4 January 2012

Breivik & The Liberia - London connection

The Norwegian police have confirmed that Breivik travelled to Liberia in 2002. They have also released the fact that several of Breivik's friends have confirmed the story of Liberia and 'blood diamonds'.

As far as anyone knows from the information released into the public domain, none of the witnesses spoke about Breivik talking about meeting a Serbian warlord whilst there. They have said that Breivik talked about getting a gun placed to his head and fearing he would be killed as part of a failed deal for diamonds.

Did Breivik get the idea of travelling to the civil war in Liberia in 2002 from his own mind or was he sent there upon invitation for a reason?

If Breivik was told never to tell anyone about his meeting with a Serbian warlord, possibly with a gun to his head as part of the recruitment process, its quite plausible that he would not tell anyone until encouraged to do so i.e the "2083" manifesto which is in-line with what Breivik says was spoken after the London meeting about communication with other members of the group.

The Norwegian police have also confirmed that Breivik was in London in 2002 and 2003, but there is
no evidence to say the London meeting took place.

If I am correct (don't know) Breivik travelled to London 2 weeks after his Liberia trip.

What more evidence do the Norwegian police need? Breivik to actually name the people present so they can all be arrested and prove the meeting took place? or those present to come forward?

Further reading: Alan Lake's friend 'Richard the Lionheart'

That's not the name of the game and is never going to happen unless you water-board him or pump him with some exotic truth syrum.

Breivik travels to one of the most bloody African civil wars, then 2 weeks later on his return travels to London? Its not rocket science.

Are those 2 trips and their time frame apart coincidences with no meaning, or was their reason, meaning and purpose behind both trips which is in-line with what Breivik states? Thus evidence.

You don't sell rough diamonds in London, and from Breivik's witnesses he never returned with any diamonds (to my knowledge), so why did he travel to London on the back of Liberia if he did not have any purchased rough diamonds?

Obviously another reason for travelling that has nothing to do with rough diamonds.

It is the same Norwegian police statement of
no evidence regarding Breivik's Belarus trip. They have confirmed that Breivik travelled to Belarus but say there is no evidence he was paramilitary trained in the Country. They state that he travelled to Belarus to meet a woman he met online, which was obviously a good cover story for him just like the 'blood diamonds'.

The Russians whose intelligence services control that part of the World have released information through the media stating that Breivik travelled to Belarus on the radar and then travelled into the Country off the radar, obviously once he had worked out how to do it. It is stated that the Belarusian Security Services codenamed him the "Viking" after part of his cover story was that he visited the Country to seek out Viking graves there.

Either the Belarusian Security Services have not passed on their files about Breivik to the Norwegian government, thus no evidence of training, or its all a lie about the Belorussians codenaming him the "Viking" and that he was trained there by a former Soviet Colonel who is a Chechen moslem convert.

Where did Breivik get the terrorist idea of targetting children for maximum effect? The only other terrorists I can think of who targetted children were the Chechens in Beslan.

The Norwegian police say that Breivik has not mentioned anything about paramilitary training in Belarus, which if I was sitting in Breivik's seat I would not do either when looking at everything. You never know who else the Belarusian connection has trained as part of Breivik's network/group so why bring suspicion when you do not have to, and he might have been explicitly told not to mention anything about the training camps in Belarus by his trainers. Then its up to others to find out.

Either A) the Norwegian police are stupid in the worlds eyes B) Someone is controlling the Breivik enquiry from the top down, or C) The Norwegian police are acting tactically. I go with B) which is why there has been an attempted white wash of the whole case with the agenda being to make out Breivik was a 'lone wolf' who is now certified, then the public will not want answers on who the group/network with Breivik is because as the "Officials" say "He acted alone", so there is no one else to look for.

Powerful controlling forces seeking to manipulate the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe of the 21st Century for different purposes within Norway.

Or I am wrong and my mind is in the world of conspiracy theories and the 'blood diamond' international jet-setting son of the Norwegian government diplomat to London was radicalised, recruited, trained, and funded whilst watching youtube videos and reading websites and blogs online as part of his psychosis (that he doesn't have) who then went out to commit an act of war in the name of his imaginary friends who call themselves Knights Templars, and left a 1500 page manifesto in the public domain detailing his imaginary world and friends agenda based upon the writings of many main stream commentators.

The story of the lone right-wing crusader...Jackanory.

The official line in Norway that comes from the top down is that none of what Breivik says is true, so the only official diagnosis can be is that he is a paranoid schizophrenic living in his own delusional world. This conflicts with all of the evidence presented to a sane mind though.

Only the Norwegians can know and feel what the cold blooded murder of 69 innocent kids on their summer camp because of their political ideology feels like on the National psyche. We are outside observers who stand back looking on from afar in solidarity because that was a crime against humanity that nobody can condone, and for me personally, whoever is behind Breivik attacked me that day too, only I survived.

"It is better to make the right friends than the wrong enemies" Lionheart

Romans 8:31 - 39
What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:

“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

No comments: