Anders Breivik and the Zionist “War on Terror”
Updated August 1, 2011
How did a young man raised in Oslo become a cold-blooded killer obsessed with a fear of Islam?
The atrocity committed by Anders Breivik is a manifestation of the hatred and fear of Islam promoted by the Zionists behind the massive fraud known as the “War on Terror”.
Breivik is an avid Zionist whose motives were predicated on Islamophobia. His ideological influences are libertarian and “neo-conservative.” He was playing his part, albeit as a loose cannon, in the “clash of civilizations.”
– Dr. K. R. Bolton, “Anders Breivik: Neo-Conned”, 29 July 2011
The frightful atrocity of terrorism and mass murder committed by Anders Breivik in Norway has deeply shocked Scandinavians. I have spent much of the past week reading and thinking about the atrocities and the young man from Oslo who carried out these heinous crimes. The best analysis I have read thus far is Dr. K.R. Bolton’s scholarly article entitled “Anders Breivik: Neo-Conned” published online in Foreign Policy Journal. The fact that Breivik’s twisted worldview is in complete agreement with the extremist Zionism of Israel’s Likud party is ignored in the mainstream media reports.
The Norwegian and Swedish papers have reported that the primary focus of the investigation has been to determine if other people were involved in the shooting of the young people on the island near Oslo. There were several eyewitness reports of a second shooter, a man with dark hair and about 180 cm in height. The way that victims at the edge of the water appear to have fallen back, away from the water, seems to indicate they were shot from the water. One survivor from the island has reported that the shooter used a boat during the killing spree. The young man in the following video named Morten (MÃ¥rten) describes (in Norwegian) the shooter changing out of his police uniform and going around the island in a boat shooting at people on the island.
In the video below Morten says the following (translated by Torstein Viddal) in response to the question whether he saw more than one person shooting on the island:
It may be that people have mistakenly thought there were two people, because he was dressed as a policeman in the beginning, but at one point he is said to have taken off the police uniform and jumped into a small boat. And then he is said to have gone around the island for one round. Because during the shooting there was one pretty long gap between shots. But I think I heard a boat, and it fits pretty well with the story I heard from the survivors from the cliffs. So he went around in civilian clothes, I guess with lots of weapons in the boat, and he would wave to the cliffs to see if there were people hiding there, and when they waved back at him…he would come closer and pretend to help them, but then he just assassinated all of them instead.
There are clearly many unanswered questions about how this mass murder was carried out, and exactly who all was involved with Anders Breivik in the planning and execution of the atrocities in Norway.
When I first saw the photos of Breivik posing with a gun in a diver’s wet suit I thought that he must have a military background. Norway does have hundreds of elite troops and snipers fighting with the “Coalition of the Killing” and it seemed likely that Breivik had served with Norwegian troops in Afghanistan. It turns out that Breivik did not serve in Afghanistan but he is, as Dr. K.R. Bolton writes, very much a product of the ‘clash of civilizations’:
Breivik is a product of the “clash of civilizations,” formulated by neo-con ideologues and used by American and Zionist interests to philosophically justify the so-called “war on terrorism.” He is the product of a legacy that is anything but “conservative” in the Western historical sense: he sees himself as an underground resistance fighter against the Islamic occupation of Europe, who, in other circumstances, would be honored as a war hero. He sees Islamic laws and customs taking the place of Western laws.
Breivik grew up on the west side of Oslo, where I spent a couple winters in the 1970s. Breivik was born in February 1979. Norway was then a mono-ethnic society, unlike Britain, France, and Germany which have had significant Muslim minority populations for many decades. Immigration into Norway from non-European nations increased greatly in the 1980s. Today, Norway is no longer a mono-ethnic society. The new immigrants are found mostly in the larger towns, particularly in Oslo.
It is understandable that some Norwegians feel threatened by the sudden influx of new immigrants. Norway has long been a rather isolated country and has received very few immigrants during its modern history. A very large number of Norwegians and Swedes emigrated to America and Canada in the 19th Century leaving Scandinavia with a significantly reduced population. I have met intelligent Norwegians who have openly expressed a deep fear, like Breivik, that Muslims are seeking to take over Norway and Europe. When I listen to them it seems to me that they have swallowed the rhetoric of the “clash of civilizations” — hook, line, and sinker. Breivik seems to be a person who believes every word of the anti-Muslim propaganda pushed by Hollywood and the Zionist-controlled media. In Breivik’s case, he committed an atrocity based on his belief. He probably also believes that Muslim terrorists from Afghanistan destroyed the World Trade Center. There were several Americans who went on shooting rampages after 9/11 believing that Muslims were responsible for the terror attacks.
It should be noted that Norway has 500 combat troops in Afghanistan. Denmark has 730. Sweden has 530. I have written critically about the Norwegian and Scandinavian combat troops fighting in the fraudulent “War on Terror” in Afghanistan, where Norwegian snipers compared the thrill of killing to sex. How does a nation like Norway, I ask, which suffered greatly under Nazi occupation, explain and justify to its peace-loving population why their supposedly peaceful nation is participating in an illegal occupation that is engaged in fighting and killing the people of Afghanistan?
A Norwegian sniper in Afghanistan
This is where contrived provocations like the anti-Muslim cartoons printed in Danish newspapers come in very handy. In the wake of this blatant provocation the Danish people were forced to make a false choice whether their so-called freedom of speech means the Zionist-controlled media has the right to offend other religious communities. As Daniel Pipes, the Zionist Neo-con framed it:
Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise. Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.
The Muslims, who were deeply angered by the offensive images, were portrayed as trying to impose their values on the West. The “freedom of speech” in Scandinavia does not apply to all religious groups equally. It should be noted that the media outlets that published the anti-Muslim cartoons would not, for example, publish articles or cartoons that challenge Zionist claims about “the Holocaust”. The real purpose of publishing the offensive cartoons was to create a false conflict by increasing social tensions between Scandinavians and Muslims. The Breivik atrocity is a frightful manifestation of this artificially created “clash of civilizations”, a false construct that has been imposed on the people of Norway and the West by ruthless Neo-cons to justify the Zionist “War on Terror”.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
K. R. Bolton, “Anders Breivik: Neo-Conned”, 29 July 2011
Bollyn, Christopher, “Norwegian and U.S. Soldiers Kill for Thrills in Afghanistan”, 30 September 2010
Bollyn, “Why the European Press is Provoking Muslims”, 3 February 2006 (and subsequent articles and comments following)
Bollyn, “Understanding the Roots of the Cartoon Scandal”, 9 February 2006
Pipes, Daniel, “Those Danish Cartoons and Me”, New York Sun, 21 February 2006
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.