his first interview with a British broadcaster, told the BBC's Jon Sopel that the attacks would change his country but that it would "still be open and democratic".

 

Mr Stoltenberg said he knew many of those who had died and now was the time to look after the wounded and the families that had lost loved ones.

 

He said he believed no country could ever fully protect itself from attacks such as these

 

He also thanked the international community for its response.

 

Meanwhile, Norway has postponed the start of party political campaigns ahead of the 12 September election, the Aftenposten newspaper reports.

 

The campaigning is now set to start during the second half of August.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yeah, so, now can we knock the "lone nutter" theory on the head please Mr Tabloid Media, and deal with the fact that we're potentially facing something really, really nasty here.....

What annoys me is the media's lack of knowledge about the Norwegian justice system. They keep saying "He'll only get 21 years. It's very liberal there". Norway operates on a kind of "damage control imprisonment". This means that prisoners are regualrly evaluated. Norwegian prisons act as rehabilitation centers, and because of this Norway has the lowest percentage in the world of past convicts committing crimes again when free. The European average is 75%, Norway's is 20%. If, at the end of the 21 years, Anders is still a threat to the public, they will add another 5 years to his sentence. They will keep doing this until he is fit to leave, which will be never, so he will be in prison for the rest of his life.

Death toll at Utøya has been revised downward to 68. Bombing fatalities now at 8.

 

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7726733

Right, okay, I am now VERY confused by an update to that report I just posted.....

 

"Police have now revised down the island killings to 68 but increased the bomb death toll by one to eight"

(BBC News)

 

What the f/uck is going on here...? I mean, I dont mean to sound callous or brutal, but unless 20-odd people have suddenly resurrected themselves from the dead, you have to seriously wonder about what else the media has been reporting if they cant get the casualty figures right.... Charlie Brooker is right.....

The 80-odd deaths was a provisional number reported very early Saturday morning when they were finding bodies in the water, in trees, caves, tents etc. A lot of the kids were still on boats owned by locals who came out to help or being rushed off to various different hospitals, so it's kind of hard to know who exactly is alive or missing. Now that all survivors have been accounted for, and then matched with records of who attended the youth camp, they can get the official number.

The 80-odd deaths was a provisional number reported very early Saturday morning when they were finding bodies in the water, in trees, caves, tents etc. A lot of the kids were still on boats owned by locals who came out to help or being rushed off to various different hospitals, so it's kind of hard to know who exactly is alive or missing. Now that all survivors have been accounted for, and then matched with records of who attended the youth camp, they can get the official number.

 

Yeah, but the media should not have been reporting this 84 figure as if it was hard fact.... What was wrong with them saying X number have been confirmed dead with others missing or unaccounted for..?

 

It does seem very odd to use such a precise exact figure and not "believed to be around 80"

It does seem very odd to use such a precise exact figure and not "believed to be around 80"

 

My thoughts exactly.... I'm just curious to know how they arrived at that particular, precise-sounding figure... You can understand estimating the Twin Towers or civilian casualties in war, but this is a very precise figure, and for it to turn out to be totally innaccurate is bizarre, IMO....

My thoughts exactly.... I'm just curious to know how they arrived at that particular, precise-sounding figure... You can understand estimating the Twin Towers or civilian casualties in war, but this is a very precise figure, and for it to turn out to be totally innaccurate is bizarre, IMO....

 

The media may have just taken those not accounted for and presumed them to be dead. If you can get an accurate-sounding figure, people will look at it as being more relevant. It just 'backfired' on them when more people were found alive. That's what I suspect.

 

To be perfectly honest, I'm just glad that less people died. From what I've read, it was truly horrific there.