Analyzing the Oslo attacks part three: more information and even more unclear
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
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 continue to be quite strange.
First it was attributed to an al Qaeda affiliated group, then it was a lone Christian anti-Muslim self-declared pseudo-Knights Templar, and then it was announced there was a possible second gunman involved.
To make matters murkier, much of his 1,500 page manifesto was directly lifted from the infamous Theodore Kaczynski, better known as “the Unabomber”.
Nearly one dozen passages were directly copied from the Unabomber’s manifesto without attribution and with the only changes being the exchanges of some words to match Breivik’s rhetoric.
This was discovered by some observant Norwegian bloggers and was utilized by the mainstream Western media not to question the validity and providence of Breivik’s manifesto but instead to reinforce the contrived Unabomber-Breivik connection.
Oslo police spokesperson Einar Aas reported to the online edition of the Norwegian 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.
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.
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.
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.
An early snapshot allegedly of Breivik’s page did not list his religion as Christian or his political persuasion as Conservative. According to some bloggers, this is proof that someone tampered with the profile after the massacre.
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 protected]