
How the Norwegians Reacted to Terrorism - netmau5
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/how_the_norwegi.html
======
mootothemax
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 - again, after suffering through it in
silent, stony-faced contemplation - that in any other context, I've just
suffered sexual assault. I won't apologise for it; I find it extremely
distressing to have my dick groped by a stranger. All because a machine went
"beep" and one two many green bars lit up.

And then you look at the London olympics; where the army will be frisking
people who've dared to pay money to watch events. (NB: the army presence was
guaranteed regardless of G4S's cockup). The _army_! And in this instance, it's
not like the UK hasn't decades of experience of dealing with terrorism from
the IRA.

How well does all this work? Who knows, nobody's telling. I'd argue if there
was anyone caught or something prevented by one of these systems, the
government concerned would be singing from the rooftops. But no - it's "a
deterrent." Gah.

~~~
mtgx
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 politicians are
taking it seriously, as if history before the past 20 years doesn't even
exist, and we've all started from scratch 20 years ago. They now think
monitoring everyone is a "necessary" thing to prevent the "evils" of the
world.

Also, in US, isn't it strange how they don't talk about terrorists "hating us
for our freedoms" anymore? Is it because they've realized what a stupid
statement that was to begin with, or because they know they're taking them
away one by now one, and it's best not to mention this dirty word "freedom"
anymore?

~~~
thelibrarian
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.

~~~
ErrantX
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...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/07/nobody_will_understand_what_we.html)

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.

~~~
thelibrarian
I would call both "madmen" in that their reasons and methods are irrational to
a "normal" citizen of sound mind. Breivik is also a terrorist as he was
attempting to further a political goal (however irrational and incorrect said
goal is).

But, as you say, the term "madman" is an easy and emotive term used by the
media, and also incorrect. They are irrational about one or more things, which
led them to take irrational actions (however rational and clear their thinking
seems to themselves).

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

Yes, the media (and probably the authorities) would certainly have done that,
but they would have been wrong (c.f. the Ft Hood massacre)

------
maayank
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 being attacked, we need to protect ourselves from _those_
people"). Sure, even in domestic terrorism there's a social mindset of
differentiation (i.e. "us v.s. them perpetrators") but not to the same extent.

c. One year strikes me as too soon to assess anything and to pat on anyone's
back.

d. One could argue the US can't afford what Norway can afford, whether it's
because of size, number of enemies, etc. Yes, one could counter-argue those
same American policies perpetuate some of these reasons (i.e. number of
enemies), but please keep it mind when doing such a comparison.

~~~
nfg
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!

~~~
maayank
Good call. I would say that in public perception, since there is an
international jihad underway (again, narratively speaking) it is easy to label
the tubes bombings as non-domestic. If there was the perception of a global
right-wing/fascist war on western society underway then perhaps the Norwegian
massacre would have been seen differently.

Any Brit here caring to comment on British public perception of the tubes
bombing? Would you say it's considered domestic terrorism in Britain? Please
chime in.

EDIT: in any case, while this IS an interesting discussion (about the tubes),
British reaction to terrorism does not reflect on the original comparison and
points, so far anyway. Just want to mark different discussions and tangents as
different.

~~~
justincormack
There was a small international link with the tube bombings (overseas
terrorist training). But I think the differences are more to do with the fact
that London has always had terrorism, some foreign some domestic, and reacts
differently anyway.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London)

------
JeanPierre
_There have been no changes to the law to increase the powers of the police
and security services, terrorism legislation remains the same and there have
been no special provisions made for the trial of suspected terrorists._

A white lie, I'm afraid. Lex Breivik [1] has changed the laws so that regional
security departments have a lot more power, in fact more power than what
prisons have as of today.

[1]:
[http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=no&...](http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnrk.no%2F227%2Fdag-
for-dag%2Fna-er-_lex-breivik_-vedtatt-1.8217506)

~~~
j-g-faustus
The "regional security departments" the article refers to are high-security
psychiatric wards.

The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't
(legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison, and there was no
equivalent for psychiatric cases. Now there is.

It is a change, and clearly in response to this case, but the scope of the
change is limited.

~~~
JeanPierre
_The problem was that if the court declares Breivik insane, Norway couldn't
(legally) put him in a high-security criminal prison._

That's wrong - they can do that without Lex Breivik. The issue is when he's
declared healthy, what would then happen? It's legal to detain him if it can
be proved that he constitutes a danger to society. However, if he is not
considered a danger to the society, he will be able to walk freely. With Lex
Breivik, they will be allowed to detain him as long the society is a danger to
the person.

Think about that for a moment. With Lex Breivik, you can be isolated even if
you've not done anything illegal (or have finished serving your imprisonment)
or is considered healthy, because some people in the society want to do you
harm.

~~~
j-g-faustus
That's not what I'm reading. (I assume that you too read Norwegian, so we're
not discussing artifacts of Google Translate?)

From an article on the opposition to the law[1] (my translation):

    
    
       The Department of Health hasn't tried to hide that the 
       goal is a stricter set of laws which can be  
       used if Breivik is sentenced to compulsory mental   
       health care.
    
       The department has long wanted a change of laws to 
       improve the security in institutions that hold highly 
       dangerous patients. This work was sped up after July 22.
    

See also [2], which says approximately the same thing.

The criticisms I've seen seem to center on that the new law makes it too
simple to declare someone "dangerously insane".

Do you have a link supporting your interpretation?

[1] [http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-
motbo...](http://nrk.no/227/dag-for-dag/lovforslag-moter-kraftig-
motbor-1.8126075)

[2] [http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-
splitter...](http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Lex-Breivik-splitter-
opposisjonen-6847648.html)

~~~
JeanPierre
I think we're disagreeing on definitions and words, not what's going to
change. We already have "high security" psychiatric wards, but they want to
increase the security and have specific people placed in those "especially
high security" wards. People can be placed there if there is a risk of
"attacks against the patient themselves", which is as far I know not
(directly) caused by mental disorder in the patient.

Take a look at
[http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/regpubl/prop/2011-2...](http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/hod/dok/regpubl/prop/2011-2012/prop-108-l-20112012/10.html?id=681628)
\- esp. § 4A-8, which states the new changes in the law.

------
JackFr
While I understand the point being made, Breivig apparently acted alone, and
his actions were most similar to Timothy McVeigh. The proper comparison would
be to compare changes in policy following Oklahoma City Federal Building
bombing.

After the bombing of Khobar Towers, the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the USS
Cole, and finally the acts of 9/11, it would seem that US anti-terrorism
policies in place at that time were not particularly effective.

On the other hand, if we're just speaking of mass-murderers rather than
terrorists, I don't think anyone has expressed an interest in increased police
powers or surveillance, but rather implementing some rational gun laws.

~~~
learc83
>but rather implementing some rational gun laws.

Changing laws that could negatively impact millions of people because of the
statistically _extremely_ small amount of people killed in mass shootings is
just the kind of overreaction the article is talking about.

If you want to debate gun laws you have to weigh the rights of gun owners with
the rights of people killed every year. Our policies shouldn't be based on
statistically insignificant, but emotional charged tragedies.

Even the Obama administration has said it is against calling for more gun
regulation because of this.

This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could
have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter
gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death
toll that dwarfs anything we've seen.

~~~
knorby
"This man was apparently very smart and motivated, there was nothing we could
have realistically done to prevent this. Look at Norway, they have stricter
gun regulation than we do, yet they still had a mass shooting with a death
toll that dwarfs anything we've seen."

I don't think it is wise to come to that conclusion so quickly. If his AR-15
hadn't jammed, this probably would have been the most deadly single-man
massacre in history (he hit 70 people with a shotgun and pistols, and his
AR-15 had a 100-round magazine), and I think that point merits some
consideration. From what I understand of AR-15s, gun jams are somewhat common,
but that isn't really a problem for adept users. It is too early to say
exactly what was going on with this guy, but I get the impression that a
growing insanity drove his actions more than rational planning; he probably
would have been practiced if he had more of a plan as Brevick seemed to have.

It should be obvious that guns aren't going anywhere, but there is a clear
distinction in policy between methods violence that affect a few people and
those that affect a large number. It seems like Holmes' goal was closer to
killing 100 people, and he came very close to doing so. And he obtained the
means to do so without what you could even describe as a speed bump. If he had
used a bomb instead, would there be an uproar over attempts to curb bomb
making? I don't see why the use of a gun should make the case so easy to
dismiss.

~~~
learc83
>If his AR-15 hadn't jammed, this probably would have been the most deadly
single-man massacre in history (he hit 70 people with a shotgun and pistols...

That doesn't really say much, at the range he was firing and for his skill
level, a shotgun may have been the optimal weapon for "number of people hit."

>his AR-15 had a 100-round magazine

With training you can switch magazines fast enough that there isn't enough of
a difference between a 100 round magazine and 3 standard 30 round magazines to
matter. There is a reason you don't see the military using drum magazines.
They have an inherently more complicated feed mechanism and are therefore more
likely to fail. They are pretty much novelty only (range use).

>It should be obvious that guns aren't going anywhere, but there is a clear
distinction in policy between methods violence that affect a few people and
those that affect a large number.

But my argument is just that, it wasn't a large number. Even 100 people killed
is barely a blip compared to the total number of gun deaths per year.

You need to look at the whole picture, not just a single emotional event. If
10 gangbangers each killed 3 extra people last night you wouldn't bat an eye.
This is a completely emotional reaction.

>If he had used a bomb instead, would there be an uproar over attempts to curb
bomb making?

Yes, if bombs were useful tools used by millions of Americans.

I'll ask you this, if a madman drives a hummer into a big crowd of people and
manages to kill 13 of them would you be calling for more regulation on SUVs?

~~~
knorby
> That doesn't really say much, at the range he was firing and for his skill
> level, a shotgun may have been the optimal weapon for "number of people
> hit."

And he hit a lot of people, but the AR-15 would have led to a lot more people
dead.

> With training you can switch magazines fast enough that there isn't enough
> of a difference between a 100 round magazine and 3 standard 30 round
> magazines to matter.

But he wasn't trained. He tried to get a gun range membership, but he couldn't
hold himself together enough to actually get said membership. Is it not
reasonable to ask if a feel hurdles wouldn't have stopped him from buying the
guns in the first place?

> But my argument is just that, it wasn't a large number. Even 100 people
> killed is barely a blip compared to the total number of gun deaths per year.
> You need to look at the whole picture, not just a single emotional event. If
> 10 gangbangers each killed 3 extra people last night you wouldn't bat an
> eye. This is a completely emotional reaction.

First of all, I live in Chicago, and I see such reports about gangbangers and
the random people who get caught up in their wars all the time, and it always
bugs me. I went to see the movie last weekend too, and even if I knew I was at
greater risk travelling to the theater at all, a tinge of fear still entered
in. Why does it matter if the reaction is emotional? I consider my abhorrence
of early death part of my humanity, and I'm hardly alone in that. I would
rather see 100 fewer deaths a year from guns than 100 more.

> I'll ask you this, if a madman drives a hummer into a big crowd of people
> and manages to kill 13 of them would you be calling for more regulation on
> SUVs?

You need a revocable license that requires a few basic competency tests to
acquire in the first place. On top of that, you are required to have insurance
to drive as well. It doesn't stop everyone from driving who shouldn't, but it
certainly helps. I would be thrilled if the same sort of requirements existed
on guns across the country. It is also worth noting that cars are much, much
more useful than guns, even in places like Alaska.

------
at-fates-hands
Quite possibly the worst comparison I've ever seen. You're taking a country
that not only has an incredibly low crime rate (they had 5 homicides in the
entire country in 2009) and only has a population around 5 million. By
comparison, Chicago has close to 3 million people just in the city.

To try and compare our reaction to terrorism and how the Norwegians reacted to
their recent mass killing is completely absurd.

~~~
sheraz
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 off.

~~~
jacobr
The "lack of diversity" in Scandinavia comes up now and then even on HN, but:

    
    
        In 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding
        to 14.3% of the total population. Of these, 859 000 (9.2%) were born outside
       the EU and 477 000 (5.1%) were born in another EU Member State.
    

This does not include second or third generation immigrants, nor minorities
with a longer presence.

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

    
    
        The number of immigrants in Norway is approximately 550,000.
        The total "immigrant population", which includes Norwegian-born children
        to immigrant parents, is 655,170, corresponding to 13.1 percent of the
        total population (2011).
    

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway#Demograph...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway#Demographic)

~~~
learc83
In the US our foreign born population is roughly similar about 13% foreign
born in 2009. However the percent of foreign born people in the US has
historically been very high.

Wikipedia points immigration to Norway has risen very recently because of it's
membership in the European Economic Area. It is entirely possible that united
states has issues caused by continued high levels of immigration that
Scandinavia has not had time to experience.

Since our foreign born populations are similar, adjusting for that shows that
when native born Scandinavians and Americans are considered, Scandinavia is
_much_ more ethnically/racially homogenous than the United States.

Furthermore Scandinavia doesn't have a recent history of institutionalized
oppression of a very sizable racial minority. There is still a generation of
people alive here who actually lived under forced segregation, and more
generations who were raised by them.

I'm sure if America was composed only of people who's ancestors came here
voluntarily, and who weren't kept as second class citizens for decades, we
wouldn't have many of the problems we do.

------
tsotha
It seems like every time I read something new from Schneier I lose a little of
the respect he's built up over the years. Are you really going to pretend the
threat posed by one self-taught and self-financed guy with no friends is in
any way comparable to that of a well-financed international terrorist
organization with a shared ideology that has deep cultural and religious ties?
Really?

Of course Norway's response is different. Norway isn't the target of a
terrorist organization. It had a terrorist incident that's now over. We had
something similar in the US with Timothy McVeigh, and our response wasn't any
more radical than Norway's.

~~~
radu_floricica
This makes sense if you're assuming the security legislation comes only from
an honest effort to fight terrorism. Whatever else we disagree on, I think
we're past that on HN.

~~~
tsotha
Which makes sense if you believe the people trying to grapple with this
particular threat have the same set of goals and opinions. I _do_ think the
vast majority of people involved in crafting security legislation do so in an
honest effort to fight terrorism.

------
TorbjornLunde
There has been quite a debate in the wake of this, and the our anti-terror
institution have admitted that no increase of power and knowledge of their
part would likely not have done a big difference. It is apparently extremely
difficult to detect people working completely on their own, almost regardless
of resources.

Some of the focus in the debate has been more about how to avoid people ending
up with value systems (or mental disease) that permit and promote such
horrible violence.

------
buf
Example of what's happening in San Francisco today: Obama is in town, they
shut down four city blocks.

Example of when I was last in Bulgaria: Bulgarian president was in town, he
danced Horo (traditional Bulgarian dance) with the people and made toasts.

~~~
majorlazer
Yeah, let's compare the president of the most powerful country with 300M+
people with a president from a country who's total GDP is less than some of
our billionaires. Makes a lot of sense.

Can we please stop the USA hating around here?

~~~
jacobr
Can you point me to an American with more than $265.911 billion?

~~~
majorlazer
I was going off of this:
[http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&#...</a><p>Where
did you get $265.911B?

~~~
jacobr
I confused your parent with another comment just above it comparing Norway and
USA, and the GDP figure was for Norway. Sorry about that, too late to edit my
original comment now.

------
michaelfeathers
Sobering. I cringe every time I remember that it is likely that someone will
propose metal-detectors at movie theaters now.

~~~
beagle3
While I agree with you, there is interesting data about effectiveness of these
things coming from Israel:

Back in 2000, Israel had a series of suicide bombing attacks, which resulted
(among other things) in a law requiring every mall, restaurant, cafe, theatre,
office buildings and many other businesses to have a full time security guard
who will check every person coming in with a metal detector.

There were a lot of cries about how useless and what a waste of money that was
(as, of course, the cost was shifted to the customers). However, it turned out
to be a deterrent in a strange way:

There were several cases of suicide bombing later that year, in which the
bomber saw the guard, and decided to go to an unguarded place (most
establishments observed this law, but not all). In one case, there was no
visible unguarded place, so the bomber blew themselves up in the middle of a
busy crosswalk.

I think the bottom line is that these measures did not change the overall
outcome, which was just as tragic, but they did manage to shift the locations
of the events.

~~~
st0p
So they spent a lot of money and didn't change the overall outcome? Doesn't
sound effective in any way to me.

~~~
danielweber
If your store didn't get bombed you would think it very effective.

------
gorm
Norway is a rather egalitarian country compared to the US and people seems to
trust each other more and one theory is that this makes us more vaccinated for
populist politics. I have this from the book "The Spirit Level" [1].

Also the political system is based on pluralism so there is a built in
conservatism in the system that will cause changes to take time. However,
changes will come and this is a big eye-opener for many people.

When the bomb exploded I was sitting on work around 30m away. I remember the
day well, it was very quiet because it was in the middle of the summer
vacation and we were only 3 people working in the "Web Department" of the
central government, which usually have 26 people on work.

I was working on testing the software behind <https://go.usa.gov/> which is
based on Drupal and I was struggling with it, working late. Short story, I
suddenly was on the floor 2m away from my desk and when I looked around I was
shocked to see that all my colleagues offices was blown in with papers, desk
and computers laying all around. Luckily my office was facing the backside and
the blast threw me away from the blown in window and I was fine again after
some weeks.

Anyway, one year has past and these are now only memories.

I have visited the State Departement in Washington and seen the security
messures in place there. It's really not comperable to Norway in any way, but
Norway is living in the same world and I hope we can keep things as open as
possible. Maybe in the future I can someday be as trusting again as I were
when I was hacking Drupal back on the 22. July 2011.

[1] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equa...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better)

------
Janteloven
This is far too simplistic an analysis. Making new security laws takes time,
particularly in a positive-law tradition state like Norway. So it is too early
to say what the effects will be. Without a doubt changes are being made to
Norway's security apparatus, in fact the securitization of the Norwegian state
is much talked about in policy circles here. There is talk of moving from a
'Prestige' set of policies to 'Security' as the guiding principle.

I don't think any state could sit by and do nothing institutionally after such
a terrible event. The problem in Norway is that whilst there is a self-
congratulatory air about their response to Brevik - "love and democracy", they
do not seem to want to engage in substantive debate about the planned changes
to their security apparatus. To be honest they _trust_ their government to do
the right thing, even if that means extremely illiberal changes to the legal
right of the person and the criminal system. Whether that trust is misplaced
or not, and remember this is a highly consensual society, the Janteloven that
Brevik has revealed will be controlled now via new laws - including new laws
on using the Internet and making comments (Brevik was a big user of the
internet and left comments on Norwegian websites).

------
meshko
With all due respect to Mr Schneier, I think this comparison is not 100%
valid. There is a substantial difference between a terrorist threat from a
lone mentally ill person and an organized group with ideology shared by
thousands of people.

~~~
vetler
There is still debate on whether or not he is mentally ill. See day 39 - 40
here, plus closing speeches:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Anders_Behring_Breivik#Court-
appointed_psychiatrists)

~~~
meshko
I think this debate is in the lawyer land, not in the mental health land.

~~~
vetler
Well, court-appointed psychiatrists Husby and Sørheim see evidence of paranoid
schizophrenia, and court-appointed psychiatrists Aspaas and Tørrissen say that
he is not clinically insane.

------
sebnukem2
Hint: they didn't attack a random [oil-rich] country, nor did they subject
their citizen to naked or carcinogenic scanners, which at the time didn't seem
like a patriotic thing to do by American standards.

------
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.

------
TomGullen
> pledged to do everything to ensure the country's core values were not
> undermined.

Is this not a little dangerous surely if we take this over to USA where gun
ownership is part of their core values?

~~~
aggronn
Not really.

~~~
TomGullen
Thanks for the insight!

------
jbjorge
Compared to the Oklahoma bombing and the recent theater shooting, Norway
probably didn't act _all that different_ , but from reading the source, this
is one of the comments that captured the essence of why/how Norway stands out:

"[]...What we Norwegians are afraid of is actually the situation you have in
the US and UK either with Police or prosecutors with way too much power or
CCTV cameras everywhere etc. We have been a peaceful society based on trust to
each other for a long time, and intend to let that continue. I can only quote
FDR: "The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself". Stoltenberg actually had
to come with that statement. As doing the "US style fixit" would have
backfired on him politically. Popular demand is different here, and that is
the true power of Norway."

------
snambi
Terrorists want people not to continue their way of life. This is their main
objective. They want people to live in fear. By voluntarily creating fear
about terrorism, we make the terrorists goal easier.

------
jwoah12
I think there are two reasons why the comparison of Norway's reaction to
America's reaction is not completely valid. The first is the population
difference (mentioned a lot already). The second is the timeframe. Norway had
the benefit of a decade of reflection on the American response to 9/11. It has
been fairly obvious that the international community believes the US
overreacted.

------
gadders
Not really a proper comparison though, is it? The Norwegian massacres have
more in common with the attack at the Batman Screening in Denver than they do
with Al Qaeda/WTC etc

------
Tangaroa
A certain segment of Norwegians reacted to terrorism by being enthusiastically
for it. These included the leaders of the Labour Party, including the leaders
at the Labour Party's Utoya youth camp.

[http://zalmi.blogspot.com/2011/07/utoya-not-so-innocent-
yout...](http://zalmi.blogspot.com/2011/07/utoya-not-so-innocent-youth-
camp.html) [http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40472/karma-2-norway-utoya-
ca...](http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40472/karma-2-norway-utoya-camp-was-
also-fatah-plo-terrorist-camp/)

This is a factor that seems to go unmentioned in all discussions of the Utoya
massacre, but is necessary knowledge to understand the event in its entirety.
It adds detail to Breivik's motive, and it raises the question of why there
has been no condemnation of the Labour Party's support for similar massacres
elsewhere being conducted on racial and religious lines so long as they happen
far away and are done by a faction that the Party approves of.

This is beside the point that Schneier makes, so I apologise for going off
topic. To that point, the US overreacted (an understatement) and Norway faced
little threat of further attacks. Norway did consider fudging its laws to give
Breivik a life term as a mental inmate rather than the statutory limit of
years as a prisoner, and that can be questioned as an expansion of security.
More generally, no one in Norway could argue a need for greatly expanded
security since the threat ended with Breivik's capture.

~~~
hansbo
I apologize for continuing off-topic, but the links you provide only seem to
indicate that the left-wing youth of Norway are supporting Palestine. This is
not an uncommon opinion; in fact, being Swedish, I can't recall that I've ever
met anyone who supports Israel in their occupation.

The links you provide equates this to antisemitism, which is very strange to
me. Who was it, you mean, who were being "enthusiastically for" terrorism?

------
Holeinthewall
Maybe I fail to understand this, but we are comparing a country(USA) who (for
whatever reason) is specifically targeted by terrorists on a whole different
level than Norway.

We are comparing an apple to a boiled egg : putting them in a microwave &
trying to commend apple for not exploding !

Forget legislative or leadership moronism at times, but blasting US for
reacting in a way for something no other country has ever faced seems too
harsh.

~~~
epo
"something no other country has ever faced"? For God's sake, catch up on world
news or at least spare yourself embarrassment by not making such witless
pronouncements.

~~~
learc83
If he's talking about the scale of a single incident then he is correct.

The death toll from the 9/11 attacks far exceeded any other single terrorist
attack.

~~~
swa14
For a moment there one might have been thinking he meant atrocious actions
with high death tolls against a civilian population, in which case the OP is
definitely failing to understand it with his "for something no other country
has ever faced", and the "spare yourself embarrassment by not making such
witless pronouncements" is spot on.

