The Oslo Attacks: More False Flag Evidence - by Stephen Lendman
The memorable line from Gilbert & Sullivan's HMS Pinafore explains what's so often true, saying:
"Things are seldom as they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream."
With considerable mass media help, especially America's, misinformation diverts public attention from vital truths, playing their usual gatekeeper role, providing fiction and irrelevancies, not fact.
For example, initial reports cited Islamic militants, naming Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (aka Helpers of the Global Jihad), though no one knows if the group actually exists.
On July 22, New York Times writers Elisa Mala and J. David Goodman headlined, "At Least 80 Dead in Norway Shooting," claiming with no corroborating evidence:
"There was ample reason for concern that (Islamic) terrorists might be responsible. In 2004 and again in 2008, the No. 2 leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, who took over after the death of Osama bin Laden, threatened Norway because of its support of the American-led NATO military operation in Afghanistan."
In fact, no verifiable evidence confirms it. The claim is based on an alleged April 2003 Al Qaeda tape, urging Muslims to strike US, UK, Australian and Norwegian embassies and commercial interests because of their Afghanistan and/or Iraq involvement.
However, past audio and video tapes were later proved fakes. Perhaps this one also. Nonetheless, America's media, including the New York Times, report them as fact, lying for the interests they represent.
The Times also avoided due diligence on why Norway was attacked, instead expressing surprise about an "assault on the ordinarily peaceful Scandinavian country."
Norway, of course, is a NATO member. It has token forces in Afghanistan, and agreed to be an anti-Gaddafi coalition partner for three months, saying in May it would scale down involvement and pull out entirely by August 1.
As a result, the State Department criticized its government's "lack of commitment," concerned it would influence other NATO states to drop out. On June 10, in fact, the Netherlands announced it would continue enforcing Libya's no-fly zone, but no longer engage in air strikes.
Since July 22, Western media, especially America's, highlighted the lone bomber/gunman story, focusing on right-wing Christian fundamentalist Anders Breivik, claiming he alone managed to do the near impossible - plan and engineer a sophisticated, possible multiple car bomb attack, then head off undetected to Utoeya Island, 19 miles away and singlehandedly kill dozens children.
On July 25, Norway's police revised the death toll down to 68, plus another eight bombing victims.
Breivik's alleged motive reflected his neocon right-wing sympathies, anti-Islamization views, and hostility to multiculturalism. Regardless of how many Breivik types agree, they don't bomb government buildings or mass murder children. On July 22, something entirely different happened. Two previous articles discussed it, accessed through the following links:
The first one asked who gains and loses from every terror incident, certainly not suspects charged, convicted and imprisoned. Geopolitical interests always are key.
The second article suggested an Israeli connection because of Norway's Palestinian sympathies, including its support for independence and de jure UN membership, as well as criticism of Israeli settlements and belligerence.
Notably, Eileen Fleming observed that Friday's attack occurred on the 65th King David Hotel (1946) bombing anniversary, carried out by (pre-Israeli) Irgun terrorists led by future prime minister Menachem Begin.
It massacred 92 Brits, Arabs and Jews, wounded 52 others, and Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion (then Jewish Agency head) approved it.
Preceding the incident to the present, Israel carried out numerous terror attacks, and committed or attempted many thousands of targeted killings. Perhaps Oslo on July 22 was its latest, alone or jointly with its CIA and/or other Western intelligence counterparts.
Analyst Bob Chapman, a frequent Progressive Radio News Hour guest, believes Friday's attack was a false flag, citing two reasons:
-- pulling out of NATO's Libya coalition entirely by August 1; and
-- withholding its $42 million contribution to Greece's bailout, calling it a waste of money, sensibly saying the Papandreou government should default.
As a result, Chapman said affected banks "are very unhappy with Norway, and I think that (and pulling out of Libya) was the basis for the attack," adding:
Breivik "at the island was probably there to kill (Labour Party) prime minister (Jens Stoltenberg) who (wasn't at Utoeya island) for some reason. The message to Norway is do what we tell you to do or we'll put a bomb in the middle of your city (as) payback from the banks...."
On July 25, Paul Joseph Watson's Prison Planet.com article headlined, "Anders Behring Breivik: Manufacturing a Patsy?" noting two different Facebook profiles (before and after July 22) describing him, saying:
"The first one in Norwegian was deleted minutes after (his) identity became public." A doctored English version replaced it, changing his profile to fit the crime.
His stated "interest in Winston Churchill and (anti-Nazi resistance) leader Max Manus" was deleted. In addition, his Internet postings "characterize himself not as a populist Christian conservative, but as a neo-con" pro-Israeli supporter.
Moreover, the Council of Conservative Citizens said none of his postings "are extreme or hint at a desire to commit violence." He did say he supported "Hans Rustad, a former Jewish left-winger turned neo-conservative."
The doctored Facebook profile turned a "socially liberal, pro-Israeli neo-con (into) a Christian conservative, white supremacist." Friends also contradict the new Breivik characterization, Ulav Andersson telling Russia Today it's not at all the man he knows, saying his racial antipathies were expressed in "mundane" mild terms, adding: