I don't watch TV often enough to catch them, but here are the three anti-terror ads from ESAG that are being aired on Norwegian TV, and in other European countries. The files are about 5mb each, with Norwegian voiceover.

Bomb plan:

Not long ago, in an abandoned terrorist nest, weapon inspectors found schematics for nuclear weapons. Terrorists seek even more deadly weapons. Not just elsewhere, but also in our own backyard. In the 90's almost every third terrorist attack took place in Europe. Imagine if they get hold of a nuke. Nothing will hold them back from using it. There is no future in terrorism.

Germs:

Bacteria. Sneaky, deadly bacteria. Which might contain anthrax, smallpox or plague. This could be the weapon terrorists use against an unsuspecting city. There have already been found plans for biological weapons in razzias against terror cells in Europe. A bacteriological attack may occur any time, and almost anywhere. There is no future in terrorism.

Madrid:

Like the train bombs in Madrid showed us, anyone can be a target for terrorists. The whole idea behind terrorism is to spread fear and chaos by attacking unarmed, unsuspecting people. Who knows where and when we will experience the next Madrid. The threat today is unfortunately all too real. There is no future in terrorism.

I don't like these ads. The Norwegian speaker makes them sound like the premise of an action movie, imitating the dark, excited voice of a Hollywood announcer. It's parodic. "He's back. And this time .. he's mad. Gandhi II". The choice of Norwegian actor here is disastrous.

But it's not just the voice. ESAG tries too hard. The newspaper ads all provide short, reasoned arguments about terrorism. They have the room for that. These 30 second ads have no time for argument. They convey only a sharp sense of fear and desperation, using all available weaponry: Bacteria creeping across the screen, screaming voices, a nuclear mushroom. Stylistically this is over the top propaganda, and recognizable as such. If anyone picks up a message at all it will be "I guess we're all doomed, then".

And then there's the slogan. "There's no future in terrorism" was never a good choice, and I'm still confused about the meaning. But in the newspaper ads the slogan is modestly displayed. Here it is the punch line, spoken as if it clarifies the message. It doesn't. The ads go from sharp fear to disorientation.

It is more difficult to convey an idea with a TV ad than it is to create a positive brand name association, and with complex ideas it is impossible, but this is not a complex idea: Terrorism is a threat to us - we need to pay it more attention. I'm sure there are ways to convey that idea in 30 seconds. This is not one of them.

There's no future in terrorism.

That line sounds like it's trying to dissuade people from being terrorists. Kind of like "say no to drugs" ads.

But the graphics and lurid narration, it seems to me, are the kind of thing that would excite terrorists.

So yeah, these ads seem all mixed up. What's the point?

bjorn-
It seems these ads are simply conveying the possibilities that terrorism brings in a vivid way with no puffery.
I don't think these ads should be looked at so darn "anally". There is NO future in terrorism, who can deny that? It does sound a little quirky to me, but truthful none the less. I think the right perspective to take is to NOT try to analyse a message that is meant to be both vivid and simply direct/to the point.
It may also be best to not assume that the people throughout the planet each have the exact number of brain cells and will interpret these as you have. These ads may just be geared to those who may have just a few though, and these people cannot be left out. In any marketing campaign- simplicity is the first approach to take, then one can build on the messaging once a target audience has been obtained.

I watched the first and while I don't know enough about Norwegian intonation (or how Norwegians perceive different kinds of voices - something that differs a lot between cultures) to say anything about that, the slogan at the end has got to be the lamest goddamned thing I ever did see (if the Norwegian sounds even half as stupid as your English translation).

My approach: Show lots of visuals of Norwegian monuments (the wooden churches, famous statues, paintings, buildings) interspiced with this should be lots of modern Norwegian people, working women, co-ed schools, a same sex wedding ceremony, the nobel peace prize set to classical music that stirs Norwegian national pride.
Over the music, the announcer calmly reads terrorist rhetoric (including that threat against Norway)
Toward the end a different announcer: "This is what (specific terrorist group) wants to destroy. What are you going to do about it?"

Pato:
"It may also be best to not assume that the people throughout the planet each have the exact number of brain cells and will interpret these as you have. These ads may just be geared to those who may have just a few though, and these people cannot be left out"
Yupps, the Democrats are just starting to realise what a big mistake they did when they left out the very ones that make up the republicans today .. :p

Michael, I think thats a waay better idea, yes.
Makes me wonder how much thought they really put into making this ad. You guys have this ad in Poland as well?

Thank you Allan, but I have no idea how such an ad would play with Norwegian audiences. I think something like it could be effective in the Anglosphere but I have my doubts about it translating well. This is the kind of thing that really has to be tailored to each country by people who know what pushes the residents' buttons.

I haven't seen the ad on Polish tv (but I don't watch that much tv) but I would doubt if either the ad as they are now or the kind I suggested (reworked for Poland of course) would be that effective. And the motto? Terror nie ma przyszłości sounds just plain retarded.

To be cynical about it, if I wanted to motivate Poles, I would have a lot of information about how well certain western countries are meeting the terrorism challenge and contrast that with a bumbling outdated approach used by the Polish government. The idea that they're letting the side down is a powerful motivating device for a country with a chronic inferiority complex.

@allan
you still sour over being beaten so badly last saturday?
When nov 3rd come around and then when it is proven that Bush has knocked Kerry and his party of fools back to it's knees, come back here for a little dialogue.
The great things is this- once Bush wins again, after his 4 years we have either John McCain or the great Rudi Gulliani for another 8 years. 85% of americans would vote for EITHER of these candidates. They'll be running against Hillary Clinton too.. it be much to watch.
Get it? Your time is up.

Interseting debate.
It is surprising to see that the slogan, (which I have little trouble with) is what makes most of you upset. I find that slogan very subordinate to the fact that these ads are designed to incite fear in the population way beyond the real risk of attacks with bacteria or nuclear weapons in Norway would be.
(According to WMD-experts from the UK and the US assembled at a conference in Lillestroem, Norway today, both are minute risks...as of today) ESAG have implicitly admitted that they believe that the anxiety level of average Joe (Ola Nordmann) is too low.

What's so wrong with the slogan? Apart from the fact that terrorist campaigns sometimes bring about positive changes for those who conduct them...Without IRA no Stormont.

An interersting article on the concept of terrorism that suggests that ESAG ads are not quite drawing attention to the whole issue:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/terror-ethics.html

A snip from the article:

1. The European definition of terrorism (at the time a draft version) implies that it is wrong to change society, especially since conservative political violence was not included in the definition. The final version, Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA, defined terrorism as violent crimes aimed at "seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation". Bomb attacks committed by conservatives to stabilise a country, or its fundamental structures, are not defined as terrorism by the EU. The definition was evidently written by people who think the existing structures should stay in place, for all time. The underlying assumption is that conservatism is the whole and absolute moral truth - and that assumption is false.

Anders: It is surprising to see that the slogan, (which I have little trouble with) is what makes most of you upset.

Actually, the voiceover and style of the ads makes me upset. The slogan does not - it just confuses me. What does it mean? I can parse the words, but I don't see the relevance to what ESAG is doing.

these ads are designed to incite fear in the population way beyond the real risk of attacks with bacteria or nuclear weapons in Norway would be.

They're designed to create fear through images and sound, instead of through good arguments. I don't like that. But we should fear terrorism. Not in the everyday sense, "I wonder if that Arab looking guy on the bus is a suicide bomber", at least not without good reason, but in the sense that we should be alert, as well as prioritize it politically. There are many ways people can prevent terrorist attacks. They can report activities that are genuine causes for concern, (people investigating a good target, like the railway, abandoned suitcases, Mosques preaching hatred), and fight back if an attack occurs, (like the people on the Bodø plane did.) This is not likely to happen unless people believe that terrorist attacks can happen here, too.

Politically we can provide attention and funding for counterterrorism. That is where awareness of wmd's is most important. I don't see why you dismiss the threat. These are relatively simple weapons. Difficult to get hold of, but easy enough that it's worth a terrorist's time to try. The "real risk" is unquantifiable, but say there's a 1% chance of a nuclear detonation in a European city in 2005. That's large enough to justify a lot of focus on that threat.

"(like the people on the Bodø plane did.) This is not likely to happen unless people believe that terrorist attacks can happen here, too."

The way you argue, the resistance on the Bodø plane would not have occured if people where not alert. People fought back. They were presumably alert of the risk terror acts or maniacs may cause here in peaceful Norway. Does not that lead to the conclusion that ESAG's hyping of Norwegians' fear of terrorism is displaced? Or would you argue that we must be even more on the alert than we already are (since Bodø appearently demonstrated a certain level of awareness)

Risk = Probablity x Consequences
Probability = Motivation X Capabilty

We should not completely disregard the prospects of Nuclear terrorist attacks in the foreseeable future. Even though there exists no such capability and hence as of today there is hardly any probability. This is because the consequences are bordering to immeasurable and there is little doubt that there are terrorist groups out there who have the motivation to use Nukes.

"Difficult to get hold of, but easy enough that it's worth a terrorist's time to try."
Here I disagree with you on the facts. It is very, very difficult to acquire or produce nuclear weapons that will preform a lot worse (create worse disasters) than what was achieved on 9-11. This is a debate that divides the research establishment on Nuclear terrorism.

On the basis of the low risk posed by nuclear terrorism my belief is that the public need not be shaken up with speculative ads like this one. There is no need for duct-tape hoarding in this country. But our proper authorities must be extremely on the watch for these kinds of threats. And from my experience with them they are responding to this minute threat satisfactorily.

I beleive we're not very far apart from each other on this topic Bjørn. We only have different opinions of the probabilityof nuclear terrorism. As do the experts. (Of which I'm not one)

Anders: Does not that lead to the conclusion that ESAG's hyping of Norwegians' fear of terrorism is displaced? Or would you argue that we must be even more on the alert than we already are

Your language is mathematical to a degree that is meaningless. Does ESAG create too much fear? Is there enough awareness? You can't measure these thing with numbers. There are no real life numbers to plug into the formulas you list, "risk = propability x consequences". No way to calculate whether ESAG's ads cause a proportionate or disproportionate amount of fear. I'm not saying the questions can't be answered, only that to be accurate we need less accurate terminology.

There is a sense in Norway that Islamic terrorism can't happen here. ESAG's ads are designed to fight that belief, using facts about Islamic terrorism elsewhere. Forget the numbers. This is appropriate behavior, as long as the facts are true, and presentation is honest.

Connected with this belief that Islamic terrorism can't happen here is the pre-9/11 mentality that the best way to survive a hostage situation is to do as the terrorists tell you. What happened on the Bodø plane is a good example of how people should behave, but it does not contradict what I'm saying. This guy didn't hijack the plane - he took up an ax and hacked away at the pilots, trying to crash the plane immediately. It was obvious to the passengers that they had to react, and, luckily, two of them were alert and brave enough to try. But what if the man had merely hijacked the plane? Would the passengers have attacked him, or hoped for a peaceful resolution? On an American plane, the hijacker would have been attacked. With Norwegians I'm not so sure.

Making Norwegians more alert to the threat of terrorism may change that, though of course this hasn't been a theme in the ESAG ads. Perhaps it should be - a "what to do during a hijacking" list. Beginning with: "Assume you're already dead. Make sure nobody else dies with you."

It is very, very difficult to acquire or produce nuclear weapons that will preform a lot worse (create worse disasters) than what was achieved on 9-11.

There are two potential sources of nukes today: The former Soviet Union, and Pakistan. Nobody seems to know what's happened to all the Soviet nukes, and there are, as we know now, elements inside the Pakistani nuclear program who have worked actively to spread nuclear technology, and who may sympathize with the Islamist cause. And then there's Iran, which definitely does sympathize, and which may, under the right circumstances, decide to nuke its enemies by terrorist proxy. Again, the risk is unquantifiable, but we know there are realistic scenarios where nukes end up in the hands of terrorists, and our behavior should reflect that. There is very little individuals can do, but to ensure that politicians do what they can, it's important that the people and the media remind them of it.

Or does Iran actually sympathize? To me that argument sounds a bit too easy. They were OPPOSED to Taliban - unlike for instance the US official Zalmay Khalilzad who at first found the Taliban to represent a new kind of Islamic fundamentalism that was not opposed to the US.

Being shiites the Irani Islamists are probably also not too fond of Sunni extremists inspired by the highly anti-Shia wahabbism either...

But then, of course, they have been supporting Hizballah - a militant, but local Lebanese, shia group - and they do have some common enemies with guys like Osama - namely the US and Israel. There have also been some hints that Iran facilitated trips for jihadis into Afghanistan by not putting visas in their passports - but sympathize? Really?

I think Iran handing terrorists nuclear weapons is a highly unlikely scenario. But on the other hand - unlikely scenarios have become reality before.

Oeyvind

Pato:
"you still sour over being beaten so badly last saturday?"
I did not vote in the election down here Pato, simply because I'm Norwegian. Besides, some of Howards politics seems okay, especially economical ones, except his stance on the Iraq war. You think a person is EITHER right on everything OR wrong on everything?

"When nov 3rd come around and then when it is proven that Bush has knocked Kerry and his party of fools back to it's knees, come back here for a little dialogue"
It just proves how brainwashed and opinionless the people of the US is. If they had any sense, then they would courtmarshal him for dragging the country into a war that was unjustified. Sadly, no-one else can do what US does, occupy a country beacuse the leader is not to their liking. Otherwise US would have been occupied by now.

The great things is this- once Bush wins again, after his 4 years we have either John McCain or the great Rudi Gulliani for another 8 years. 85% of americans would vote for EITHER of these candidates. They'll be running against Hillary Clinton too.. it be much to watch.
Get it? Your time is up"
Are you talking about Norwegians, Students, or me as a person, or what? Oh, are you talking about more war? Well, that would just further undermine US' credibility and power, leading to even more US hate in the world.

Bjørn:
"what to do during a hijacking" list. Beginning with: "Assume you're already dead. Make sure nobody else dies with you."
Yupps.. that way it would also not be mistaken for implicitly saying that the American policy is the correct one.

"there are realistic scenarios where nukes end up in the hands of terrorists"
I disagree with you Bjørn. I agree with Øyvind. These scenarios are not very realistic today. But we must continue to work to deny terrorists these weapons in the future. That is in my opinion the MOST important thing in international politics today.- In that I agree with the Bush administration, amazing isn't it??!!

I was disappointed than Nunn & Lugar didn't get the Nobel Peace Price. We must secure enriched Uranium and Plutonium. It's imperative, in order to deny these worst-case scenarios from becoming more realistic.

What's important to remeber as well is that lousy nukes is what we might expect to be employed if (heaven forbid) we should experience the first nuclear terrorist strike. Lousy nukes need not do much more damage than massive explosive in simultanous attacks Al Qaeda-style. If we get a lousy nuke strike with a small tactical nuclear weapon or a home-made bomb with only nuclear waste ("Dirty Bomb" radiological terrorism). Then the alarm bell with start sounding even among those (like me)who at present are skeptical to the reality of the threat from nuclear terrorism.

Bjørn: "to be accurate we need less accurate terminology."

Here you disappoint me. I prefer accurate terminology. This is not maths. The models I referred to are integrated parts of modern risk analysis. Sometimes you can fill in numbers and actually get a figure out of them. But in this instance we can't. But the model is still helpful in order to systematize our thinking. The model reminds us that intention without capability represents no risk, only a bad starting point for future risks. (we must adress the problem, but need not fear it, as of today) It also reminds us that even disastrous consequences need not result in high risks if the probability is moving towards zero.

For analyses of the links between WMD and terrorism that I base my understanding on. Check out the articles on these pages.

http://www.nupi.no/IPS/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=981

I maintain this knowledge base. So comments are welcome.

Øyvind: There have also been some hints that Iran facilitated trips for jihadis into Afghanistan by not putting visas in their passports - but sympathize? Really?

Enough to give them a hand once in a while, as you mention here. Hezbollah on their hand provided al-Qaeda with training in the early days. I don't believe it's sympathy, but there are people in the Iranian government who believe that the US and Israel are a major threat, and they share that fear with al-Qaeda.

Then again, if Iran were to attack the US or Israel with nuclear weapons, and they wanted to do it covertly, they would probably send their own agents and not al-Qaeda. I'm not saying they want to do this right away, but if they're pushed into a corner they might. (And if they're not pushed into a corner they'll start bully their neighbours, Israel and the US the moment they get nukes anyway.)

Anders: Here you disappoint me. I prefer accurate terminology.

But no more than is justified by the source data. Your concepts make sense - but only as abstract concepts that, as you say, systematize our thinking. We don't have the numbers to bring them into the real world, (as we can with risk assessment in other areas, such as airplane safety.)

We don't know that terrorists have gotten access to wmd's. We do know that they want to, that our knowledge of wmd research and production has blind spots, and that there may be people in those blind spots sympathetic to or willing to do business with terrorists.

"We don't know that terrorists have gotten access to wmd's."

This is wrong. We know that the Tokyo subway was attacked with chemical weapons. But this only proves and underlines the fact that the linguistic label "WMD" is so inaccurate that we should part with it. It treats weapons that are extremely different into an unnatural category. I totally support the arguments made in the article: "The real weapons of mass destruction".
http://www.atlanterhavskomiteen.no/publikasjoner/sp/2003/1.htm

The inaccuracy of this terminology was also cleverly exploited by the Bush administration, since they were right when they said that Saddam had used WMD against his own people. This, coupled with images of mushroom clouds, made people conceive Saddam as a "nuclear threat" which is off the mark (as of 2003).
Once again...I prefer accurate terminology. The suggestive arguments about WMD & Iraq would have been less effective had the WMD label not been the language in vogue.

The more I think about these ads the more I can see how they actually increase the terrorist threat.

They put suggestions into disturbed peoples' minds and remind them of their potential power. Remember we are talking about people here who are likely to have been severely traumatised by one experience or another (possibly in Iraq) and they are only going to be stimulated and encouraged by this sort of scare mongering.

Increasing the fear of terrorists increases their power immeasurably.

Perhaps the only saving grace is that the threat itself is grossly exaggerated as this Guardian article suggests:

The making of the terror myth

Since the attacks on the United States in September 2001, there have been more than a thousand references in British national newspapers, working out at almost one every single day, to the phrase "dirty bomb". There have been articles about how such a device can use ordinary explosives to spread lethal radiation; about how London would be evacuated in the event of such a detonation; about the Home Secretary David Blunkett's statement on terrorism in November 2002 that specifically raised the possibility of a dirty bomb being planted in Britain; and about the arrests of several groups of people, the latest only last month, for allegedly plotting exactly that.

It is interesting that the thin veneer of socialist utopia is ground shakingly thrust into the real world of possibility; something the EU like an ostrich with her head in the sand has refused to acknowledge during the past 15-years of acceptance of openly operating terrorist groups within their boarders and major cities. Brussels is case in point where authorities acknowledged in 2003 that over 106 known terrorist groups are operating freely - the only sanction from Belgium's is that they not harm Belgium’s. When the day terror from the hellish depts of Islam is no longer content with attack the Great Statin, aka, the USA they will in one of their splinter fractions uncontrollable by even the sainests of the insain, unleash these horrors upon Europe in the final bid to destroy the infidel!

Israel,

Brussels is case in point where authorities acknowledged in 2003 that over 106 known terrorist groups are operating freely - the only sanction from Belgium's is that they not harm Belgium’s.

Can you provide a reference to substantiate this claim?

Thank you in advance.

I think that every self respecting citizen should write to the TV chain that accepts adds from this ESAG group complaining in the strongest terms. These ads are probably the most upsetting piece of propaganda I've seen in my life time and reminiscent from what I can gather of Nazi era stuff. It seems that in countries where the media can't be bought wholesale, the spooks who want us to believe in a dangerous world are trying to scare us with advertising. I'm ashamed that our TV stations accept this dirty money. But I reckon if enough people write and complain it can help - these days complaints aren't that frequent so your voice does count!

Remember there's no fear worse than fear itself.

I've enclosed an example of the e-mail that I sent to Euronews after the horror of seing one of these ads.

"A group called ESAG for some reason seems to be paying your otherwise excellent TV station to play adverisements with the theme 'There's no future in terrorism'. These are probably the most offensive advertisments I have ever seen. I somewhat doubt that they are expected to terrify bomb makers that might lurk in some dark cellar somewhere - probably imaginary. So the only apparent aim of paying for these nasty adverts is to create a general sense of public insecurity. I believe that accepting money from such advertisers is against anyone's interests except those of a scary, politically motivated minority who see it fit to spread a general sense of insecurity amongst the population.
Please, remove these offensive, alarmist, propagansist advertisements.
Thank you and please keep up the otherwise excellent work."

I guess John Barnes is not a fan of free speech.

Now I remember why the Americans had a revolution.

propoganda, eh?

British govt just released that they have stopped 4-5 9/11 type events in UK. Reality indicates that it is you that is spewing propoganda.

the brithish GOV NEVER proved any of their allegations. they re full of shit as well.

and Gunnar, the americans you re referring to who you say did a revolution, they were really europeans. but thats another discussion.

>> the brithish GOV NEVER proved any of their allegations. they re full of shit as well.

Why would they need to prove it? You must truly be a conspiracy nutcase to believe that Al-Qaeda and others are not actively in Jihad against us. To hold your theory, one would have to believe that historical terrorist attacks are hoaxes. Do you believe that all pre 9/11 pictures of NYC have been modified to show towers that were never there in reality?

I`m not sure all this is useful. We are just making more people afraid without a purpose . We are also playing into the hands of the terrorists by giving them free publicity.
If you want to lobby the politicians it is more effective to do this directly. I know , I live in Bruxelles and all I have to do is go to each M. E. P.`s office and knock on the door . Believe me , it works and that way you do not make lots of people afraid un-necessarily .

If you want to lobby the politicians it is more effective to do this directly. I know , I live in Bruxelles and all I have to do is go to each M. E. P.`s office and knock on the door . Believe me , it works and that way you do not make lots of people afraid un-necessarily .

There is something to be said for not frightening people to the point where it affects the economy, but short of that, more info is most certainly better. Your conclusion is flawed for several reasons:

1) The danger is great enough that only a concerted effort by everyone to a) clearly identify the morality of human rights, b) the standards of civilized behavior, and c) get totally behind the physical efforts to remove the danger from our midst. Would you say the same if Nazi Panzers were headed for Brussels? I would assert that in many ways, the danger is greater now, since the Nazis didn't have WMD, and also wanted territory. These animals just want to murder.

2) We don't all live in little cozy democracies like you.

3) private communications with representatives isn't likely to help, since democratic politicians, by definitions, will only respond to the opinions of the vast majority

4) A secret war on terror is likely to be less effective, since the people won't understand why certain things are happening. How could they, the reason is secret.

5) A secret war on terror is likely to be less effective, since the enemy will be emboldened or driven to escalate the war to get attention. This is in fact, exactly what happened in the 90s with the Clinton administration. 9/11 was the result.

Those terrible visions became reality today.
London was hit by some uneducated, cruel haters.

I hope UK will not turn into somthing like USA after 9/11.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1461