Anders Behring Breivik could have been halted –report

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Norwegian authorities could have prevented or interrupted the bomb and gun attacks by a far-right fanatic that killed 77 people last year, a government appointed commission has said.

The long-awaited report into the attacks on 22 July also said the domestic intelligence service could have done more to track down the gunman, but stopped short of saying it could have stopped him.

Anders Behring Breivik, 33, has admitted to the bombing of the government's headquarters in Oslo, which killed eight people, and the subsequent shooting spree at a youth camp that left 69 dead, more than half of them teenagers. He is currently awaiting sentencing.

While noting that the attacks "may be the most shocking and incomprehensible acts ever experienced in Norway", the 500-page report said the bombing "could have been prevented" if already adopted security measures had been implemented more effectively.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/13/anders-behring-breivik-attacks-halted-report

[Ash_F]

1. Like 9/11...

Like 9/11 did for the US, this event will lead to change in Norway's security response systems for decades to come.

[Diclotican]

2. Ash_F

Ash_F

But I doubt we Will go overboard like the US did, in response to 9/11 you got way ahead over what was prudent of you... But it is rather sure that the legal system, and the police would have a whole different job after this report, and I just hope the Parliament and the Justice Dept, do the job better - but also keep Norway a open, and more important, democratic...


Diclotican

[Nostradammit]

3. Did TO the U.S.

9/11 did nothing FOR the U.S.

And it sounds like Norway is admitting that they already had procedures in place to prevent it.

Nothing could have spared us 9-11 when our president and vice-president wanted it so badly.

[Ash_F]

4. Not really, look deeper in the article.

They had no flight-ready helicopter in the entire country. No boats to get across water. Simply no plan for this kind of attack. You can bet that will change.

Same with the US, no plan for 911. No prepared infrastructure. No protocols. We have more flight-ready jets and air Marshals now. Of course we have people taking shoes off and grabbing genitals too, which is just useless theatre and overboard as the other poster put it. But many of the security changes were needed and sensible.

[Nostradammit]

5. Sorry - not buying it.

"No prepared infrastructure."

Au contraire, mon frere. A purposefully hobbled infrastructure was what we had on 9/11.

The corporate media has done a great job selling the public on the idea that the attack was unpreventable but it's utter hogwash.

They knew. They just didn't want to do anything about it because it fit into their scheme so wonderfully.

[Nostradammit]

6. And after reading the article again I am curious -

How do you get:

"They had no flight-ready helicopter in the entire country. No boats to get across water. Simply no plan for this kind of attack. You can bet that will change."

From:

"Alexandra Bech Gjørv, chairman the 22 July Commission, said a failure to mobilise helicopters, share information or accept help from private individuals prepared to drive boats to Utøya contributed to 'the most inconceivable brutality'."

?

Very clever of Anders Behring Breivik to take the only boat in Norway over to the island.

[Ash_F]

7. Maybe I am going crazy but I think that article got abridged

Here is a more detailed article about what happened, but it supports exactly what I said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658569/Norway-shooting-police-response-criticised.html


Edit - Here is the article I read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9473246/Police-in-Norway-could-have-stopped-Anders-Breivik-sooner.html Not sure how I got that from the OP

I read a more detailed article a while back but don't have the link anymore. In short: No heli, no suitable boat. They ended up commandeering civilian boats and even that was clumsily executed. They had to double back at one point for some reason.

[Nostradammit]

8. The article you linked to came out a year ago.

The government appointed commission in Norway just negated what you said.

It said they had the resources but failed to use them.

Much like what happened here on September 11, 2001, though I doubt the leaders of Norway wanted the Utøya attack like Cheney wanted the one on us.

[Ash_F]

9. Are you being disengenious on purpose?

Because you seem to be arguing semantics. Not having a helicopter flight-ready is not having the option to use one as needed. Not having a boat seaworthy enough to carry a squad is equal to not having the option to carry that squad across water as needed. They will come up with better procedures in the future so these things won't haunt them. Just like how we have air marshals on flights now. That was my point.

"The government appointed commission in Norway just negated what you said" No not in the slightest. And I linked two articles. One was from today(the one I just read), the other was from a year ago and they corroborate.

At this point I am not really arguing with you. I just did not want other posters to be mislead. You make it sound like they could have done better with what they had available, so does the headline. That characterization is slanderous to the first responders involved. The problem was lack of administrative preparedness.

[Nostradammit]

10. "Norwegian authorities could have prevented or interrupted the bomb and gun attacks..."

"...by a far-right fanatic that killed 77 people last year, a government appointed commission has said."

Are you calling the commission slanderous?

"the 500-page report said the bombing "could have been prevented" if already adopted security measures had been implemented more effectively."

And then you come here and say, "This event will lead to change in Norway's security response systems for decades to come."

You understand, I hope, that the commission has determined that they HAD adequate security measures but they were not implemented effectively.

Your use of the words "for the U.S." is a huge red flag to me that you might be one of the people who is forever coming here trying to tell us that we were not "prepared for an event like 9/11", which I know to be complete bullshit and will go to my grave refuting such.

Please forgive me if I came across as "disengenious," I couldn't be more sincere.

[Ash_F]

11. Anything could be prevented, given adequate prepardness

You make it sound like the SWAT team just did not want to stop the shooter. Because why?

[Nostradammit]

12. No, that's not what I make it sound like.

I make it sound like the government commission has determined that their procedures are adequate if they are properly followed.

Which means they will not be changing things on the scale that you suggested, unlike our government, which took the opportunity to become a police state.

Just like Diclotican was trying to explain to you in post #2.


Good day to you.

[Ash_F]

13. Right I am sure they won't buy more seaworthy boats

Or keep at least one helicopter flight ready 24/7 from now on. That would be too much of a change for Norway.
Trust me they will do all that and more. Probably already have.

What it really sounds like is that you have some hang-ups about 9/11. Maybe if I had left that part out of my comment, you would not have been so senselessly argumentative in this thread regarding Norway.

[Nostradammit]

14. Yes, I have "hang-ups" about 9/11.

Maybe if you hadn't equated Norway's likely response to that of the Cheney administration you'd have had no argument from me.

[Ash_F]

15. I did not do that either

If it makes you feel any better, I am highly critical of the administration's response before and after 9/11. My point is, the tragedy lead to changes. Such as the increase of onboard air marshals, integration of national radar systems and better preparedness protocol for scrambling fighter jets(some that went up on 9/11 weren't even armed, others went the wrong way ect). These changes are relevant to how they could have dealt with the situation.

And in Norway, this tragedy will lead to changes relevant to their situation. It is a simple observation and no reason to get bent out of shape about it. Okay Cheney wanted 9/11 real bad. Chill out.

[Nostradammit]

16. MY point is this - the tragedy lead to changes,

most of which were pre-planned and led to an usurpation of our civil rights.

You made it sound like it was a good thing. "...for the US."

With all due respect, fuck that. Words matter and your words seemed very nuanced in favor of the changes we've had to endure.

There was absolutely nothing about the protocol for scrambling fighter jets nor the integration of national radar systems that needed to change, other than not having Cheney perform his little "war games" on the very day his fortuitous event occurred. And had he listened to all the experts screaming their heads off about the very thing that went down and arrested the people they knew to be taking "one-way" flight lessons at a CIA-owned flight school in Florida he and his friends would not have made their billions blowing 3rd world countries up and then getting paid billions to rebuild them.

I'll "chill out" when Cheney and his ilk are in their final resting places, thank you very much. And I'll try to retain what's left of my civil rights by pointing out the errors in posts such as yours.

The Norwegian commission was telling its citizens that they need not fear massive changes like our government implemented. You were trying to suggest otherwise, were you not?

[Ash_F]

17. Nope

"You were trying to suggest otherwise, were you not?" -nope

Keeping at least one helicopter fueled and ready and buying at least one serviceable watercraft is not a "massive" change even for a small country such as Norway, but a needed one. If they had done those things, they would have gotten there 30 minutes sooner and saved many of those children's lives. I promise you they will fix that.

And I have to disagree with you on the jet and radar situation in the US.

Is it smart for jets to take off to intercept anything without weapons due to poor preparedness? The pilots were informed that they may have had to ram flight 93 with their own jets.

Is it smart to send fighters flying the wrong way into the ocean due to poor communication/training?

Is it smart for a radar station in one state to be unable to relay the location and heading of a plane to an air force base in another state?

You didn't question the increase in air marshals but that was needed too. If my city can afford to put an officer on every train to check our 4$ tickets then our country can afford to have an officer on every plane instead of 1 in every 1000 which was the case before.

All of these situations needed to change. None of them were massive or life altering to our citizens. Speaking of life altering...

"billions blowing 3rd world countries up and then getting paid billions to rebuild them." If you think I was ever for either war, any of the invasions of privacy of US citizens, racial discrimination, religiously bigoted or politically motivated policy that came after 9/11, you must have me mistaken for some other poster. If you think I felt 9/11 was somehow beneficial, then you are way off too. Even Diclotican, who corrected my wording, did not accuse me of that. You are reading something into my posts that is not there. It is possible to be for some policy changes and against others.

I had just read about how their boat sank and their helicopter sat un-fueled on the pad with no pilot and made a comment about how I bet they will fix that and you came in all "NO!! NOTHING WILL CHANGE11!!!! NORWAY WILL NEVER GIVE UP THEIR FREEDOMS LIKE AMERICA!" just because I mentioned 9/11 in the same post. So yes please chill out.

[Nostradammit]

18. "Like 9/11 did for the US"

Your sentence was this:

"Like 9/11 did for the US, this event will lead to change in Norway's security response systems for decades to come."

Which says to me that you believe that Norway is going to undergo, for decades, the same type of sweeping changes to their system that we witnessed, which their own government had just stated was not going to be the case and then you went on to list all the things you felt were positive about the changes made after 9/11. After I pointed out to you that the changes we made were not necessary to have prevented 9/11 had our leaders desired to stop it I think you got the mistaken notion that I was saying ""NO!! NOTHING WILL CHANGE11!!!! NORWAY WILL NEVER GIVE UP THEIR FREEDOMS LIKE AMERICA!" which is a ridiculous distortion of what I actually did say.

I live in a country that is teetering on the edge of full-blown fascism and has been for the last decade and if you come around here insinuating that 9/11 did anything FOR this country I am going to correct you on your use of the language.

Ash F, I have been here since shortly after 9/11 and I have seen SO MANY flying monkeys land in these parts dropping little propaganda bombs, saying things like, "thank goodness we've tightened our security to protect ourselves from the evil-doers" when I know, beyond any doubt, that the changes made after 9/11 were for the benefit of NOBODY but the elite cabal that's been trying to take over our country since FDR, and are as close as they've ever come to achieving it. If you've ever spent any time inside of NORAD you will know that the idea that some radar station in one state is incapable of relaying the location and heading of a plane to an air force base in another state is farcical. Completely, utterly farcical. Having air marshals on those planes would not have stopped the attack from going forward - can't you see that? It merely would have been one more detail that would have been dealt with. Those buildings were coming down that day because those in power needed them to. It had been in the works for many months.

So yeah, I have some "hang-ups" about 9/11 and its aftermath and refuse to stay silent if I think someone is on this forum trying to promote the idea that we are somehow better off because of what's been done in the name of "our security."

[Ash_F]

19. Okay

1) I have been reading DU since it's inception, over 9 months before you. I was too busy with school and work to spend time posting. I started to post after getting sick of the uptick in DUers spouting RW talking points.

2) The amount of nonsense you are spewing about what you think I meant is ridiculous. You don't need to wall-of-text me with it. I am not going to refute you point for point. I meant what I wrote and what I wrote doesn't mean what you think it does.

3) Don't be so judgmental.

4) Chill out.

[Nostradammit]

20. 1) I was here under a different name for more than a year before I changed it to this one

so I've been here longer.

2) I corrected you because the language you were using would lead any reasonable person to believe that you were saying exactly what I said you were saying.

3) Are you judging me as judgmental?

4) Not until we're out of danger, friend.

[Ash_F]

21. That would be 2002

"1) I was here under a different name for more than a year before I changed it to this one so I've been here longer." That would be around 2002, possibly late 2001. DU has been around since the start of 2001, when I started reading it. 9/11 happened about 9 months later, which is around when I guess you had found it. So I have in fact been around longer, though I did not have time to post until a couple years ago.

"2) I corrected you because the language you were using would lead any reasonable person to believe that you were saying exactly what I said you were saying." You are the only person who assumed I was for every thing that changed after 9/11, assuming I was for the worst changes and compelling me to detail exactly what I was for and against. The other poster gave a more balanced response that is closer to what I meant in saying there will be some changes("whole different job&quot without going overboard like the US did.

We are not contributing much to this thread about Norway by arguing over 9/11 so I am going to leave it here. Have a good day and a pleasant tomorrow.

[Nostradammit]

22. All right,

you win.

You've been here longer.

But please understand my intention in responding to you in the first place. Just as we cannot ever forget what caused atrocities like the holocaust in Germany we cannot gloss over the crimes that were committed on 9/11 and in the wake of 9/11. When you said that 9/11 did things FOR the US my instant response is, "NO! Nothing was done FOR the U.S. because of that!" It may seem petty to you but it is very important to me that people not forget how much we lost on that day. When I tried to point that out to you your response was to start listing all the things you thought were beneficial, none of which were necessary to have prevented the attacks. Diclotican and I were both trying to say the same thing to you, mine just came with a lot more heat because I am still very upset about it. I make no apologies for that, but I do wish you well and hope you have many good conversations here.

Peace ~