Questions on the Oslo massacre

Before I begin this article, let me say something: I don’t have enough information to form any definite views on the why of the massacre in Oslo. However, as information comes in, I may be able to give a more coherent analysis. Or not.

But, as far as things stand, let’s go over what happened and see where it gets us:

First, a bomb explodes near the Prime Minster’s office, killing seven people and leaving the centre of the city “devastated”.

Then someone goes to an island some kilometres away where a youth camp organised by the same party which leads the government in power (the Labour Party) is being held, and opens fire, killing an incredible 84 (at last count, which is allegedly likely to rise) people.

Right away, the New York Times declares that the “jihadis” had claimed responsibility for the attack, and there’s a lot of expression of support for Norway, a “loyal member” of NATO and an “enthusiastic participant” in the (murderous) occupation of Afghanistan and the (no less murderous) bombing of Libya. It seems another bit of blowback, like the Madrid or London bombings – payback for taking part in the Empire’s imperial colonisation freedom project.

But then it is that the set story begin to fall apart.

For starters, so it is now claimed, the entire attack was the handiwork of just one man – a wealthy 32-year-old businessman, Anders Behring Breivik, who happens to be a right-wing fundamentalist Christian (and possibly a Freemason) who had access to two guns, and was a former soldier, and who's been arrested rather than killed by the SWAT-type team that arrived at the island.

So, mystery solved, more or less; the shooting was the work of one lone lunatic.

I beg your pardon for asking these questions then:

1. With all the best will in the world, I find it difficult to believe one man shot dead more than eighty, and possibly over a hundred people, in addition to manufacturing and planting more than one explosive device (read bomb). Imagine the volume of firepower he had to deploy to achieve that amount of killing. Since the victims weren’t waiting in line to be shot – some were apparently gunned down while trying to swim away – he must have been either the best goddamn shot ever, or he must have laid down a terrific amount of automatic fire – and that in multiple directions. How much ammunition was he carrying on him? Was he dressed up like Rambo with cartridge belts draped all over? Did he stack it up on the island in advance? Why didn't anyone find it then? Why the hell didn’t someone notice him before he started shooting? I read that he “dressed up as a police officer”. Do policemen in Norway go around weighed down with assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition, in addition to bombs?  

2. Now that we’ve been told that Muslim jihadists were not responsible for the attacks, suddenly it becomes the handiwork of “a lone madman”. If it was a Muslim, however, you can bet your life he wouldn’t have been a “madman”, but a terrorist. These days a Muslim has only to put a foot out of line to be called a “terrorist”, as we all know. Isn’t this racist? Of course it is. But who in the circles of power cares about a little thing like racism (“Anti-Semitism” excepted, of course)?

3. Now that it’s been declared that Breivik was acting “alone”, do we have to assume there is no active Christian fundamentalist terrorist organisation active in Norway?

4. The massacre in Norway was a terrible tragedy, true, and will be treated as one; but how is it worse than the violence the same NATO, of which Norway is such an “enthusiastic and loyal participant”, is dishing out against civilians on a daily basis in Afghanistan and Libya? Without diminishing the losses of the Norwegians’ families, how is the suffering of Afghan or Libyan families less? But will those non-white, Muslim families get a miniscule fraction of the time and attention? Of course not.

5. It’s being mentioned repeatedly that Breivik was anti-globalist, apart from being a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. Since we all know that anti-globalisation is one of the few things on which the left and the far right can agree, is it an attempt to tar the anti-capitalist peoples’ movement with the massacre/neo-Nazi/fundamentalist Christian brush?

6. Apparently, a jihadist group claimed responsibility for the attack, but it was obviously not responsible. Let’s remember that to this day nobody has proved that Al Qaeda carried out the 11/9 attacks on the World Trade Centres, though the argument goes that Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility post facto, proving that he indeed did do it. While I wouldn’t believe a word the Empire says, on any topic, if one jihadist claim of responsibility can be proved demonstrably false, how is bin Laden’s alleged claim sacrosanct? Do we believe jihadist claims only when it’s convenient for us to do so?

That said, I’m profoundly glad that the perpetrator of this massacre is not a Muslim. If he was, it’s absolutely, a hundred percent certain that this would be seized on by the Empire-controlled media to call for a land invasion of Libya and/or a bombing campaign against Iran, not to speak of further support for the Zionazi pseudostate’s oppression of the Palestinian people.

In the coming days, we’ll have a lot of stuff on the media about this. Talking heads will bloviate on this and that, and the gun lobbies will (as usual) agitate for arming each and every person to render them able to "fight back" against gunmen. What we won’t have, of course, is a logical discussion of Christian fundamentalism, knee-jerk Islamophobia and blowback from murderous and immoral wars abroad.

That would upset too many applecarts.

Edit: This article shows how everything is now the fault of Al Qaeda, even when it isn't. As I said, everything is now the fault of Muslims, even when it isn't.