Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The Norway Terrorist's Conspiracy Theorists

Someone 9/11 deniers are unlikely to agree with has posited a textbook conspiracy about the Norway terrorist attack. It is a piece posted on a young website called Right Side News, and the reason mold-cut deniers are unlikely to agree with the author is because her conspirator of choice is the monolithic, homogeneous group known as “Muslims.”

Right from its opening sentence, you know what’s going to be said:

"Speaking the Truth in Times of Universal Deceit is a Revolutionary Act." George Orwell

And from there is heads straight to the classic conspiracy theorist move: the faux-careful scrutiny of the timeline:

—3:26 p.m.: A car bomb explodes outside the prime minister's office in central Oslo.
—By 6 p.m.: The team arrives at the lake, but it struggles to find a boat to cross over.

—6:20 p.m.: The SWAT team arrives on the island.

So, basically it took 3 long hours for the Norwegian SWAT team to take control of the situation, after over 90 dead...?

Because given Norway’s long-running problem with domestic terrorism (/sarcasm), it is clearly “suspicious” that its ersatz SWAT teams had a hard time responding to this terrorist attack in particular.

Initial media reports that are of course 100% accurate:

However, despite the fact that supporters of the “Global Jihad” terror group had claimed responsibility for the act, authorities and media seemed reluctant to accept that and have rather come with unique information about the perpetrator:

This is wrong on two counts. One, the New York Times of all places was the first source I found initially attributing the attack to “Movement of the Global Jihad,” retracting the story only later. Two, so far reporting on the actual terrorist almost unanimously references the one source of insight into his psyche, his enormous anti-liberal screed posted online years ago. So there isn’t much original reporting going on, and media were exactly as quick to rush to blame as they’ve been so criticized for doing.

The author then begins to build the rather pathetic case that Norway is actually secretly target number one for religious extremists worldwide:

Other important issues touching a nerve within the Muslim world are the Oslo accords between Israel and Palestinians, signed in 1993.

But Norway also has troops in Afghanistan -and because of that, Ayman al-Zawahiri made threats against Norway then.

Mullah Krekar, founder of the Al Qaeda-linked-terror-group Ansar al-Islam had issued death threats against Norwegians politicians if they chose to deport him.

To add one more ingredient to this melting pot: A Norwegian newspaper re-printed the infamous Propher Mohammad cartoons -those that were first published in Denmark.

I do not believe for a second, that Muslim extremists and Muslim terrorists who knew and planned the massacres of 9/11 in America, have stopped wanting to inflict serious damage to Western civilization.

While I have no tangible proof right now, there are symbols and signs that appear throughout the Oslo attacks, such as the use of an American “detail”: the Oklahoma City bombing style -used for the first part of the attack against the government building.

Metrics by which Denmark, the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. score much more highly on the “threat to fundamentalist Islam” list.

In the past, in Israel, some Muslim terrorist bomb attacks have been committed on some few occasions by Muslims disguised as Israeli policemen or as Orthodox Jews.

So, I am wondering what would stop the school of evil 9/11 planners to engineer an attack by a local man from Norway, to perform this massacre and give it enough appearance that it’s a Christian fundamentalist -when in reality it may all well have been as perfectly planned as those airplanes that hit the Twin Towers, the World Trade Center, 10 years ago.

This is exactly as duplicitous, dishonest, and context-free as any conspiracy theorist claim about Israel or Donald Rumsfeld when it comes to 9/11. It operates along the exact same logic: weak induction, speculation, and obviously a pre-destined conclusion.

I’m no fan of Islam. This blog is equal-opportunity critical of extremists, however: it seems as reasonable to me that a fundamentalist, overtly-bigoted unstable person who happens to be from country X could be inspired to commit acts of violence as one from country Y. This author has provided no reason to believe her except by pivoting in a direction that will appeal to her audience.

My challenge to 9/11 deniers is thus. I suspect you are motivated not to believe that there is any such thing as Islamic terrorism, and are indeed motivated to find the NATO strings at the top of the Norwegian puppet. But why do you reject this conspiracy theory? What is it doing wrong? What’s the underlying logical fault with its reasoning that is absent from your own theories? I’m genuinely curious to hear what Eliana Benador is doing wrong, in your minds.


Unka Drak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unka Drak said...

Blogger Unka Drak said...

Hello. I'm not a 911 "denier". It happened. Planes hit buildings. Thousands died. What I deny is the veracity of the "official story", which has way too many holes in it. I am also fully aware that there IS such a thing as Islamic terrorism, but there is also Christian terrorism as per Mr. Brevik, and Jewish terrorism, as demonstrated against the Palestinians frequently. In fact there's terrorism springing from most religions, and way too many governments.

But you want another take on the difference between wanting the truth, and trying to apply a personal filter to fairly obvious events. So, forgive me if I forego "faulty induction and weak reasoning." Let's apply Occam's razor to Anders Brevik's actions. He was by his own published admissions, anti-socialist. He joined a Christian cult that called for "purification" of Europe. He blamed the socialists for allowing Islam to flourish in Norway. He then killed young socialists. No further complications are necessary to explain his actions.

Unlike with 911, none of the observed facts fly in the face of the official story. None of his alleged crimes require the local suspension of physics in order to be possible.

One other thing that is drastically different between the two events, is that Anders Brevik is being treated as a criminal, and the scenes of his crimes were treated as crime scenes.

Not so with 911. Evidence was destroyed. There was no investigation of whether arson was involved. No attempt was made at reconstructing the remains of the "collapse" floors even though it was possible, and eyewitnesses were actively ignored in politicized, underfunded "investigations". Lies concerning the construction of the buildings were promulgated officially, in order to make the "collapse" seem more plausible. I could go on, and get into far greater detail, but I will relent. I think I've made my point concerning the differences in the two events. Apply Occam's razor, and you get: Anders Brevik acted out and killed. You also get: 911 probably involved preparing the buildings for demolition, since that is a simpler explanation than a local suspension of Newton's Laws of Motion, a drastic change in the fundamental strength and working properties of steel, and a sudden, previously unobserved ability for jet fuel (effectively kerosene) to melt steel at a thousand degrees less than the melting point of steel.

One other big difference: Norway didn't use Brevik's actions as an excuse to start blowing up uninvolved Christians half a world away, in furtherance of theft.