Norway joke moratorium.
(24 posts) (13 voices)
Yeah. Horrendous. Not sure why Norway was a target?
I don't know Waylandy, but why is anyone ever a target?
Completely agree, but Norway, if there was a list of 'pleasant, civilised, decent countries', would have to be top 3. The Muhammad cartoons were from Denmark, weren't they? Normally there's some sort of mindless, twisted excuse, but this seems to be completely out of the blue. Bastards.
Norway has troops in Afghanistan and is involved in Libya. And unused to domestic terrorism, so an easy target.
Attacking a youth camp!
According to some reports, there were dozens of kids hiding in bushes etc to escape.
From the BBC website
Norwegian media reports said the shootings on the island, on the Tyrifjorden lake, were carried out by a man in police uniform.
Police said the suspected gunman had been arrested, and later that he was also linked with the bomb attack. Reports described him as tall and blond.
Completely agree. I love 'doing' dark topics but no one should sub anthing on this. Or what's happening in Somalia for that matter.
I hate rolling news. I'm gawping at this on News 24, knowing I should switch it off, knowing that the circling media helicopters must have annoyed the emergency services below.
I guessed Utoya might mean Utopia,and it did.Looks like the guy had a real message and still does by remaining alive.I thought Dunblane was about as bad as you can get.This guy set a new record for nastiness.
Telegraph reporting 87 dead on the island; looks like a right-wing nut job, not an Islamic nut-job. Horrible.
It's like the guy was playing some kind of sick computer game in his head...
I can't think of a suitable punishment for this level of evil.
I'm actually at a loss for words to describe how this makes me feel.
The reports appear to be saying he is a home-grown madman. It quotes him as anti-muslim. Weird than an horrendous atrosity takes place and even when Muslims are not involved they are mentioned - like muslims are the only extemists. "Interests are bodybuilding and freemasonry" Now there are two areas to ridicule.
I agree; nothing funny here - move along please.
apart from our own predjudice about looking for a muslim connection and theri eagernedd to claim it.
"Norway was targeted today to be a lesson and an example to the other countries of Europe," Nasser said in a statement released on the al Qaeda-linked Shumukh al Islam forum, according to a translation provided by SITE. "Since the Stockholm invasion we had threatened more operations and we demanded that the countries of Europe withdraw their armies from the land of Afghanistan and stop their war on Islam and Muslims. We repeat our warning anew to the countries of Europe, and we say to them: carry out the demands of the mujahideen, because what you are seeing is merely the beginning, and what is coming is more."
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/07/oslo_blast_hits_gove.php#ixzz1Swy2Hcup "Abu Suleiman al-Nasser, an Islamist with links to Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups, claimed responsibility for bomb in Oslo"
Who exactly is "Eager Nedd"?
I work for a major newspaper and received the official released photo of the Norway gunman posing in what looks like special forces gear and aiming a rifle - the picture was tagged with the caption "A photograph BELIEVED to be of Anders Behring Breivik". I can say, with 20 years Photoshop experience behind me, that the photograph was a fake. Head sculpted onto another body - there were a lot of tell-tale signs. The same photo has since appeared in every major newspaper captioned "A photograph OF Anders Behring Breivik".
Why and who would feel the need to fake such a photograph? I would have though that this horrific event was an open and shut case, was there need for evidence to be concocted?
If you don't know the photo I'm talking about check a version out at http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/01a-breivik-shooter-25-07-11.jpg?w=1200&h=1120
I'm not convinced it's a fake - it's cleary been cut out of a background badly, and the lighting matches up across the shot (clearly from a camera built-in flash, hence the lack of any shadows on the face). Oh, and I have around 15-18 years of Photoshop experience too.
The "Marxist Hunter Norway" tag on the arm isn't something a normal Navy Seal would wear either, it could have been added, but I don't think so.
Also, the gun is a Ruger Mini-14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14) which is the gun that Breivik was reported to be using in the massacre, but is NOT a standard special-ops weapon. In fact, it's quite an obscure gun (although fans of the A-Team will remember the chromed version being used in that show)
So, shit photograph, evil subject, but NOT a fake.
And even if it was a fake (which it isn't), you have missed the obvious point:
> Why and who would feel the need to fake such a photograph?
The gunman. For self publicity. He clearly planned this whole thing very well, and controlling the media was important for this.
We'll have to agree to differ on this one. I've went back and checked the high res file again that we were sent and there are just too many imperfections.
The body has been lit by an over-lens flash, straight on, roughly 2-3 inches above the lens. The colour cast on the body is typical of a flash as well. The head however has been lit quite evenly by multiple sources, going by the colour cast probably tungsten lights. There's also no trace of a sharp shadow from the rear rifle sight on the face or in the nostrils.
I'll agree that the most likely candidate for creating the fake was the gunman himself - but why if you already have all the kit and weaponry?
Because he is barking fucking mad.
> There's also no trace of a sharp shadow from the rear rifle sight on the
> face or in the nostrils.
Sigh... Just because something looks wrong doesn't mean it's faked, it's just means in this case the photograph is crap. Go look at the picture again. With an on-camera flash (standard SLR flash) there would be no shadows from the rifle sight - the angle is wrong. I suspect you are misjudging the distance between the eyepiece and his face.
The photo looks to me like it was taken indoors, probably with normal house lighting plus SLR flash.
Maybe you haven't taken as many shit photos as I have - but I can tell you this is totally expected!
of course, if it really was 'shopped, then the original of the SEAL with a different head must be out there somewhere. If so, where?
Gawd, review the Zapruder film and get back to me.
Re faked photo: It has been interesting to read both learned views. May I add my own ignorant view? The eyes aren't even squinting at the sight. The head shot look like the one appearing in all the press but without the gun. Just from the blank expression alone it doesn't appear to fit the pose. But as I said. This is an ignorant opinion from a non-phoshopper..Posted 3 years ago #
Ok - we can agree to differ on this. I've been responsible for a lot of faked photos in my time and this one is setting off a lot of alarms. I could be wrong and I'll probably never know the truth, I could be jumping to conclusions or I could be spot on. Hopefully time will tell.
I was tempted to do a few daft ones of my own - "Anders with Colonel Gaddafi" and "Norway gun man spotted with Paul Burrell" and "Proof Breivik attended Nuremberg Rally in 1933" - but it's probably too soon yet.
Nice to see the press is keeping the 'double barrelled named assassin' trend going though.Posted 3 years ago #
You must log in to post.