Can we believe anything Breivik says?

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 25, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik

Is Anders Behring Breivik, the alleged terrorist who blew up a government building in Oslo, Norway a reliable source for the public to learn why and how he carried out the attack? His acquaintance and co-worker, Ulav Andersson, says he may have been brainwashed.

Kim Heger, the Norwegian judge seeing the case, has determined that Breivik must remain hidden in a cell under solitary confinement, away from everyone and everything. Official statements from Norwegian justice say that the supposed bomber has confessed to working with two other cells, and the judge has given him 8 weeks of detention while more details surface.

According to Reuters, the suspect confessed to using bombs and participating in the shootings, but did not admit guilt. However, the court has denied requests to elaborate on Breivik’s claims that he worked with two other cells or organizations and any extra details of the plot, where the cells are located, possible members, where he got to be part of the cells and so on.

There are some questions one can raise about Anders Behring Breivik and his recent past that could help clarify the reasons for him allegedly participating in the attacks. For example, sas he seeing a Psychiatrist recently? Was he taking any medication, such as psychotropics? Who was he in contact with, friends, associates etc… in the days, weeks and months before the attacks? Did he travel to foreign countries in the recent past? Was he enlisted to participate or did he participated in Norway’s mandatory military service? What was he trained in: military intelligence?

As we reported last night, Oslo’s and Utoya’s attacks have very serious tones of a false-flag attack, however it will not be until the above posed questions are answered that we will be able to definitely say whether it is or not. The fact that Breivik acted alone or otherwise as part of a cell, does not tell much about whether he is a patsy or not. What is strange as the news continue to develop, is that Norwegian authorities are being sketchy about the information they put out. If they believe people should know Breivik confessed to participating in the attacks, shouldn’t the public also be awarded elaborated reports about what he has told police?

The practice of skimming information and feeding only little bits of it could be seen as a tactic by police not to interrupt or cause harm to their investigation, but if they already have the alleged bomber confessing to the crime, what else is there to know? Would not Breivik provide all the information police needs to continue their work? On the other hand, and given recent history, it is more likely that authorities prefer not to reveal details because they may have to come out and correct parts that do not make sense in order to keep people unaware of the real facts. It is much easier to control information when there is only one person making public statements about this terrorist attack than when there are 2 or 3.

In any case, what credibility does any statement from Breivik has as he has already changed his story twice in three days? If he was brainwashed as Andersson suggested, there is even less credibility on anything he says.  “The accused has made statements today that require further investigation, including that ‘there are two more cells in our organization,” judge Heger said during a news conference.

UPDATE (25 JULY 1, 35 PM):

Norwegian authorities now say the death toll is lower than what was published prematurely. A total of 76 individuals and NOT 92.