Drama in Norway. The bare details, which I have at my disposal on this tragedy, are as follows: Anders B.

was one year old when his parents divorced. He was 16 when he saw his father for the last time. On his 23th he decided to prepare this crime. His father was a diplomat. His mother was a nurse. What can be derived from these data? To start with this: for every human being attachment is fundamental. If a baby is 70 days old, it shows the first attachment. I did observe this last year. I was visiting a friend who just had a baby girl. She gave her the bottle and I saw how the child looked at her mother: a sign of attachment. When I noticed, my friend said that her daughter was just 70 days old and starting to look at her for the first time. Before, her eyes were roaming. The attachment is obviously not just about the mother but also the father and other people in the immediate vicinity. The divorce meant a break in the attachment between B. Anders and his father. I suspect that Anders B at 16 said: I do not want to see you anymore. In European culture, it is now customary to respond with: I respect your decision. But what Anders B. did was not to express a decision, but to ask his father: do you love me? I suspect that his father has seen him very few times because of his work. It is well known that young people who were adopted as a child, around the age of twenty or some later to look for their biological parents. They want to know who are their real parents are in order to meet them and to understand something of their adoption. Anders B. missed his father at that age, who did not understand his question. By this he couldnt develop his identity in a healthy way and he could derail. I compare this to the derailment of trains in 1992 by ICM 4224-4038 Hoofddorp, NL, because they were faster than was possible at that section, after reparation and the rails was laid in a too short curve. Derailment was the result. So Anders B. also derailed by insufficient development of its identity in a short curve. Then I look here at John Lennon. As a small child his parents divorced. His father went to New Zealand and John Lennon never saw him again. He was raised by the sister of his mother. With this background he fell in a crisis in the late sixties and followed therapy. He completed the therapy with writing a song: Mother. The song begins with the ringing of a death knell. Then he sings: Mother, You had me but I never had you / I wanted you but you didn't want me So I got to tell you / Goodbye , Goodbye Father, You left me but I never left you / I needed you but you didn't need me So I just got to tell you / Goodbye , Goodbye Children, Don't do what I have done / I couldn't walk I tried to run So I got to tell you / Goodbye , Goodbye

And then he sings - still rawer - ten times: Mamma dont go, Daddy come home. The child in John Lennon yells it out here. The emotion behind this text is clear and can give some idea, what happened emotionally with Anders B. It is no coincidence that he has mainly shot young people between 16 and 23, aged between he didnt see his father anymore and his decision for this crime. In one respect Anders B. identified himself with his father: his father was a diplomat. A diplomat cannot show emotions. Anders B. had built a wall built around his emotions. A diplomat is working more for the longer term. Anders B. did it too. Two questions: why he is so against Islam and why he has turned against the Social Democrats. The first issue revolves according to me for identity. Muslims have a distinctly different identity. Anders B. couldnt finish the development of his own identity. This sticks. Closely related is the second point. The Norwegian Social Democrats have worked for Muslims and in the perception of Anders B. did not care about their own people, the Norwegians. Here is a snake in the grass. I remember a story that a German journalist once told. She was asked by her newspaper to write articles about Turks in a district of Hamburg. In consultation with her daughter she decided to live there in order to write the articles from inside. The district looked dirty and she began to clean the streets. A few Turks were ashamed that she just did it, and began to help her. The district became clean. Then she began an activity for youth. In the beginning there were only Turkish people towards it. German youths asked her if it was only for Turkish youth. She said for them too. There is obviously a problem. An activity that apparently or actually is used for a particular group, exclude others - unintentionally -. This has negative consequences. This may also have been the case with Anders B. Can there be a conclusion drawn from this story? There are many divorces where children are involved. It is the responsibility of both parents to show care for the children to deal with them, so for them it is not determined, that with one of the parents they dont have contact. Nor should a parent withdraw from his / her responsibility for the children. It seems desirable that from an appropriate distance it will be followed, that the children can develop the potential of both parents as identification figures. How this can be done, should be further investigated. Adults, this process behind them, can act as advisors. There may be more of these time bombs walking around. How is it possible to detect and defuse? This seems complicated, but may be required. I can only identify it.