What a load of drivel. It requires the reader to completely disregard everything officially stated. Then why stop at a zionist conspiracy? Using the same argumentation, it could have been the lizardmen or the atlanteans.

Still... Something irked me yesterday, lessons we learned ourselves here in Norway after initially thinking the white supremacy attack on Oslo by Breivik was a jihad operation. Yesterday I heard a lot of the interviews personally as I understand danish. Nobody specifically stated "arabic" but that it was an "unknown language". So that doesn't prove that it was a religious/political attack done by an muslim. Yet it doesn't disprove it and far from point the finger at zionists.

Let's go through the arguments as they are put forward in the article:

The argument that the person pictured isn't dark-skinned is stupid. There are light-skinned muslims and even european convertites who have gone to ISIS to fight a holy war. Skin-colour can be used to generalize, not pinpoint.

The argument that there were two dark dressed gunmen when there in fact seems to be one, dressed in black isn't really a strong point either. Assuming that the police present returned fire (confirmed) and assuming they were neutrally dressed in dark suites there were several dark dressed people shooting. Making mistakes in a situation like that is supposedly common and it's been scientifically proven that witnesses aren't 100% reliable.

The name-business is ridiculous. Prejudging anybody based on names is idiotic. Hussein Obama anybody? I used the wondermachine called "google" and swedish baptism records suggest that on the 29. of May 1796 a woman called Anna Christina Sonberg was christened at Ivetofta Church, Sweden. Clearly a swedish jew name...

The tight security consisted to my knowledge of two uniformed officers and some undercover cops and body-guards and the gunman reportedly didn't go that far into the complex. So much for the super-tight security that had to be an inside job to get around...

Then the author argues that there's an overkill of police precense at the terror scene and refers to a picture of three police-cars, one firetruck and an amulance. What an overkill.

Regarding the picture that "proves" that it's a hoax, a policeofficer on a stretcher with no visible blood... One of the officers was shot in the groin. No officers where life-threatningly hurt. Don't expect Michael Bay-style fallout.

And that's all the ammount of energy I'll ever spend on the "jew conspiracy" in relations to this event until anything remotely tangible suggests that this was a zionist false flag.

Thank you OP for participating, no medal for you.