"....the court has yet to decide whether to accept an insanity plea."
Which totally contradicts you own statement that he is insane.
The Norwegian authorities have said (as I have already pointed out) that if the original psychiatric findings are challenged by other experts, he will be PROSECUTED as being sane.
Those challenges were made after the original findings were announced - hence my "virtually".
It is agenda driven misinformation to ignore that this is the position as it stands. One is only left to wonder why you are putting so much effort into trying to claim he should be considered insane - maybe you are considering joining the new Europe wide organisation The English Defence League (the organisation he had links with) is trying to set up!!
As for my "fake" - I have no doubt whatever that you will make what you are able of this load of shit.
The article described the police as "inclined to see him as a lone wolf - "a self starter" whose behaviour indicates that he "does not seem to be Islamic", (both in the main article and the profile in the News Review) and that there was no evidence of his having any links with any Islamic group.
It had also been stated that his life style showed no indication of even being interested in Islamic politics; the article headline in The Times earlier in the week, based on quotes from people who knew him in was "Islamic - I didn't even know he prayed"
He was being treated as a lone gunman.
As for my "belief that you could not be exposed" (about as shitty and clumsy as your distotions get), I had no way of knowing that the Sunday Times article would not be available (I still don't know if that is the case - have never had to try it as we regularly take that paper). If I had been aware that it was necessary to subscribe, I had no way of knowing whether you were a subscriber or not - you seem to base your entire knowledge on cut-n-pastes. Nor had I any way of knowing which newspaper any of the contriburors to this thread took, so it would have been stupidity at your level to make false claims on an article in a leading newspaper.
You seem to judge the rest of us as having your own deplorable moral standards.
"where this sale is documented?"
Been there, done that - documented in a government list linked in the Guardian article (provided at least 3 times) on British arms shipments - get somebody to read it for you.
You already know this - you've acknowledged that fact by claiming (without proof, so it is obviously your own invention) that it the licence was recinded and the delivery never made - so stop arguing with yourself - you stupid boy.
"Well done gentlemen. "
Well merited praise from someone whose word counts in the "right" places.
That's me for the day - off for a shower to wash this filth off
Jim Carroll