Terrorism in Norway: Let's All Jump to Conclusions

space

It's way more fun than waiting for real information to come in.

When I heard that someone disguised as a police officer opened fire on a Liberal youth camp on the Norwegian island of Utoya, 3o minutes from Oslo (where a car bomb went off earlier in the day), I doubted Al Qaeda involvement. How does an Arab terrorist convincingly pass himself off as a Scandinavian police officer, and how would Al Qaeda know (or care) about the youth camp? This seemed more likely to be a domestic thing, perpetrated by someone with a beef against the government in general or the ruling Liberal party in particular.

This guy has been arrested on suspicion of being the shooter, and police have stated they believe the bombings and shootings are linked. According to his Facebook profile (which was just yanked), he runs a farming operation, so getting the materials for a car bomb would have been cake. He's a conservative with an interest in political analysis. He lives in Oslo. He enjoys hunting, so perhaps he's a decent marksman.

This looks fairly simple. Dude combines a grudge with a homemade bomb and his hunting rifle. Chaos ensues. Middle Eastern terrorists get blamed until people realize there's no evidence of their involvement. Then we all select a favourite pet peeve and try to tie it in to this deranged jerkoff. He did it because there's no prayer in Norwegian schools! He did it because socialists have no souls! Or whatever.

Infowars has of course taken a quantum jump to the conclusion that this isn't what it seems. It's a false flag operation, like everything else that has ever happened since the dawn of civilization. People never just do bad things on their own steam. Personal responsibility is bunk. There's always someone or something else to blame: psych meds, Jews, arcane military ops.

Already, Infowars has posted a slew of articles dissecting the Norwegian Government Plot Against Norway.

Paul Joseph Watson: "Oslo police were conducting a bombing exercise at a location near the Oslo Opera House just 48 hours before a terrorist blast hit a government building in the Norwegian capital." He implies such exercises are typical of false flag terrorism, serving as "the fallback of a drill."
Really? Norwegian NWO baddies planned this thing for Friday, and they conducted their first major drill on Wednesday?

Watson again: The media is manufacturing a "white Al Qaeda myth", and anonymous callers and e-mailers have already alerted Alex Jones to inconsistencies with the Official Story.
Actually, the media seems to be backing off on the Al Qaeda speculation, as it doesn't really jive with the arrest of a blonde guy named Anders.
Not really knowing why the NWO would go after Norway, Watson throws everything at the wall in the off-chance something may stick. Norway halting payments to Greece, not joining the EU, backing away from action in Libya.

An unattributed article starts to pick apart the "holes" in a story that hasn't even emerged yet, trying to get us to be paranoid as hell. Why would a terrorist attack an empty building on a holiday? Doesn't this point to a false flag op?
Well, there are any number of potential answers to that questions. Maybe the perp(s) aren't quite as murderous as professional terrorists. Maybe he/they were scared of approaching a building full of people with a car bomb. You can't really make sense of terrorism, which is inherently irrational.

Kurt Nimmo wonders if "CIA contact" Mullah Krekar was responsible, and says the attacks will probably be blamed on Al Qaeda. Like I said, the Al Qaeda theory is already melting away in the media.
On Saturday, Infowars re-posed this article from Zero Hedge: "Establishment Media Rushed to Blame Madman Attack on Muslims With No Evidence."
Wait, what? Didn't Nimmo do that just yesterday with Krekar? Also, this article clearly takes the view that Breivik is the real perp and acted alone, which Infowars wouldn't accept under any circumstances. Lone shooters don't exist on Infowars, unless they're Zionist-controlled zombies or raging ecoterrorists. Or Freemasons, as Breivik apparently was.
But it's too late to agree with Nimmo, anyway; he already changed his mind. Today, he declares Breivik is "obviously a patsy for a Gladio operation to destroy political opposition to the bankers". His "evidence" for this is wafer-thin. Basically, Breivik was a member of a libertarian-style political party that opposed bailouts, and was set up as a patsy to demonize all like-minded Norwegians. This doesn't quite explain why he confessed, but there ya go. Kurt Nimmo has solved the whole mystery in about half a dozen paragraphs.

But as Gwynne Dyer has quite sensibly pointed out, it doesn't really matter.

It's Time for WWIII Again

Like a lot of people on the planet, Alex Jones is very concerned about the possible outbreak of WWIII. The difference between Jones and the others, though, is that Jones loves to guess when and how WWIII will start - and needless to say, he gets it wrong every time.

On his August 10, 2006 broadcast Jones said a false-flag attack on the U.S. could trigger WWIII (the U.S. would attack Syria or Iran).

In 2008, frequent guest Bob Chapman said WWIII would start soon. It would be initiated by the U.S., in a vain effort to save its economy.

In the wake of the Mumbai attacks, Jones declared that this was an Anglo-American effort to trigger WWIII (India would go to war with Pakistan).

In 2008, an Infowars article suggested that a Tom Clancy videogame could be a warning about WWIII.

Also in 2008, frequent guest Lindsey Williams said WWIII will begin in 2012.

Last May, Jones said an attack on Iran would spark WWIII.

Last August, guest Hamid Gul warned that the War on Terror could trigger WWIII.

In February, Jones and radio host George Noory agreed that U.S. actions against Egypt could start WWIII.

In March, Jones speculated that actions against Libya's Gaddafi would start WWIII. Also in March, an Infowars article stated that Western nations are gearing up for WWIII. Contrary to what Jones and Williams et. al. have said, writer Tony Cartalucci believes Russia and China are ill-prepared for the outbreak of war.

After bin Laden was reported dead, Jones declared that this was a wholly Western effort to trigger WWIII (the U.S. will invade Pakistan and China will defend Pakistan, or Israel will start WWIII with false-flag attacks). Frequent guests Webster Tarpley and Lindsey Williams concur.

The "Truth" About Osama's "Death"

Straight up, I admit my prediction of Jones' response to bin Laden's reported death was wrong. I thought he would try to convince his listeners that They had to pretend to kill bin Laden at this point in time because Jones had done his job too well; as founder and leader of the 9/11 Truth movement (he's neither, but that's another post), he had convinced the world that 9/11 was an inside job committed by neocons and other New World Order baddies. Thanks to Jones' runaway success, the heat was coming down on Them. They had to put an end to their decade-long charade.

To his credit, though, Jones didn't take the credit. Instead, he hammered at the "fact" that bin Laden died in 2002. He also trotted out former ISI chief General Hamid Gul, the guy who went on CNN in December 2008 to declare that 9/11 was perpetrated by "neocons and Zionists". In my opinion, given Pakistan's shadowy links to 9/11 and international terrorism in general, this is kind of like asking the bank robber for a description of the getaway car. Again, though, that's another post.

Keep in mind that I have some doubts about the story of bin Laden's demise. Like bin Laden's entire life, it is shrouded in mystery and contradictions. Why take his body only to dump it in the Indian ocean? Was it really worth the risk of extracting his corpse, simply to avoid the construction of a shrine? What the hell took so long, anyway? Granted, at least one of bin Laden's children claims to have witnessed his death, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. Only time will tell if this story is accurate.
However, I'm going to show you that Jones' 2002 death claim isn't any more valid than the current government claim. In fact, it's even flimsier. Let's look at Jones' primary sources:

Steve Pieczenik. On his May 2 and May 3 broadcasts, Jones repeatedly referred to Pieczenik as "the number two man next to Kissinger" (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, which was a more elastic title than you might think). I certainly wouldn't brag about that, but never mind. What Jones did not dwell upon is that Pieczenik has collaborated with Tom Clancy. You may recall that Jones has accused Clancy of participating in the New World Order conspiracy, using "predictive programming" in his novels and videogames (see here and here, for example). Dr. Pieczenik was also granted a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship.
I'm surprised that Jones considers him a reliable source. I certainly don't, but not for the reasons stated above. I think the guy uses Wikipedia and his website to exaggerate his achievements, possibly to promote his "nutritional medicine" practice and line of related products.
But let's be generous. Many résumé -padders and shameless self-promoters have given the world valuable inside information. It would be neither fair nor prudent to dismiss Pieczenik's bin Laden revelation just because he has a touch of Walter Mitty syndrome. Let's look at the meat of the matter: What evidence does Dr. P. bring to the table?
None.
Here is what he told Jones in 2002: "I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months agao when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan. Well, he was one of the few that knew he had a kidney problem. That wasn't well known before. Everybody thought he had a heart disease. "

That's it. That's all he had to say. Pieczenik was just repeating what Musharraf had said in a CNN interview in January 2002. Musharraf didn't say bin Laden was dead. He said, "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a ... kidney patient. I would give the first priority that he is dead and the second priority that he is alive somewhere in Afghanistan."
Musharraf now believes bin Laden was killed on May 1, 2011 (and is desperately trying to convince the world that Pakistan knew nothing about bin Laden's presence in his country). So Pieczenik's sole piece of "evidence" - Musharraf's 2002 opinion that bin Laden could be dead - is null and void. Pieczenik was making a guess based on someone else's guess. And for the record, Pieczenik didn't say anything about bin Laden's body being preserved so officials could "roll it out later". Jones added that bit.

Sometime between April 2002 and this Tuesday, Pieczenik's story changed dramatically. Now he claims that back in '02, he knew from the "intelligence roster" that bin Laden had Marfan Syndrome and had been treated by CIA doctors. He died in late 2001.
This is certainly a lot more specific than Pieczenik's 2002 pronouncement, but Pieczenik still doesn't provide any evidence. It has long been speculated that bin Laden suffered Marfan Syndrome (see here and here), so that's not exactly inside information.
Pieczenik does not claim to have seen bin Laden's corpse, he does not provide any details about the circumstances of his alleged death, and he doesn't or will not give the specifics of bin Laden's alleged treatment by CIA physicians. His story rings every bit as hollow as the CNN reports.

Walter Cronkite. The late Walter Cronkite never stated that bin Laden was dead. Just the opposite, actually. Like Heinz and Albright, he made a cheeky remark about bin Laden being used to boost Bush's approval ratings in the run-up to the 2004 elections. Specifically, he commented on Larry King Live about the bin Laden tape released on October 29, 2004: "I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing." Cronkite believed it was bin Laden on that tape, alive and well. In fact, he conceded the tape could be a "double-edged sword" for Bush, because it presented the threat of further attacks along with evidence that his administration still hadn't bagged their number one enemy.

Prison Planet reported on this at the time, so I don't understand how Jones could so wildly re-interpret Cronkite's words.

Two unnamed "White House sources". Information that comes from anonymous sources is essentially worthless unless it leads to documentable sources. That's not the case here. No one has offered up verifiable evidence that bin Laden is dead.

Madeleine Albright. On December 17, 2003, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was about to be interviewed on the Fox News show Special Report With Brit Hume when she turned to Fox News analyst Morton Kondracke and wondered aloud if the Bush administration could already have a living Osama bin Laden in captivity, and was just waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture. She said nothing about bin Laden being dead. She did not say he was "on ice", as Jones repeatedly stated. Kondracke promptly relayed her comments to the world, and the story was picked up by many news outlets, notably the Washington Times.
If she had accidentally spilled the beans, Albright could have denied the conversation even took place. Instead, she confirmed her comments, but hastily assured the public that her speculation was made in jest. Clearly it was, because Bush did not spring bin Laden's capture as an October Surprise before the '04 elections.
Just like Musharraf, Albright has publicly accepted the report of bin Laden's death.

Theresa Heinz Kerry. I've spent all freaking day trying to find any instance of Teresa Heinz saying bin Laden was dead. Can't. It seems, however, that just like Madeleine Albright she made a catty remark about Bush capturing bin Laden just in time for the 2004 elections. At a fundraiser held in Pheonix, Arizona on September 22, 2004, she said, "I wouldn't be surprised if he [bin Laden] appeared in the next month."
As we've seen, these October Surprise remarks came to naught. Bin Laden did not appear in time for the 2004 elections - yet Bush nabbed a second term, anyway.

Conclusion: For some reason, Jones chose the weakest links to build his Osama-was-already-dead chain. He would have been better off trumpeting the bizarre statement made to David Frost in 2007 by Benazir Bhutto, the assassinated former prime minister of Pakistan. She told Frost on November 2, 2007, that bin Laden had been killed by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, one of the men accused of murdering journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. She offered no details, and Frost didn't ask her to elaborate.
That was probably a wise choice. Nine days later, while under house arrest in Pakistan, Bhutto gave an interview to NPR in which she commented that her guards should be out searching for Osama bin Laden rather than confining her to her house.

On his May 2 broadcast, Jones repeatedly said They announced bin Laden's death at least ten times after September 11. This is a misleading statement. There were many rumours and unsubstantiated reports that bin Laden had been killed or captured at various times and in different places, but the only official government announcement of his death was made on May 1, 2011.

For a more reasoned take on bin Laden's reported death, check out the article Five Surprising Truths About the Killing of Osama Bin Laden by Joseph Fitsanakis at Intelnews.org.

Anatomy of an Alex Jones Fan

artist's crappy rendering of "Steve"

On 4/20, my Significant Other stopped by a cannabis rally to give his pot activist buddies a bit of good news: An NDP candidate had said, on the record, that he supports legalization. The Signif Other isn't a cannabis aficionado, himself, but over the years has forged ties with pot activists who support peace/anti-war efforts and the 9/11 Truth movement.

Now as you can imagine, 4/20 rallies tend to be casual affairs. This particular one had a small stage-like setup, but no PA system and no schedule. Through the crowd, the Signif Other spotted a fellow he has encountered many times in the past few years, a medical marijuana activist who was once head of a provincial Marijuana Party. We'll call him Steve.

Steve may look and sound like a granola-lovin', tree-huggin' socialist, and in some respects he is. He claims to be a peacenik and an admirer of Gandhi. But he's also a hardcore Alex Jones fan.

Most of the Alex Jones fans I've encountered understand that Jones can get his facts a little, um, confused, and they take him with a grain of salt. They appreciate his overall message without necessarily believing that Bill Gates is trying to kill them, or that schizophrenics are demonically possessed, or that pi is 33.
Then there are those rare few who live, breath, and defecate Alex Jones. They deck themselves out in his merchandise, watch his entire show every day, and preface every other sentence with, "Alex says..."

These people are, quite frankly, insane. Not mentally ill. Just insane. Of the hardcore Jones fans I have met, not one exhibited a single symptom of emotional stability or common sense. One guy popped up out of nowhere, illegally plastered my neighborhood utility boxes and light poles with Infowars posters declaring "THERE'S POISON IN THE WATER" for several days, then vanished. He didn't round up other concerned citizens and petition the city council to stop putting fluoride in our municipal water supply. He didn't sponsor an educational seminar on the hazards of fluoridation. He just freaked everybody out and left.
Another hardcore Jones fan was TrutherBitch. She literally could not utter a sentence without inserting "Alex Jones", and her mass emails were batsh** insanity on crank. She was heavily invested in one of those Scamway-style MLMs.
Then there's Steve. When he learned I was the author of this blog, he growled at me. Actually growled. Like a dog when you get too close to something it's trying to bury.
His Twitter feed has exactly one subscription: Infowars.

Anyway, back to 4/20. The Signif Other saw Steve standing on the edge of the stage, hollering something. Steve didn't seem to be addressing the wandering, distracted crowd, though he later insisted he was making a VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT (as every hardcore Alex Jones fan knows, ALL CAPS convey that you are CREDIBLE and IMPORTANT).
The Signif Other wandered over to the stage and called out something like, "Steve! Hey, Steve! I have some good news!"
Steve didn't respond, but a few seconds later he hopped off the platform, stalked directly up to the Signif Other, and threw a sheet of paper in his face. He growled something along the lines of, "Don't you ever do that to me again. I was making a VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT." Then he stomped away without a word of explanation.

The Signif Other told me about this later in the day. I said, "Well, you shouldn't have interrupted someone who was on a stage. That was kinda douchey."
He said, "I didn't know he was making an announcement. I thought he was just yelling at somebody. I felt bad when I realized he was actually trying to say something." Undoubtedly, he would have apologized to Steve the next time he ran into him. It was one of those minor misunderstandings that happens all the time.

Fifteen hours later, we received an e-mailed death threat from Steve. I can't repeat 98% of it here, 'cause this is sort of a PG-13 blog, but the gist was that the Signif Other had deliberately interfered with a VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT, COINTELPRO-style, and in so doing had "dishonored" Steve. One line was "Notice the abundance of scars on my knuckles. You will keep your f***ing mouth shut whenever I speak" (emphasis in original). Another was "I'll wipe your blood up with your family." Another was "Stay the f*** out of this visionary genius's way or you'll get walked on." You get the drift. It was a rambling, paranoid, two-page screed about all the ways and means and desires Steve has to inflict violence on those who disrespect him. You know, like Gandhi.

This letter was followed by a spate of other bizarre emails and messages, like, "The dishonoring stands until you honor me again."

Now I'm not saying that Steve is representative of Alex Jones fans. He sure as hell isn't representative of hippies, Canadians, or potheads. But maybe you can tell me why so many of Jones' hardcore admirers seem to be unhinged paranoiacs with massive chips on their shoulders...

"Pentagon Preparing for Martial Law!"

Jones took time of out of his busy schedule - shrieking at John Boehner's answering machine and whatnot - to be interviewed by Pravda TV Russia Today. None of what he says about the economy points toward martial law (or "marshall law", for that matter), but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

NAU Deja Vu

Jones hasn't talked at length about the North American Union for quite some time, but today he resurrected the NAU and linked it to the Mexican drug war. Apparently, They are using Mexico's drug violence as an excuse to allow Mexican military troops into the U.S. and Canada, and vice versa.
(He's also back to attacking Machete, holding it responsible for recent beheadings in Mexico. Please disregard the fact that such violence has been rampant in Mexico for years.)

While there is definitely a bipartisan push for military and corporate cooperation among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, the theory that They want to form an actual amalgamated superstate (Amerida? Mexica?) is bunk. Even the infamous paper "Building a North American Community", put out by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2005, completely eschewed the notion of a North American superstate administered by a single goverment.
The U.S. and Canada simply would not benefit from a merger with Mexico. Corporate North America is already benefitting hugely from the deregulation and "free" trade brought about by NAFTA; why would union with strife-ridden, impoverished Mexico be desirable? The shadowy deeds of Security, Prosperity, Partnership may invoke a few chills, but that organization clearly had no intent to create a NAU.

No credible evidence of the NAU has been presented by Jerome Corsi, Lou Dobbs, Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, or any of the other talking heads who promote the theory.

No matter what Lindsay Williams says, there is no "Amero" currency.

The militaries of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. remain distinct and are not permitted to operate outside their own countries without explicit invitation.

There are no "open borders". Though I am an American-Canadian dual citizen, I need a passport to enter the U.S.

There are ambitious plans to construct a system of Mexico-to-Canada corridors collectively known as the NAFTA Superhighway, but construction proceeds so slowly it will not be completed in your grandchildren's lifetimes.

The truth is that NAFTA and related free trade deals have harmed the U.S., Canada, and Mexico in countless ways. That's worth discussing. The fictional NAU is not.

Apocalypse Wut

or, How to Exploit Your Friends and Destroy People

"I've already been on MSNBC today, and I'm on a whole bunch of stuff coming up tonight. And obviously, we'll be able to inject infowars.com into the discussion when I'm on those broadcasts, and the people will come here and find the larger picture. It's kind of the red pill. Thanks to Charlie Sheen." - Alex Jones (Feb. 25/11 broadcast)

By now I'm sure you've all heard about (if not heard) Charlie Sheen's stream-of-unconsciousness rant on The Alex Jones Show, AKA "the rant that got Charlie Sheen fired". Sheen was supposed to be talking about 9/11, his 20 questions for Obama, etc. Instead, he talked for over half an hour about... Charlie Sheen. He dissed his enemies and critics, praised the "narly narlingtons" and "goddesses" who have stood by him, and bragged about his superstardom and talent. He read some of his baseball poetry, talked about watching Jaws on a yacht in the fourth dimension, and waxed ineloquent about Apocalypse Now. I can't even count the number of times he used the words "winning", "on fire", and "bring it".

When the rant began, I thought Sheen was on speed or coke. Then Jones went to great lengths to stress that Sheen is now totally clean. So then I thought maybe he just had a few too many energy drinks and was really hyper. As the "interview" went on, however, I finally realized that Sheen could be having a nervous breakdown or even a break with reality - and that Jones was basically exploiting a man who probably needs some help, rather than the fawning attention and acclaim Jones was throwing at him.

Inside jokes about being a "Vatican assassin warlock" aside, Sheen lavishly insulted his boss (Two and a Half Men writer/producer Chuck Lorre) and insisted on calling him Chaim Levine. That's not full-on anti-Semitism, but let's face it: It sounds like Sheen and Mel Gibson would get along just fine.
Sheen also referred repeatedly to violence against his enemies, joking (?) about decapitating Lorre in front of his children, "violently murdering" unnamed critics, and attacking people with "fire from above". Jones nervously nudged him to specify that he was talking about taking down his enemies "in the infowar", but Sheen stopped cooperating with him.

As for Sheen being clean, he says he cured himself of all addiction problems with his own mind. He had nothing but scorn for Alcoholics Anonymous, which he described as a cult made up of sissies, trolls, and losers. He said, "They have a 5% success rate. I have a 100% success rate."

"You sound like Thomas Jefferson," Jones told him.
"I'm not Thomas Jefferson," Sheen said, "Thomas Jefferson was a pussy."

So, now Charlie Sheen is out of a job (along with a lot of other people) and everyone thinks he's unhinged rather than just uninhibited. Great job, Mr. Jones.

I don't know what's wrong with Charlie Sheen and I don't know enough about the politics of network television to take a position on Chuck Lorre's "vanity cards", but I do know it's uncool to use your friend's nervous breakdown to promote your website, no matter how invaluable you think its content is.
Check out Jones' appearance on The View; Whoopi's reaction to him is classic.