11 December 2011

Questioning the ‘lone wolf’ scenario

Update: The credibility of Keith Wilberg's 'official' conclusion

Update: French terrorist was not a 'lone wolf'

Further reading:
Alan Lakes friend Richard the Lionheart

Further reading: EDL financial backers linked to Breivik enquiry

Further reading: Breivik owed no money to bank

Further reading:
Luton bombers secret accomplices

Quote: He appeared to be a ‘lone wolf’ suicide bomber, who blew himself up on the streets of Sweden in an act of solitary vengeance against the country’s presence in Afghanistan. But a fresh investigation into Luton bomber Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly’s last 24 hours before his attack in Stockholm has exposed some glaring holes in the lone suicide bomber theory. Swedish prosecutors, who examined evidence from December 11 last year, have questioned how the unemployed father-of-three was able to finance his mission.

If the Norwegian prosecutors stick with the ‘lone wolf’ scenario with regards to Anders Breivik then any future examination of the evidence is going to come to exactly the same conclusion as the Swedish, and that is that there are glaring holes with no explanation other than the fact that it was not a 'lone wolf' attack.

There is enough contradictory evidence in the public domain already that puts to rest the notion that Breivik acted completely alone, although the Norwegians are at pains to admit this for some reason.

The Swedish suicide bombers actions are rooted in his radicalisation in Luton which is the area I am from, and he comes from a long line of UK based Islamic terrorist acts that have originated in the area, and was the whole reason this blog was set up in the first place in 2007.

To say that Anders Breivik was radicalised, trained and “financed” online through watching youtube videos, reading blogs and websites whilst interacting on extreme right-wing forums defies belief. The one key point to bring to attention there is the financing of his operation just like with the Swedish bomber.

Where did Anders Breivik get the money to finance his whole terrorist attack from? From planning and preparing for it over a length of time, to actually committing the acts themselves?

It is public knowledge that Breivik moved back to his mother’s house and lived with her and had no financial means or income, this is supported by his sisters claims about her worries and fears concerning her brother.

So how did Breivik go from being homeless and penniless living at his mother’s house, to renting out a large farm and then buying all the necessary equipment to carry out his terrorist attack?

A glaring hole unless the Norwegian police have different evidence to support the ‘lone wolf’ theory.

There are countless glaring holes in the whole case that completely shatter the ‘lone wolf’ scenario, but for some reason the Norwegian public are force fed that Breivik was a lone nut who successfully carried out the worst mass murder in Europe of the 21st Century, all alone from the confines of his bedroom whilst playing video games.

Are you kidding me?

The other main key point that I continually point out here on this blog is Breiviks trip to Libera in 2002, that I know is a fact because I was told in police interview that it was a fact. This is where “Operation Breivik” began and any explanation about Breivik's acts now have to be understood in light of that key piece of information.

Nobody would have traveled to Liberia in 2002 during the civil war in the Country unless they were invited, and invited by someone credible enough for Breivik to have believed he would be safe there, and what was the real purpose of him going there in the first place?

This is the birth and baptism of Anders Breivik the political terrorist.

What happened after this event is the historical evidence that led to July 22nd 2011, which includes the meeting in London in 2002, with Anders Breivik’s connections then being made to a wider group of people who had an extreme right-wing political agenda and were willing if need be, to use violence to further that agenda. For whatever reason Anders Breivik was the one chosen to be the first person from within the group to carry out an atrocity on their behalf. He was probably chosen because from their point of view, he was willing to go that step further, which would fit in with the explanation of his psychology assessment that is based upon his family background.

A willing sacrifice with a mind pumped full of ideas by those intelligent enough not to commit the acts themselves, of Breivik being a Knight, Commander, and Hero and the Saviour of the Norwegian people if he commits the terrorist attack and starts their terror campaign, based upon an justified by Fraudman's writings.

To say and believe that Anders Breivik was a ‘lone wolf’, then you might as well leave some mince pies and whisky out for Santa Clause this Christmas.

For reason we don’t know, it seems easier for the prosecutors to claim ‘lone wolf’ and then they do not have to go after the network behind Breivik that is fraught with difficulties but how does that serve justice for the memory of the 69 innocence murdered on Utoya island, or the 8 government employees killed in the bomb blast?

If there are people behind Breivik then do not the Norwegians have a responsibility to bring them to justice rather than let them walk free until the next time they commit a similar terrorist attack?

Where are the credible Norwegian counter terrorism officials giving their opinions on Anders Breivik and his terrorist attack?

Do they have any?

A quote from a Swedish expert about the Luton based Swedish suicide bomber taken from the news article: Magnus Ranstorp, research director at the Swedish National Defence College and a leading
counter-terrorism expert, told CNN: 'My understanding is that there was a level of sophistication in the detonation mechanisms and the wiring,.’

Swedish authorities say they continue to investigate whether Abdulwahab was linked to terrorists overseas, or received help in carrying out the attack.

Anders Breivik’s terrorist attack was far more sophisticated than this one in Sweden, yet we are led to believe by the Norwegian prosecutors that this was all the work of a ‘lone wolf'.


No comments: