Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#111

Post by fromhet »

I am Swedish, and Sweden is pretty close to Norway. We share culture, history and traditions. Many of my friends are Norwegians, and I've been there too.

If the killer was not white and "Norwegian" (as we think a true norwegian should be), but rather a muslim extremist from Saudi Arabia, would they react the same way?

Here in Scandinavia (and maybe everywhere) racism may seem alien but is never far away. I am sure, and saddened by the fact, that we would have reacted with hate and fear if the killer was not white, Norwegian and christian.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#112

Post by tallanvor »

aggronn wrote: post #95
tallanvor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breivik used violence in an attempt to cause political change (to try and force the government to stop promoting multiculturalism). That clearly fits within the definition of terrorism. You are correct in saying that McVeigh's actions may not fit that definition, as he claimed that his motive was revenge for the government's actions on Waco and Ruby Ridge, rather than trying to force political change, but terrorism a…

Its not clear to me how your last comment is related to the rest of your post.

I think it's an important point in discussions relating to these types of events. --Why are people in the US so hesitant to label this sort of event as being the act of a terrorist unless the perpetrator(s) are Muslim?

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#113

Post by kzrdude »

mtgx wrote: post #69
mootothemax wrote: post #4

I do find it rather worrying that people around the world seem absolutely fine with all the various initiatives introduced, all in the name of preventing terrorism. I've had friends consider me crazy for complaining - way after the time, I hasten to add - that I'd had a small deodorant can taken off me in airport security, which I'd then had to purchase in the duty free shop. My wife's now tired of me complaining - a…

Was that guy in Norway part of a known terrorist group or something? Why isn't he a "madman" like the one in Aurora, US last week? I do find terrifying what's happening in UK lately, seemingly all of the sudden from those of us not living there, like that new law proposal to monitor everyone's private communications. Not too long ago that kind of proposal would've been seen as insane. Now it seems a lot of politician…

The norwegian shooter has not been linked to anybody else but it seems he prepared himself over many years and he has a fanatic insistance that he tries to push in his manifesto. Definitely a larger calibre of madman and terrorist.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#114

Post by josephcooney »

kmfrk wrote: post #25
sheraz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. (and of course you were downvoted here). People love to hold Scandanavia up as an example as how the rest of the world "could be." However, I think that is such a naive point of view, and one that needs changing. Their populations are too small and lack diversity to make a realistic comparison to the USA or even their larger European neighbors. I usually like Mr. Schriener's work, but this post is a little of…

It's always greener on the other side; Denmark is the happiest country in the world (not really); Finland has the best K12 school system in the world (maybe). And so on and so on. There is a lot to be learnt from other countries, and I am sure it's not always easy to say that there are countries that do things better than the United States, but people tend to make it sound as if it's all rainbows and ponies, as soon…

Can you give an example of where the United States does better?

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#115

Post by ErrantX »

thelibrarian wrote: post #103
mtgx wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that guy in Norway part of a known terrorist group or something? Why isn't he a "madman" like the one in Aurora, US last week? I do find terrifying what's happening in UK lately, seemingly all of the sudden from those of us not living there, like that new law proposal to monitor everyone's private communications. Not too long ago that kind of proposal would've been seen as insane. Now it seems a lot of politician…

The Colorado guy is a "madman" because he went on a killing spree for the sake of killing, whereas Breivik went on a killing spree for explicitly political ends, thus is a terrorist.

No. He's a madman because the media can't comprehend any other possible explanation. Breivik isn't a madman because it's Norway, and that's a long way away.

I'm sure the Aurora guy had his "reasons", just like Breivik. It all just relates to how we rationalise a position we don't understand.

I'd call neither of them a madman or terrorist.

To Add: I seem to recall there were media sources calling Breivik a madman (I helped keep the Wikipedia article under control at the time it happened and saw a lot of material go past). But they were less widespread because we could hang him off a political boom; right wing extremism.

But at the end of the day that was just Breivik rationalising what he did, to himself.

Same thing about computer games that came up at the trial; he played FPS's for a year to make him insensitive to killing. And he made a big deal about hating what he did.

Which one part of the media turns into "COMPUTER GAMES INSPIRE KILLER".

The reality of course is that it was pure narcissism; he played the games to desensitise him because, in the movie plot where he is the star, the games desensitise him.

Breivik builds a persona where he is the centre figure. Everything relates to him in some way - and killing those people "hurts" because that is part of the story. He still did it.

Good reading for this is alone's "The Last Psychiatrist" blog. This one is about honor killings but it touches on a lot of the same points: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/07/nobody_will_understan...

Ultimately the Aurora killer will probably boil down to narcissism too. But the media needs a neat word to rationalise his actions; in this case madman. Because he is white and well educated - so they cannot comprehend any other explanation.

If he were exactly the same person, but of muslim descent he would have been a terrorist.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#116

Post by riffraff »

learc83 wrote: post #65
riffraff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

firearms killings _are_ a pattern, if I recall correctly they are something between 5 and 10 times more frequent in US than other first wold countries. I personally believe that US citizens are unable to understand how dumb their attitude to weapons is, but + mass shootings wouldn't be much impacted by changes in the policy + mass shooting don't seem to have a strong correlation with firearm policy

I agree with you on the mass shootings aspect. However... >firearms killings _are_ a pattern, if I recall correctly they are something between 5 and 10 times more frequent in US than other first wold countries. I personally believe that US citizens are unable to understand how dumb their attitude to weapons is, You can't compare crime rates without controlling for other differences. Most other first world countries a…

Thanks for the answer, yes, there are many factors to take into account, but ascribing the high homicide rate only to racial diversity seems reductive.

Consider this data[0], in the context of Europe: UK[1] has likely more racial diversity than Denmark and Latvia, but firearm homicides/100k people is lower (0.1 vs 0.3 and 0.2, US has 3.0 ).

I imagine that "black poor/uneducated/mistreated people are responsible for most killings", is actually the same as saying "poor/uneducated/mistreated people are responsible for most killing", it just so happens that (at this point in time) in the US this poor are black, while in other countries the social segregation goes around different lines (e.g. gipsies in eastern europe).

Decades of persecution may or may not matter, but those also seem a minor issue, as most countries have had high criminality among poor/uneducated/mistreated people before (e.g. italian immigrants in US beginning of 1900, "wops") even without a history of repression.

[0] http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.htm... I'm reading the 2010 or most recent column [1] data for england+wales, not northern ireland, not sure why not scotland

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#117

Post by berntb »

ktizo wrote: post #102
berntb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Race isn't the problem, I believe. If Breivik was a convert to Islam, then the reaction would have been different: He would have been taken seriously, not seen as a crazy "one hit wonder". Because of, well, the few right wing crazies in Europe the last few decades.

It does seem to be the case in much of the media reporting, that with white supremacist terrorists, the loner aspect is generally played up, where as with those of a somewhat darker hue, grand conspiracy and existential threat is more on the agenda.

Which I acknowledged. There are no suburbs, in Scandinavia at least, filled with young rightwing extremists getting radicalized.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#118

Post by cmdkeen »

nfg wrote: post #17
maayank wrote: post #10

a. It was domestic terrorism. Compare it to American reaction to domestic terrorism before 9/11 and we may start to have some actual merit in the comparison. There was no "War on terror" on the same scale after the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). b. There's a very different social reaction to domestic terrorism ("there's something rotten in us, we can fix this from the inside") and terrorism from the outside ("we're be…

What about the London tube/bus suicide bombings: those were domestic terrorism and elicited a distinctly different response than we're seeing in Norway now. Or is it only domestic terrorism when the perpetrators are white one wonders!

London (and the rest of the UK) had religious terrorism for over 30 years - with regular attacks by professionally trained terrorists of a kind AQ would love to have. Yet even with all that Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism apparently required a massive increase in state power...

The difference seems to be the same as with car v plane crashes. Kill lots of people over time v many at once and society reacts very differently, even though the first kills more.

Re: How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism

#120

Post by gadders »

thelibrarian wrote: post #103
mtgx wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that guy in Norway part of a known terrorist group or something? Why isn't he a "madman" like the one in Aurora, US last week? I do find terrifying what's happening in UK lately, seemingly all of the sudden from those of us not living there, like that new law proposal to monitor everyone's private communications. Not too long ago that kind of proposal would've been seen as insane. Now it seems a lot of politician…

The Colorado guy is a "madman" because he went on a killing spree for the sake of killing, whereas Breivik went on a killing spree for explicitly political ends, thus is a terrorist.

But even so, he was working alone. Comparing Breivik with 9/11 and the Al Qaeda threat to the West is facile.
Post reply on HN