Norway Plans: Nuke Attack on Eiffel Tower

6
672
Beefed Up Security at Eiffel Tower after Nuke threats

Breivik:  Nuke Attack on the Eiffel Tower

A Google Translation from French

From Slate France
In Breivik’s manifesto chapter dedicated to dirty bombs  in the capitals of Western Europe, he explains that its “knights cells vigilantes” must take into account to detonate a dirty bomb. In addition to the level of radioactivity and dispersion and transportability of the explosive device, he asks them to carefully select their targets.

It would be better to choose locations close to tourist attractions, government buildings or any other “symbolic place  chosen to cause maximum damage of ideological, psychological and economic nature”:

“Just imagine how much damage ideological, psychological and economic plan is cause Marxist cultural / multicultural if the French had to leave the Eiffel Tower, and create a cordon of a kilometer away for decades to come. The total damage converted into economic losses to the plan would amount to hundreds of billions of euros and may cause a chain reaction that would lead to the fall of the regime. “

Anders Breivik, How Dangerous?

Anders Breivik Monday, July 25 appeared in court in Oslo. He acknowledged the facts, but pleaded not guilty, saying he wanted to protect his country and Europe against Islam and Marxism. He was remanded in custody and faces up to 21 years in prison, which is the maximum sentence in Norway. Norwegian law “allows many remission” according to AFP. But if the court believes there is a risk of recurrence and that the individual is always dangerous at the end of his sentence, however, it may extend only in increments of five years renewable. Breivik can theoretically remain in prison for life.

The unanswered Questions:

  • How did the double attack work?
  • Why did the police take so long to end the massacre?
  • Who is Anders Breivik Behring?
  • Is it part of a far-right movement?
  • How did he get his weapons?
  • Breivik and France
  • What risk does it?

How did the double attack?

Oslo, 3:20 p.m., July 22. A bomb exploded in the district that houses much of the country’s government buildings, killing at least seven people dead and many injured. “I was in Afghanistan I have seen explosions, but never anything like” we told a Norwegian journalist. The blast killed seven people. Responsible for this attack would be Anders Breivik.

Utoya Island, 16:50. Anders Breivik, dressed in uniform of police coming and saying to protect people on the island, opened fire on people attending the summer school of young Norwegian Labour Party, a few kilometers from Oslo . For an hour and a half, it draws on people who cross his path, and methodically killing the people he surprised in their tents or the wounded and those who attempt to escape by swimming. The record of the killing of 68 dead and many wounded and some dead Monday, July 25.

Why did the police take so long to end the massacre?

As the author of the massacre opened fire shortly before 17h, the unit of anti-terrorist police from Oslo who arrested arrived on the island at 18:25, about half past one after the first shots. Several factors explain this period: the first calls from teenagers on the island are not considered by the emergency services, which only respond to calls related to the explosion in Oslo. The police received the first warning of what happens to Utoya at 17:27.





Then came the special unit drive from Oslo (45 km from Utoya) because “we should bring in a helicopter to a base south of Oslo and it would have taken longer,” according the head of the Oslo police.

When the police arrive on the shores of the lake, it can not pass right away, “most of the boats were already on the lake in search of victims and others too small for these heavily equipped police,” wrote Associated Press. The boat that takes the police unit then “took water, and the engine stopped,” according to local police because it was overloaded, which further delayed the arrival of law enforcement .

Who is Anders Breivik Behring?

Friday, July 22 stopped on the island of Utoya Anders Breivik Behring, 32, was charged Saturday for two attacks in Norway the same day. According to his lawyer Geir Lippestad, “he acknowledges the facts” but does not consider itself “guilty”, Aftenposten reported. He said nothing he did not deserve to be punished: he would have explained several times during questioning that he had done was “horrible but necessary,” according to NRK. He claims “the use of terrorism as a means to awaken the masses.”

Is it part of a far-right movement?
The thirty-blond shoulder-length hair and light eyes, as shown in the photo used on his Facebook profile, is presented by police as a “Christian fundamentalist”, close to the theses of the extreme right and very critical toward multiculturalism of Norwegian society. According to TV2, Anders Breivik Behring was a member of a Masonic lodge, Den Norske Frimurerorden. He also belonged to the Populist Party of Norway, the Progress Party (FrP) between 1999 and 2006.

A document of 1500 pages and shows a video Behring Anders Breivik has posted (or is put online) indicate in detail the plan preparation of the attacks of July 22. In the video posted on YouTube (it lasts just over 12 minutes) and divided into four parts (1. The emergence of cultural Marxism, 2. Colonisation of Islam, 3. Hope 4. A New Beginning), he argues that Marxists have invaded the European society since the Soviet flag was hoisted on the German Parliament (Reichstag) in 1945. The period 1968-2011 is described as “Marxist cultural rape of Europe” and Western Europe as a “cultural Marxist dictatorship in which schools and media companies are run by people with a multicultural view of the world.”

Breivik How did he get his weapons?

Breivik is a member of shooting club in Oslo since 2005 and has three weapons registered in his name according to the Norwegian newspaper VG: a Glock pistol, a rifle and a shotgun.

According to the Belgian RTL site, the Norwegian arms has been reinforced in 2009, and “possession of weapons is no longer allowed only for hunters, collectors and practicing target shooting” with a criminal record blank. According to the Guardian, the gun law is particularly strict in Norway, but easy to circumvent. In his manifesto of 1500 pages, Breivik explains how he obtained his firearms. In September 2010, he wrote:

“I must now buy a semi-automatic rifle and a Glock legally. […] I have no criminal record so there is no reason for rejecting my request. “

Breivik and France

One who has confessed to the bombing of Oslo and the killing of Utoya feels ambivalent feelings for France and the French in his 1518 manifesto pages.

On the one hand, he considers “the epicenter of the Islamization of Europe.” Marseille and won first place in its list of cities with the highest percentage of Muslims, 38% in 2008 according to him, that does not explain how it reached this number or its forecast of 51% in 2030.

Breivik added that “the French disease progresses. It is chronic and terminal will enter. ” Behring Anders Breivik is “disillusioned about the case of France,” notes Le Figaro, he fears that the riches and nuclear weapons “fall into the hands of jihadist Muslims.”

At the same time, he sees in our country one of the main potential armed wings of his battle plan against the “Muslim invader,” and takes on several occasions in France as an example of the different stages.

 

 

U.S. SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA) U.S. SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA) HOLDS A NEWS CONFERENCE ON HURRICANE KATRINA RELIEF

Washington Transcript Service October 7, 2005

Washington Transcript Service 10-07-2005 SENATOR LANDRIEU HOLDS A NEWS CONFERENCE ABOUT HURRICANE KATRINA RELIEF OCTOBER 7, 2005 SPEAKERS: SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU (D-LA) [*] LANDRIEU: I’m going to give a very brief statement and then just answer your questions.

I, as you know, did not object to the Vitter-Frist bill, because it was obvious to me, after weeks and months of negotiation, that this was going to be what the Senate was going to pass. And I thank all the senators that negotiated in good faith through the night to get to this point.

But, again, I think I’ve made my points very clear, that the Gulf Coast states have been basically forced by the Republican leadership in the House to accept help under conditions that have never been imposed on any state, city, region, county, sheriff, mayor ever before in the history of the country.

This offer could be viewed by many as an offer that challenges dignity and does it in a way that would question the respect in which it is offered.

I think those principles are worth fighting for: dignity, respect. So we did the best we could and fought for as long as we could.

I’m still hopeful, because hope springs eternal, that the House leadership will see the error of their ways and recognize that it’s going to be very difficult to explain to people who they will send $400 billion to Iraq and overseas and to our military actions — although our military people most certainly deserve all of our support — and how we can send billions of dollars out of the treasury and yet not provide the desperate loans necessary for the cities along the Gulf Coast. And when you do provide them under the terms of this, they’re provided in discriminatory fashion.

But that was the best that they were willing to offer. It’s not what we needed. But we’ve got to move forward. As I said, this debate will continue, and that’s basically where we are at this moment.

QUESTION: In your opinion, when did the attitude toward helping the Gulf Coast change up here on Capitol Hill?

The emphasis certainly seems to be far more on offsets, accountability, transparency, minding the store now than on compassion in dealing with the Gulf Coast. And I’m wondering if you fear that some of that may be a backlash to the $250 billion plan that you and Senator Vitter unveiled that sparked such criticism.

LANDRIEU: No, I don’t think it’s a backlash.

I think it may be an excuse to not act because the leadership on the Republican side didn’t want to act anyway. So they’re looking for a lot of excuses. And that could be one that they’re trying to use.

But the compassion of the American people is still there as they figure out a way as to how we are going to rebuild this nation.

And as we’ve said, the framework that we let out was a blueprint or a framework for action that is going to have to take time from the immediate needs to the intermediate needs to the long-term needs. And whether people like the number or not, whether they reject it or not, we have estimates of about $200 billion over 10 years to 20 years based on some capital improvements that need to be made, like a first- rate levee system.

Since we’ve been given third-class FEMA and discriminatory loan policies, perhaps now we can shift the debate to a first-class levee system.

Because until we get some confidence that we are going to be able to find a way, the resources to build a first-class levee system, all the tax credits and tax incentives, in my opinion, that you can give are not going to be enough for people to rebuild in a place where they could flood again.

People have been so devastated and lost so much.

So I would argue that really that’s an excuse to not do what they didn’t want to do in the first place because they’ve basically, the leadership, has run such a deficit, there’s no money to do anything, they don’t want to do anything. And so they use any excuse to, sort of, camouflage their inability and unwillingness to act.

QUESTION: Is there more, to your judgment, to how this loan is structured and whether or not the loan can be forgiven?

LANDRIEU: There are two major objections.

One is that it’s the first time in the nation’s history that these loans under the Stafford Act would be treated in this fashion.

LANDRIEU: And even more difficult is the language that’s in this act that basically says, “And in the future people will be treated fairly, but for right now just the Gulf Coast, you all are under a special — Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama — under a not- so-special deal, a discriminatory deal which we repeal the opportunity for loan cancellation.” So in other words, the law that we were forced to accept under the guise of a compromise says, “We know in the past we’ve helped cities, and we will in the future, but for you, for right now for the Gulf Coast, we’re not going to do it.” And I would say basically because the leadership doesn’t have the money, they don’t want to find the money and they’re using any excuse to pretend like they’re helping but when the help is really needed, they want to do something else. go to site act question of the day

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) LANDRIEU: Correct. It is expressly prohibited, and I will read you the sentence that is the most offensive.

Line 8, and this is brand new language just for us:

“Notwithstanding Section 417 of the Stafford Act, such loans may not be canceled.” That’s never been in any law before. And we even offered an amendment that would say the loans could be canceled, as they have been in the past, but only with congressional approval. They rejected that.

We even said only with OMB approval. They rejected that.

So they insisted on this discriminatory language. It must mean something to them. They must be wanting to make a point.

The point they’re trying to make I’m not sure, but they are trying to make one. I’m trying to figure out what that point is. But it is discriminatory.

“The amount of such loans, notwithstanding any section, may not be canceled.” Now, some people have indicated that the reason that that was put in there is because we asked for the lifting of the cap.

LANDRIEU: But that is not accurate, as you know. Because the cap has been lifted before. So the cap could be lifted — that is not.

And there is no express language in this language — another concern of mine, our sheriffs have really been through the mill. Sheriffs from Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, Plaquemines, St. Tammany, these sheriffs and their deputies held up these communities, along with their mayors and other local officials. But the sheriffs and deputies are first responders.

I felt very strongly, and the people of our state feel very strongly, that the sheriffs should also be able to borrow money. There is nothing in this language that indicates that that will be possible.

And the reason is is because sheriffs in Louisiana are under a different code. We have elected sheriffs. And so we asked for clarification for sheriffs. They refused.

It’s also been indicated that there’s something in this two-page law that will allow Ochsner Hospital, West Jefferson and East Jefferson, the three hospitals and maybe one or two others, like Slidell Memorial, that stayed up — in the region, when everything was collapsing, these doctors and nurses stayed up for 24 hours, 48 hours, and are still up, never closed their doors, and are the only basis of health care in the region that is devastated — hospitals.

We wanted to let them borrow some money — borrow. And it was not included.

There was one thing else I wanted to clarify.

QUESTION: Senator, is it your understanding that the White House also insisted on that provision that it not be forgiven?

LANDRIEU: It is my impression. I spoke to Andy Card last night, late, and asked him. I said, “If you could just clarify this, because I’ve been giving you all a break, really. I thought it was really the House leadership. But if you all are objecting too, I’d, kind of, like to know. So get back to me.” And I never got a call back, so I have to assume that the White House is insisting that this language be in there as well.

Now, the House is still considering this, so I guess the White House still has time to send a letter and say, “No, it’s not our intention to treat them differently.” But we haven’t seen anything yet.

QUESTION: Senator, how frustrated generally are you with the tenor and the pace of the rebuilding funds and the rebuilding efforts?

QUESTION: And do you think that after the Tennessee Valley Authority type commission that oversees this…

LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, I want to say something.

It is not a personal frustration that I hope I’m expressing. It is an advocacy for the people of my state who are very frustrated, who are at the end of their rope, who have been promised and promised and they now feel like they’re actually being misled. People make a lot of promises, but they’re not seeing a lot of follow-through.

And FEMA is virtually unable to function. We have new leadership. We appreciate the change in leadership. But, as I’ve said, you can’t fix a mammoth agency like this by changing the person at the top and expect it to change in a week.

It was under-resourced, underorganized, and it doesn’t have the independence it once did. But yet, despite the president acknowledging that himself — and others — they continue to send billions and billions and billions of dollars through an agency that is not functioning.

Meanwhile, our mayors, our sheriffs, our hospitals, our schools are closing and desperate to stand up. So we thought: Why not shift $1 billion or even $750 million — we would have taken that. I would have taken $500 million.

It wasn’t the number. We needed some money to get directly to them for three months. I say the number didn’t matter — the number mattered to a certain extent, because we’re trying to cover three months’ operating expenses for those that would need it.

And I didn’t want to have to be put in a position of saying to New Orleans, “You get your three months, but Slidell, you can only get two months and, Lake Charles, you can only get one month.” And so I didn’t want that. I wanted enough so that if anyone needed it for three months, and they could justify it — not to me, but to the administration; they have to justify it — that they could get it.

LANDRIEU: But we couldn’t manage to convince the administration or the House to get that done.

QUESTION: Senator, since Katrina you and Senator Vitter and the entire delegation have presented a very united front (OFF-MIKE). You were clearly on opposite sides with Senator Vitter over this, and after the vote today he made some very unflattering comments about — without naming you specifically — about your role in this. in our site act question of the day

Is this going to affect the way you two and your delegation can work together over the next few months as you try to respond to this crisis?

LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, no matter what Senator Vitter said, I’m not going to respond in kind or in an unflattering way to him.

I said that I respect his hard work and always have. Just because I respectfully disagree with some of the positions doesn’t mean that we can’t continue to work together.

And I’ll say, number two, we had the same position. We had the same position. We wanted sheriffs included. We wanted hospitals included.

We wanted the money under the normal way. We wanted to lift the cap.

We fought together, through the week, through the month. But there came a point where it became clear to me that no matter what we were going to do, the House leadership was going to say, “No; not acceptable.”

And then it became clear to me that they wouldn’t accept anything that was reasonable. And at that point, we chose to take separate action.

I went to the floor and sat in my seat and held the floor, with some success, I think, hopefully, in terms of outlining the debate; was not able to speak because the Republican leadership would not allow me to speak. As you know, you normally can speak in a filibuster, but was not allowed. But carried through with the night to try to get to the end.

Senator Vitter decided there was no more use in trying, and that was a decision he made. I am not going to criticize him for that decision.

But I felt like it was worth — and still do to this day — the time to try to make the case for our state, for the Gulf Coast, for the American people, because this may be just one debate, there will be hundreds of debates to come, and this precedent was important to set.

QUESTION: Senator, you said Republican senators have helped in the negotiations. Did Senator Lott and/or Senator Cochran join in these negotiations? Did they support your position?

LANDRIEU: They were in some of the early meetings this week, yes. They were in some of the meetings this week. They weren’t on the floor last night. But we’ve had several meetings with Gulf Coast senators.

They’ve been very engaged in these discussions, as well as Senator Frist.

LANDRIEU: Senator Stevens — I mean, he stayed on the floor. Of course, it was his bill.

QUESTION: Why aren’t the Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama delegations — I’m just, sort of, wondering why you’re not presenting a united front. It seemed like you were together in the beginning, but now you’ve, sort of, gone your separate ways in how you want to try to get relief for your states.

LANDRIEU: Well, I don’t know if we ever were together in the beginning, but I’m not saying we’re apart now.

The states are very different in the way the hurricane has hit them.

Alabama has minimal damage, Mississippi has substantial damage and Louisiana has devastating damage. Texas has minimal. And I don’t use those terms to demean what they have, but relatively speaking.

There are also different laws that govern Louisiana and Mississippi. For one, for instance, I don’t believe Mississippi is prevented from borrowing money in their constitution to provide loans to local governments.

But as a former state treasurer, I know that we are, by our constitution.

So this was our only hope, and still is.

The state of Louisiana cannot borrow money and give it for operating expenses to local governments; it is prohibited by our constitution.

Even if we could change our constitution, which we may have to do — it might be on the table — you can’t change it in a week or two. And even if you could manage to call the legislature in, get a constitutional amendment passed, I don’t know how you have an election with a third of your polling places underwater and 2 million of your people displaced.

So those were some considerations of why we felt like the Stafford Loan was our best, quickest help.

And in addition, we didn’t ask for any additional money, but one of the $43 billion that’s basically sitting in the FEMA bank account. So we were trying to say we’re not adding money to the deficit. This is already being appropriated. Obviously, based on letters from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and others, we needed the money directly. We thought this was a good way.

Now, this will help Mississippi and it will help Alabama and Texas. But as these states put their plans together, they won’t all be alike because our needs are different.

And in addition, let me just say for Louisiana, not only is the devastation worse, but the infrastructure that we have in our state that is not in Mississippi, that’s not in Alabama, is so essential to the national commerce and trade, because it’s the largest port system in the continent.

And if you look on the map you can see with your own eyes, even if you’ve never visited, the great differences between the south Louisiana coast, the southern Mississippi coast and the Alabama coast.

Now, Texas is more like Louisiana in terms of the massive amounts of infrastructure — energy, petrochemical, refineries — along the coast.

But they were very lucky that Rita didn’t hit them; it hit us again.

So we got two hits on this coast.

Now, I’m going to have to wrap up. But if any of you need anything further, I’ll just take one more and then if you need me afterwards…

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) LANDRIEU: Let me clarify something.

LANDRIEU: The constitution prohibits the state of Louisiana for borrowing money for its own operating expenses or the operating expenses of governments. Because you’re supposed to borrow money for capital improvements only.

But, obviously, this is an emergency. But we don’t even have — we don’t have an exception in our law.

So the only places that these cities could come borrow money is from the federal government. They can’t borrow it from their states.

And Mississippi, the cities in Mississippi, Waveland, can go to the legislature and I think the legislature in Mississippi could lend them money.

We couldn’t do it if we wanted to because our constitution is actually very accountable. And we hold tight to balanced budgets. And we don’t believe in borrowing for operating expenses unless it’s an emergency and we don’t have an emergency provision in our constitution.

So this was the only way.

QUESTION: Are there any (inaudible) you think that won’t be able to borrow because of the loan…

LANDRIEU: We don’t know. We’ll have to see. Because without a chance of cancellation, that might make a difference to some.

END

NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.

Author Details
G M
This is a general posting account for VT
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

Comments are closed.