How to explain terror in Norway?
Again, nobody knows who perpetrated these attacks or why (though the self-described jihadi group claiming responsibility said, as the NYT put it, that it "was a response to Norwegian forcesâ?? presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad"). But whether these attacks are related to those wars or not, I simply do not understand this bafflement being expressed that Norway -- of all countries -- would be targeted with violence.Regardless of the justifications of these wars -- and Norway is in both countries as part of a U.N. action -- it is simply a fact that Norway has sent its military to two foreign countries where it is attacking people, dropping bombs, and killing civilians. Historically, one reason not to invade and attack other countries is because doing so often prompts one's own country to be attacked....
The solution is not to dismiss or justify acts such as the Oslo bombing. It's to realize that our own country and those in alliance with it -- unintentionally or otherwise -- replicate the horror that took place in Oslo in countless places around the world with great regularity, and that requires at least as much attention and discussion as the Oslo attacks are sure to receive. - Glenn Greenwald
That post was written on Friday. Now that we know that the perpetrator of the Norway attacks was a right-wing militant, what should we be discussing? The clear implication of Greenwald's post is that Islamist violence directed against Norway wouldn't be inexplicable because the country is participating in the wars in Afghanistan and Libya. In other words: if you play with fire, expect to get burned (a view, incidentally, I don't disagree with). But what of this view now, in light of the assailant's views? Are we to assume that Greenwald believes that right-wing, domestic terrorism is also to be expected (but not condoned or justified) because Norway's policies on immigration and multiculturalism are alienating portions of its own population?
