Gilad Atzmon

I learned last night from an Israeli online journal, that two days before the Utøya Island massacre, AUF’s (Labour Party's youth movement) leader Eskil Pedersen gave an interview to the Dagbladet, Norway's second largest tabloid newspaper, in which he unveiled what he thinks of Israel.

In the course of the interview, Pedersen stated that he “believes the time has come for more drastic measures against Israel, and (that he) wants the Foreign Minister to impose an economic boycott against the country.”

Pedersen went on to say, “The peace process goes nowhere, and though the whole world expect Israel to comply, they do not. We in Labour Youth will have a unilateral economic embargo of Israel from the Norwegian side.”

The AUF Labour Party Youth Movement have been devoted promoters of the Israel Boycott campaign, the newspaper Dagbladet reporting that

“The AUF has long been a supporter of an international boycott of Israel, but the decision at the last congress, demands that Norway imposes a unilateral economic embargo on the country and it must be stricter than before.” “I acknowledge that this is a drastic measure”, [stated Pedersen,] “but I think it gives a clear indication that we are tired of Israel's behaviour, quite simply”.

Yesterday we also learned that mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik was openly enthusiastic about Israel. According to a variety of internet outlets, Behring Breivik was a regular poster on several Norwegian internet sites, notably the blog Document.no, which is run by Hans Rustad, a former left-wing journalist. Hans Rustad is Jewish, extremely pro-Zionist, and warns against ‘Islam-isation’, violence, and other social problems he assumes to be connected with Muslim immigration.

More »

Stephen Lendman

What to make of them is at issue. Many questions are unanswered. Are they similar to previous European and US post-9/11 attacks? Was a single individual responsible or were others unnamed or not known involved? Was it homegrown and/or outside inspired, despite what's been reported?

And why Norway, an unlikely target despite its NATO membership, token participation in Afghanistan, and Libya operations it scaled back and will end entirely by August 1.

Last May, in fact, Defense Minister Grete Faremo told Norway's Parliament that despite taking part in NATO air attacks (dropping 289 bombs), "There is no military solution to the situation in Libya. It must be solved politically." She added that Norway would scale back operations after its three-month commitment ended on June 24, ahead of ending them entirely weeks later.

At the same time, Norway supports Palestinian independence, de jure UN membership, and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store heads an international aid committee for Palestine. Moreover, its parliament earlier passed initiatives critical of Israel, and Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen (from 2005 - 2009, now Education Minister) proposed boycotting Israeli products in 2006 though Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg disapproved.

However, in August 2010, Norway declined to purchase Israeli military products because of tensions between Israel and Palestine as well as its neighbors.

It's not known, but Friday's attack may relate to Norway's support for Palestinian sovereignty. Perhaps it was planned and initiated to influence its policy on granting full Palestinian UN membership in September, and may also be part of Washington's Global War on Terror.

Moreover, the notion of a lone bomber/gunman is very suspect, especially one able to kill 91 people, an unprecedented nearly impossible feat singlehanded. Were there others involved?

These and other questions demand answers, as well as specific bombing details, including whether what happened demanded expertise beyond the capability of untrained people.

Who gains and loses from every terror incident must also be asked, certainly not suspects charged, convicted and imprisoned. Geopolitical interests are central. This time Western and Israeli ones are key.

More »

Adnan Al-Daini

Two days ago (22-July-2011) Frank Gardner, the BBC's security correspondent reporting on the terrorist outrage in Norway, speculated that the horrific attack might be "Islamist" inspired with the "al-Qaida" word mentioned. Further speculation then followed as to the likely reasons.

Norway's 400 troops in Afghanistan were advanced as a possible cause why al-Qaida might be responsible. Yesterday morning (23-July-2011) the BBC is reporting a diametrically opposite scenario describing the arrest of a blue-eyed Norwegian as belonging to an extreme rightwing militant group who hate Muslims and multi-culturalism in Norway. Meanwhile, the Sun's headline the same morning (23-July-2011) screams "NORWAY'S 9/11", and above the headline in red capitals 'AL-QAEDA' MASSACRE. It seems Murdoch's Sun has already made up its mind. Terrorism linked to extremism of any hue is deadly, and reporting it responsibly is paramount. Churchill's remark, in another context, of "careless talk costs lives" comes to mind. Extremist groups of any kind are driven by hate. Sensational, inaccurate reporting stokes up this hatred to the point where innocents may suffer, simply because they belong to a certain ethnic or religious group. The humanity of the individual becomes irrelevant, and the hater may only see ethnicity or religion as a justification for violence or even murder.

More »

Craig Murray

I watched the disgraceful Islamophobic rantings on the BBC and Sky News last night in mounting disbelief. Security correspondent and security expert vied with each other to tell us that the dreadful attacks in Norway were the work of al-Qaida. One extraordinary American, introduced as from a Centre for Combating Extremism, explained that these Norwegian jihadists had international links and plans to attack London and the New York subway. Norway was a target, we were repeatedly told, because of its NATO membership.

There was at least six solid hours of this poisonous bullshit. I did not pick up on one single person who said that this probably was not Islamic terrorism – despite the glaringly obvious fact that the atrocity had a Norwegian domestic political agenda, being an attack on the Prime Minister’s office, and on a youth camp of the governing party. The internet was buzzing for hours with the news that the attacker on Utoya Island was blonde, without the broadcast media mentioning it. The American security expert I mention above had that base covered – he had obviously seen those reports, but did not mention them. However he said that jihadist groups had probably recruited European looking operatives to carry out the attacks, because they were aware that security services “consciously or unconsciously operated racial profiling.”

This morning Al Jazeera and Russia Today were carrying the news that the attacker was Anders Breivik – and even a picture of him – while the BBC and Sky still were not, and while they had stopped the blatant Islamophobic ranting, had still not admitted it was not an Islamic militant attack.

I would love to believe that this incident would cause the media to reassess the value of the numerous “security experts” whose companies, institutes, funding, profile and standards of living have been spectacularly boosted by the “War on Terror”. But I doubt it.

More »