“The facebook page was created 4 days ago on 18 july. He does not have any friends on the page. This is a fake! The media just repeats the informations of the page, which claims that he was a conservative, nationalist, freemason, but this seems very unlikely. The page cannot be considered trustworthy!” added by 184.108.40.206.And, of course there's still a question why did a jihad group take credit for the atrocities, and then retract?
Then it turns out that the mass murderer wasn't alone:
Police say they are investigating whether the attacks were the work of one man or whether others helped.So what happened to that other guy then? How come one of the shooters surrenders to the authorities, alive and well, with a smoking gun machine, and a 4-day-old Facebook page that, along with a 1500-page anti-jihad manifesto, identifies him as a proverbial right-wing extremist, while the other man involved in the massacre disappears and very few news releases mention that he even existed.
Local media report that police are investigating claims by witnesses that a second person was involved, apparently not disguised in a police uniform.
And another thing: the news outlets keep mentioning 85 or so people killed in the shooting. But what about the wounded? There must be at least some that were injured, yet survived the massacre. So how come their number is not mentioned? Is it 85 killed and wounded or is it 85 killed and then there should be some 100 if not 200 others wounded - which then would raise questions how come a gunman (or even two of them) could cause so much damage... Things don't add up here, that's for sure.
P.S. (Specifically for those who like putting words in their opponents' mouths.) NO, I'm NOT justifying this despicable mass murder. No matter, who the murderers are, they and their accomplices should be put on trial for what they did and receive the harshest penalty that Norway's criminal code allows.
But, before you suggest that Conservative Christians are somehow "collectively responsible" (or "morally responsible) for this massacre, before you claim that "violence comes from both sides" or even that "both sides are equally responsible", before you argue that "guns should be banned" or that "hate crime" laws are not the tool of political censorship, but a "highly necessary measure to prevent violence from right-wing extremists," you have to address these questions first. Because, so far, the answers given by the mainstream media aren't so obvious.