
Norway’s Premier Vows to Keep an Open Society - rberger
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/world/europe/28norway.html?_r=1
======
wheels
Interesting bit that I worked out the other day that might be non-obvious for
those not familiar with the demographics of Norway:

The 76 people that were killed in the attacks is a larger percentage of the
country than the 4000 killed in the US on September 11th. So, despite the
absolute numbers being far smaller, presumably the psychological impact is of
a similar magnitude.

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2876+%2F+%28population...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2876+%2F+%28population+of+Norway%29%29%2C+%284000+%2F+%28population+of+usa%29%29)

~~~
JeanPierre
It's hard to compare the events and the psychological impact, but keep in mind
that most of the victims are children, came from all over the country and knew
the PM and rest of the parliament, especially the Labour party.

As far as I know, September 11 was an attack that killed people who worked in
office and affected people who lived in or near New York the most, and did not
hurt Bush administration like the Oslo-attack did.

I would suspect that may make it worse to bear for the Norwegian people, but
as stated, it's hard to compare.

~~~
jdminhbg
The September 11 attacks also struck the Pentagon in Washington, DC, which
would have the same effect on members of the American administration.

~~~
politician
Did anyone die in those attacks? Didn't the plane hit a segment of the
Pentagon which was under construction and unoccupied?

~~~
jdminhbg
Yes, 125 people died at the Pentagon:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Casualties>

~~~
politician
Ah I see, that area of the Pentagon was under renovation but not entirely
unoccupied at the time of the attacks.
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon#September_11_attac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon#September_11_attacks)).

------
Tharkun
Give the man a prize. I wish there were a Nobel Prize for Common Sense. Very
glad to see that Norway is not following the general (and useless) trend of
"more surveillance and fewer civil liberties" after things go boom.

~~~
jonnathanson
It's actually _not_ common sense, and that's what is special about it. The
common-sense reaction to terrorism is to be terrorized by it, and to behave
accordingly. It is human nature. We are emotional creatures, and we revert to
"fight or flight" instincts when violated.

It takes serious resolve and uncommon grace to rise above the gut reaction,
keep calm, and remain focused on what really matters.

~~~
smokeyj
> The common-sense reaction to terrorism is to be terrorized by it

I think it's a learned reaction. Car accidents pose a greater threat than any
terrorists, we're not terrified of cars are we? The threat has been played up
by our fear mongering media, an extension of our military.

~~~
shimon
Depends on your definition of terrorism. Here's mine: an act of terrorism is
an attack designed to elicit a reaction massively disproportionate to the
damage directly caused, typically perpetrated by a non-state actor. This is
why terrorists target planes, because plane crashes generate tremendous news
coverage.

By contrast, if a person found an unnoticeable way to sabotage all cars in a
city, making them slightly more likely to crash, and didn't seek credit, this
would not be terrorism even if the act killed very many people.

You might say that our tolerance for the danger of driving is logically
inconsistent with our expectations of perfect air travel safety. Is that
irrationality a learned or innate one? Probably a mix, but certainly at least
partially innate, similar to the human tendencies to value immediate rewards
much higher than future rewards, or the loss aversion bias.

~~~
smokeyj
> Here's mine: an act of terrorism is an attack designed to elicit a reaction
> massively disproportionate to the damage directly caused

I see where you're coming from, but I feel it's too subjective. The massively
disproportionate action is not under the control of the terrorizer, but rather
the publicist. The media really controls who we consider to be "terrorists",
rather than any empirical metric.

If we have counter-terrorist groups who just go after terrorists, shouldn't we
define who terrorists are? We start using words like "cyber-terrorists", and
now we're all included. I just find no value in the semantic classification of
boogie men except for expansion of our police state.

------
tallanvor
I'd also like to point out that on Monday, an estimated 200,000 people turned
out in Oslo for what was originally planned to be a "rose parade". The parade
portion was canceled at the request of the police due to the huge number of
people who turned out. --200,000 is more than 1/3 of the population in Oslo.
Other cities also saw huge turnouts.

I am very amazed, but in many ways not surprised, at just how different the
reaction has been in Norway as compared to 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK.

You can read more about it here:
[http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/07/26/extraordinary-show-
of...](http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/07/26/extraordinary-show-of-
solidarity/)

I've been taking pictures over the last week, including at Monday's events:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallanvor/sets/7215762713080899...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallanvor/sets/72157627130808995/)

~~~
ellyagg
> I am very amazed, but in many ways not surprised, at just how different the
> reaction has been in Norway as compared to 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK.

I'm sorry, what? Given the context of your statement, this sounds awfully like
a criticism. I remember quite a heart warming show of solidarity in the US
after 9/11 and indeed an amazing show of solidarity with the US by the whole
world after 9/11. I remember being immensely touched. It's irritating to have
people using Norway's tragedy to take pot shots at the US. I don't want to get
into a debate about whether there's good reason for the US and Norway to
respond differently to their respective attacks--now is not the time--but it's
hard to avoid when confronted with repeated digs.

~~~
tallanvor
Oh, I'll be quite clear: I'm criticizing the way the US reacted to 9/11. And
although I don't think it should matter, I'm an American citizen, and didn't
move overseas until 2006.

So yes, having been in both the US and Norway during their respective
disasters, I have absolutely no problem in stating that, so far at least,
Norway has handled this act of terrorism - on all levels - political and
otherwise - much better, and with much more solidarity, than the US did after
9/11.

------
ghiculescu
Here's the original:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/world/europe/28norway.html...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/world/europe/28norway.html?_r=2)
\- Boing Boing requotes the third paragraph.

~~~
dredmorbius
I was just about to post that myself. Good call.

------
xefer
A more apt comparison would be to the U.S. reaction to the Oklahoma City
bombing.

~~~
ars
I came to say exactly the same thing. The U.S. reaction to the Oklahoma City
bombing was pretty muted, and I'm not surprised at the Norwegian reaction.

People are acting all impressed with the PM for saying this, but this was the
work of one crazy man, not an organization dedicated to destroying you. No one
would let one crazy person influence your county, so I'm not surprised at the
PM's reaction.

When you face an enemy group dedicated to destroying you things are far
different - it makes you worried there will be more.

No one thinks one crazy person who was caught will do anything else.

~~~
colinplamondon
This.

After 9/11 there were enormous structural issues with the world order that
made it easier for terrorist groups to proliferate. That's why the Treasury
Secretary was in all the initial planning meetings- there were two prongs to
our response, one financial, one military.

The military one was an unmitigated clusterfuck.

The financial one was a rousing success. We forced the world to tighten
financial controls, largely ended anonymous banking, seized huge quantities of
terrorist funds, and made it really, really hard for the people trying to kill
us to get money and to move money around.

There was a financial War on Terror, and we won it. Just because the military
side went so badly doesn't meant there wasn't a real threat.

~~~
klbarry
I'm very interested in more info on the financial War on Terror - is there are
good articles or books you can recommend?

~~~
colinplamondon
Bob Woodward's are actually very good- he wrote a whole set on the Bush
Presidency, from 9/11 through the Surge.

------
TobbenTM
Now if only that freedom was as important online as offline.
[http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/updated-parliament-
passes-...](http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/updated-parliament-passes-data-
retention-directive/)

------
nextparadigms
That's how it's done, US.

~~~
john2x
They (Norway) probably learned from their (the U.S.) mistakes.

~~~
lamby
Your implication that Norway learnt how to treat its civilians decently _only
when the United States did the opposite_ is offensive and conceitful.

~~~
true_religion
I don't think that's what he's implying.

I think he's saying that any Norwegian politician who would want to burden
their population with laws styled after the TSA and US Patriot Act would have
a hard time because the US is a stunning example of how _these laws do not
work_.

So absent strong emotional argument, logically Norway should try to find
different solutions.

~~~
john2x
Yes. This is what I meant. Thanks. Sorry if it sounded offensive.

------
jdminhbg
It's a nice sentiment, but it's the same sentiment expressed any number of
times after terrorist attacks in the US, UK, and Spain over the last decade.
The point isn't to just say "we aren't going to let you take away our tolerant
way of life," the point is to actually not let enhanced security measures do
that.

~~~
d0ne
I hope Norway can live up the that promise. We sure didn't back home.

------
_debug_
I bet that this is just lip service, and that the on-the-ground reality will
be that, paradoxically, Muslims in Norway will be under more pressure to prove
that they are not terrorists. This is how psychological sublimation works : as
long as the Norwegians stick to Christianity (and blue eye + blonde hair) as
part of their identity, they will be unable to accept that an avowed Christian
did what the "other religion" was supposed to be hated for, and the
psychological dissonance has to be released elsewhere. This is what religion
does to you.

~~~
lautis
Norway is a very secular society. While majority of people do belong to the
state church, they do not practice religion regurlarly. In 2005 poll only 32%
said that they believe in existence of God.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Norway>

------
diminish
yes, if he decided to increase measures, the life of blonde blue eyes majority
would be harder

------
iterationx
Go ahead and upvote this mindless propaganda. But I really expected more from
you.

[http://www.infowars.com/oslo-police-conducted-bombing-
exerci...](http://www.infowars.com/oslo-police-conducted-bombing-exercise-
days-before-terrorist-blast/)

~~~
augustl
Why is it mindless propaganda? And is that article's point (and I assume your
point) that 9/11, the london bombings and the Oslo bombings were conducted by
government agencies?

~~~
iterationx
In the wake of the bombing and shooting spree in Norway last week, some
nations in Europe are now calling for increased Internet surveillance as a
possible preventive measure.

Its mindless propaganda because they've already declared they are going to
increase surveillance, both Internet monitoring and physical cameras.

~~~
vegardx
Some parts of what you are saying is partially true, but first of all, it's
yet to be implemented, and like in other European countries, it has been
blocked by high court, or similar.

But - linking to absolute bullshit sources that feed upon this idea that
everything bad that happens in this world is a covert government operation
will get you down voted, you clearly have a delusional viewpoint on the world.

I had a similar argument with some other. And I ended up concluding that they
didn't agree with the official statement because it was too boring. They think
they are not heard because they are being silenced, but it's actually just
because everyone thing they are lunatics.

 _focuses his white gamma rays on everyone, so they agree with him_

