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.
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!
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.
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_...
> Or is it only domestic terrorism when the perpetrators are white one wonders!
Of course the race (and religion) plays a huge role in the emotional reaction to violence. Uncomparatively more so than the technical "domestic/external" categorization based on residence, citizenship and whatnot. Race and religion are the top factors in eliciting the "us vs them" reaction.
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.
Sigh, you can find neonazis in Israel(!), that doesn't imply those idiots are numerous. (The left wing idiots (AFA et al) seems to be more numerous.)
The Norwegians, for good reason, doesn't expect repeated attempts by right wing extremists every year in the future. In Scandinavia, lately we can look forward to such terrorism attempts every year from the islamists...
Edit: morsch, I was not talking about Germany! But ok, a simple point. East Germany was a dictatorship; intolerance and conspiracy theories grows in those. As I understand, it was much worse to e.g. have the wrong skin color there 20 years ago.
I think you're greatly underestimating the problem of neo-nazi (youth) culture in Europe. I don't really care to derail the discussion by comparing it to other political movements, but the German government estimates there are 6000 violent neo-nazis in Germany, and that number is probably low-balling it considerably, I'd say it's an order of magnitude higher than that. Neo-nazis incidents are absolutely a daily thing, even if they don't manifest the same scale as Utoya but rather in mundane assault and vandalism. Furthermore, our news are just now dominated by a case of domestic neo-nazi terrorism that includes the assassination of 9 people and several bombings. The case has already resulted in massive political upheaval because of the bizarre involvement of the intelligence services. [0]
And this is in a country where right-wing extremist and populist parties rarely get more than a few percent in elections, unlike seemingly half of Europe. For instance, what's going on in Hungary is just disturbing, and things could go crazy all over Europe if/when the economic situation takes a sudden turn down.
(Edit: Added a few sentences regarding the current case of domestic right-wing terrorism in Germany.)
That's rubbish, there are plenty of scandinavian neo-nazis. They strut around pretending to be vikings and loudly claim to be the master race when drunk. I've run into a few of them.
[edit] Also, as a mate of mine pointed out, they can't be real vikings anyway, as then they would be from York or Iceland or somewhere, rather than being descended from the people who were left at home to look after the sheep.
A "viking" was historically someone that went out and traded/plundered/pirated/etc in the ice free part of the year. As a business. (There are historical documents of a Danish king recruiting in Uppsala for an English vacation.) No need to move anyplace to be a viking. Such things aren't unknown in clan cultures (see e.g. Afghanistan).
As I wrote in another comment, you find neonazis in Israel, that doesn't mean they are numerous. Today in Scandinavia, the left wing idiots in organized groups seems more violent than ND etc. I might be wrong, you got a reference?
Edit: Otoh, the word "Viking" has been used for so many things it has lost all specific meaning long ago. :-)
I realised why people started arguing with me. :-)
I wrote that Europe has few right wing crazies in the last few decades. I meant Scandinavia, I have no real interest/clue where different types of extremists are numerous.
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.
Domestic with respect to the motive and perspective of the perpetrators. 9/11 and 7/7 had elaborate international and geopolitical motivations, from the perspective of foreign victims of respectively US and British foreign policy.
c. One year strikes me as too soon to assess anything and to pat on anyone's back.
One year after 9/11 (ok, 14 months but the work was being publicly done within a year) - we had Homeland security, PATRIOT Act, a war, and noise about another war. Sales of duct tape went through the roof (along with plastic tarps, some sort of voodoo chem weapon protection scheme), new warrantless wire taps everywhere, the NSA box to read all internet traffic, and so on.
So yes, a year is plenty of time to compare responses in the first year.
Regarding a., the background has changed immensely, given the US's extreme sabre-rattling 'with us or against us in this War On Terror' in the ten years leading up to the event.
re: "d. One could argue the US can't afford what Norway can afford," also perhaps in the literal sense as Norway has one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world (along with a government budget surplus instead of a deficit).
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.