In October 2004 NRK revealed that Norway had lent 25 crates of laser based guidance equipment to the American forces in Kuwait, only weeks before the invasion in March 2003. Minor requests like these from an ally are unexceptional, but it turned into a local ruckus, with opposition parties seizing the occasion to ask tough questions, as opposition parties like to do.

Then two journalists in Dagsavisen did a follow-up: "leading experts on terrorism", they claimed, had concluded that by lending this equipment to the Americans, Norway had placed itself in increased danger of a terrorist attack. The juicy essence of this story, "leading experts on terrorism" + "increased danger" went all over the national media. I remember hearing of it and scoffing at those incompetent "experts" who were at it again. Didn't they know that the terrorists already hate us?

I was right to scoff, but I may have scoffed at the wrong people - the story, as it turns out, was largely manufactured by Dagsavisen. It was a product of the same kind of quote shopping I wrote about earlier.

In the article, Increased terror danger after weapons lending, journalists Jon Martin Larsen and Nilas Johnsen began:

The threat of terrorism against Norwegian targets have increased because of the weapons lending to the American forces. Norway's contribution will be made known from terror cells in Europe to martyrs in Baghdad.

The weapons lending does not only create noise in Norway. The news about Norway's secret weapons support to American forces have been spread quickly through Arab newspapers in London and Islamist websites. The 25 crates of weapons will thus associate Norway even more strongly with what radical Islamists perceive as an American crusade against Islam. This is the conclusion of leading terrorism experts Dagsavisen has contacted.

Remember that last sentence. These are not the views of Dagsavisen, or of some random researcher, but the professional opinion of leading terrorism experts. The article continues:

- It has now been made known that we are in the same category as countries who have contributed [to the Iraq war] with weapons, and not only with people and knowledge. This puts us in a whole different category, says terrorism expert Marcus Buck at the center for security studies at the University of Granada in Spain.

Buck has followed the threats of al-Qaeda against Europe for years. He believes that the information which was revealed yesterday may trigger new terrorist attacks, primarily against Norwegians in the conflict zones Afghanistan and Iraq.

- It could be organized terrorist attacks, or a man with a knife against a Norwegian on the street of Kabul or Basra, says Buck.

Other people are quoted in the article - I'll get back to them - but Marcus Buck is the only one who clearly says that the danger of terrorist attacks against Norway has increased because we lent "weapons" to the Americans. So who is Marcus Buck? According to his CV, Buck works at the University of Tromsø, (though he also teaches in Granada). His fields of expertise are statistics, political science and elections. There's not a word about terrorism.

That's a curious resume for an expert on terrorism. Buck himself thinks so, anyway. Though he stands by what he told Dagsavisen, he feels his credentials were misrepresented:

I teach at the center for security studies at the University of Granada, Spain, but I've never callen myself a "terrorism expert". To the journalist, I summed up the main conclusion of a Spanish report about terrorist threats, published by the Instituto Elcano, precisely about being closely associated with the US. What I said was to me entirely trivial, and nothing to base a story on.

Dagsavisen's article did not mention any Spanish report, and quoted Buck as if he, being a terrorism expert, had studied this issue himself. Buck says he has knowledge about the ETA, and does some general teaching about security and terrorism to Spanish officers, so he could well be a valuable source of insight. But he's no expert, and certainly not a leading one. Buck has been quoted on terrorism on only one occasion before, in the days after March 11 2004, when as a Norwegian with familiarity with Spain he offered his views on the aftermath of the Madrid terrorist attack.

So why did Dagsavisen base a front page article on what seems like the last person a journalist would want to ask about terrorism? Probably because he was the last person they asked. According to Anders G. Romarheim at NUPI, several of the better known foreign policy and terrorism researchers in Norway ("experts" in media jargon) were interviewed for this story. Most of them thought the whole angle was uninteresting, and simply would not say what Dagsavisen wanted to hear. So the journalists kept looking, until they found Marcus Buck.

Romarheim did not get a phonecall, but he has experienced this often enough to know the drill. Many journalists are not genuinely interested in the views of the people they contact. They only care about how much prestige they can place behind the angle they want to push. If a well-known expert won't say it, they try another, and another, down the staircase of credentials. In the end it doesn't really matter who you quote. Though a first rate expert, if available, is better than a fake one, as this story shows anyone can be labelled an expert. And that label is all the average reader is likely to notice.

There's more dishonesty here than a false label and a desperate shopping round. Genuine terror researchers were also quoted in Dagsavisen's article, all of them apparently in support of its main thesis: that lending weapons to the Americans has placed Norway in greater danger.

Petter Nesser at the Defence Research Establishment (FFI) is quoted as saying:

Anything that connects us with American warfare will also place us on the map for radical Islamist groups, both in Europe and the rest of the world. So this weapons lending comes in addition to the fact that we're already seen as a close ally of the US.

From the context, the reader is meant to think that Nesser is merely expanding on Buck's theory, but read in isolation it's likely that he does not believe the weapons lending to be very significant. Norway is already perceived to be a close ally of the US, and that alone makes us a target. (Update 8/3: Nesser confirms this interpretation.) Nesser is a well-known authority on terrorism - if he had actually said what he seems to be agreeing with, he would have been the primary source of the article.

Ståle Ulriksen at NUPI makes a similar statement, offering at best reluctant agreement with the thesis. Again, it's unlikely that he actually said what the article implies that he agrees with. (Update 7/3: Ulriksen confirms this.)

The most disturbing quote in the article is attributed to Jan Oskar Engene at the University of Bergen, another researcher with genuine expertise on terrorism:

It could be enough to strike against something with a symbolic or real connection with Norway. An attack against the Norwegian Church Abroad would for instance be a heavy blow against the crusaders.

In the context of the article, Engene seems to be talking about what form a revenge attack for the weapons lending may take, but he tells me that he does not at all agree with the thesis of the article, and that he said this only in reply to a direct question which he saw as unrelated to the weapons lending. He remembers his own surprise at reading the article, and discovering what he had supposedly agreed with.

In all, of the five sources Dagsavisen quotes in the article, only one - Marcus Buck - actually says what the headline affirms, that the "weapons lending" has placed Norway in greater danger of a terrorist attack. He's the only source explicitly referred to as a "terrorism expert", and also the only source not in any way qualified for that label.

So what about the "leading terrorism experts" who have "concluded" that the terror danger against Norway has increased? They don't exist. Jon Martin Larsen and Nilas Johnsen made them up. Norway's actual leading experts on terrorism don't believe this lending matters much at all. But casual readers have no way of knowing that. The article is deliberately designed to fool them. I have only one name for this: corrupt journalism.

What strikes me when I contact the above and other "experts", is how familiar they are with this kind of behavior. Repeated exposure to it has made some of them cynical. They discuss the problem internally, and laugh about it behind the journalists' backs, but there's very little they can do. When a journalist calls you looking for a juicy quote you can either play by their rules, or say nothing. There is no third alternative. At the same time, there's almost no awareness among the public that this is how much of the media operates. Who'd tell them about it - the media? The journalists are so good at hiding their own involvement in the stories they write that when readers are told that an expert has said something, they not only assume that the expert has genuine expertise in the field they talk about, they also believe that the expert has made this statement on their own initiative.

This particular article conjures up an image of Norway's leading professionals in the field of terror research coming together to discuss the ramifications of an important development, and deciding to let the public know about this grave new terror threat to Norway. Even a cynic who has seen through the phonyness of the expert label may not guess the truth: That two journalists invented the entire story by distorting the views or credentials of every real and fake expert they could find.

This one needed to be exposed Bjørn. Since the editors of Dagsavisen on this occasion did not have the decency and journalistic ethics to sort out the bogus manufactured story, it is pertinent that it is shedded light on in other forums.

According to the Norwegian press asscociation's code of ethics (point 1.4) "It is a press obligation to shed critical light on how media themselves exercise their role." (www.presse.no)In Norway that task is too often neglected.

If I am correctly informed, a internal parameter for assessing the quality of Dagsavisen is to see if other news sources quote it and run stories based on their main stories. In that respect threre is plenty reason to believe that Dagsavisen were very pleased with their widely quoted nonsense headline on the 27th of October 2004.

I should perhaps add that I am indeed very cynical about these matters. If you wanna play in the media ball park its media ball park rules. If you do not accept the rules the only sensible thing is to stay away.

I do criticise the media from time to time, and when this story was published I sent a rather angry letter to the (ir)responsible editors of Dagsavisen. They did not find it worthwhile to even acknowledge receiving the letter. This surprised me somewhat, especially since I have been used as an "expert" by Dagsavisen previously. I suppose my angry letter winded up in the "nutter" folder of someone's inbox... :-)

Anders: If you wanna play in the media ball park its media ball park rules. If you do not accept the rules the only sensible thing is to stay away.

Or you can create your own ball park with your own rules, which is what I'm doing here. Just the fact that anyone can criticize a blog entry in a comment changes the power balance entirely. Won't solve all problems, but corrupt journalism like this would be impossible with such feedback options.

I suppose my angry letter winded up in the "nutter" folder of someone's inbox... :-)

Welcome to my world.

Anders: Just a clarification.. Am I to understand that you are the "Anders G. Romarheim at NUPI" referred to in the article?

"Quote shopping". How widespread is this kind of journalism? is this the rule, and not the gross example of journalistic ego tripping? This is serious of course, because it contributes to general fear in the Norwegian population. Just like to mention that madness in individuals are rare. And that it almost always is the rule within parties, nations and groups. In this perspective: the architects of this _nonsense_ (as Anders describes it) should be punished appropriately.

From the top of my head I can think of several examples of perverted journalism similar to this one, that only contributes to fear and nothing else. Not that I have any proof, but I suspect that the one who starts digging - he will find lots of bogus journalism, just as irresponsible as this "leading terror expert" report.

My favorite quote:
"Plato was a bore" (FN).

Njet: "Quote shopping". How widespread is this kind of journalism? is this the rule, and not the gross example of journalistic ego tripping?

I suspect it is widespread in the kind of journalism that focuses on quotes (as opposed to events). Can't prove it without the help of people with direct knowledge of it, though - the media, oddly enough, finds its own corrupt behavior unworthy of coverage.

But of course there are also scrupolous journalists who care about getting things right. Two of the people I contacted said nice things about Vårt Land and NRK. I disagree about NRK, but Vårt Land strikes me as a relatively ethical newspaper.

Rune-Kristian Viken: Just a clarification.. Am I to understand that you are the "Anders G. Romarheim at NUPI" referred to in the article?

Yeah he is.

It seems like the current paradigm in journalism today is that if the angle they choose are politically correct, the methods used or even the truth, doesn’t seem to matter. It’s like if it’s for an ethically “good course”, truth matters less. Terribly sad, because they will be judged by future researchers. They clearly can’t be thinking of their legacy.

But it’s all too easy for the media. When and if common opinion starts to react to this kind of editorial line, they can just change it. It’s all about pleasing and arousing the masses to sell as much as possible. Capture the general moods in the public opinion and enhance it.

If the press in this small country was more diverse it wouldn’t be such a problem. And for people with above normal interest to news and media it isn’t a problem, we find sources abroad to broaden the perspective. For those who doesn’t have the time or the special interest, it’s worse. They are being led and misinformed.

Nils: It seems like the current paradigm in journalism today is that if the angle they choose are politically correct, the methods used or even the truth, doesn’t seem to matter.

Perhaps, but I think prestige is a larger factor. Journalists want their stories to be printed on the front page, and they want them to be referenced by other newspapers. Editors want that too, and also sellable front pages. I think this is the natural state of media, when there aren't other forces (honest editors, competitors with a different worldview, media watchdogs) to keep them in line.

Another problem with Dagsavisen is that it's some sort of hybrid between tabloid and a «regular» newspaper. A few weeks back it ran a big black frontpage that said something like «USA has been responsible for 24 wars, 12 attempted coup de etats and 35 assassinations after 1945», curiously enough they didn't want to mention anything that happened between 1940 and 45, ofcourse, why ruin a meticulously misconstructed context. Really, that sort of headline would have made The Daily Mirror proud.

The source is a book by William Frum called «Rogue State».

And what they wanted to do was to pour cold water over the american concept of spreading democrazy. By saying that all theese conflicts were for "freedom" and thus, fighting for freedom is not good (especially if USA does it).

If Dagsavisen were a more serious newspaper they would not be doing obvious editorializing in their articles for instance an article they ran about the possible EU arms sales to China. They hid this little gem:

«The different point of views stem from the same basic attitude as for Iran: USA takes the hard line stance, while Europe has faith in negotiations and promises.»

( I bunn for de ulike synspunktene ligger på sett og vis den samme grunnholdningen som for Iran: USA står på den harde linja; Europa har tro på forhandlinger og løfter.)

I don't really have a slightest clue how selling arms to a dictatorship that's regularily threatening to invade a smaller democratic country can be seen as diplomacy and negotiations, the EU doesn't demand anything political in return for this, just fat Airbus contracts (As Thomas L. Friedman pointed out today).

It's just Dagsavisen basic anti-american attitude popping up again, it seems they would rather have Taiwan invaded than having to side with USA.

I participated in a small "interest group" some years back, and did press liason, so I learned this lesson the hard way. You ended up being satisfied if just the journalistic angle supported your main story, ie it was bad publicity for whoever you were attacking. The details were wrong, quotations were wildly inaccurate, background facts were invented, but hey, this article will make the readers hate the right people so it's good publicity.

It's a horribly sad state of affairs.

This subject raises another subject tangentially. Can anyone give me a serious reason why the US should remain a part of NATO. NATO was implemented to act as a shield against the Soviet Union. That is no longer a serious threat and the withdrawal from NATO might even improve US relations with Russia. Would it not be healthier for Europe, today, to assume its own defense? It would certainly be healthier for the US economy if the US withdrew from Europe. Such a withdrawal would also speed up the formation of a European defense force which the Europeans could use or not use as they see fit. I realize that this might put a large strain on European budgets and social programs, but I don't see that this is a US problem.

Yes, there is a point in NATO in my opinion. A military alliance of western democratic nations could serve the purpose as a shield against terrorism, tyrrany and genocide, primarily as a deterrent, but if necessary with military intervention. This is where the UN is less capable of dealing with problems, as dictatorships excerpt too much influence there.

While we are not there quite yet, NATO seems to be the best option for an alliance of democratic states. UN-sceptical Americans often say the UN should be abolished because it can't serve any purpose because of the dictatorships. I say it should be supplemented by a NATO alliance of democracies. If Europe is willing to contribute with more military forces, this is possible.

Knut, Under your view how, if at all, should the governance of NATO and its funding change -- if at all.

Knut a very bright and pretty young woman I know in Norway responded to my Q in a private e-mail as follows: "The US should remain in Nato for this simple reason. I want them to! I can`t rely upon the stupid politicaly correct french to protect me. "

These days, of course, you could claim that it is politically correct to call the French stupid. Some of you guys would love Belgium.

There is almost battles raging between the French-speakers and the Dutch-speakers here. And the NATO-headquarters lie just a stonethrow away from me. Solidly placed in the French part of Brussels.

Øyvind

Herbie, I must admit I don't have detailed knowledge on how NATO is funded today. But there is an obvious disparity on the military side.

While Europe was initially rebuilding after WW2, it would rather rely on American power than risk internal conflict by rearming itself.

Since the end of the Cold War, and not surprisingly, few european countries have bothered to spend any significant amount on military. However, Europe has supported and contributed to the Kuwait/Yugoslavia/Afghanistan interventions. And while the military contribution is a drop in the ocean compared to the US, Europe never considered to do anything to balance it. Now, I'm not saying we are "cheap", because we contribute a significant share in aid and UN peacekeeping troops. But militarily, which is often the biggest cost and the greatest sacrifice, Europe has not done anything to increase its contribution or its ability to contribute.

This is where I see an opening (however unrealistic it may be) for NATO. With restructuring already going on, and increased European military contributions, NATO could assume the role that some Americans have asked for, not being satisfied with the UN. While there are political problems to sort out, there is not doubt that the major requirement would be European rearmament to some extent.

NATO could speak out with one voice in conflict situations, representing the democratic western countries, and use its goodwill, influence and "big stick" to promote reform and discourage violence in conflict areas. Much like the US and France teamed up in support of the Lebanese people recently, the voice of a more credible NATO could be even more significant. Lets remember that in the majority of international conflicts, western nations often agree about how to approach problems, Iraq was an exception.

It might work.

Ståle Ulriksen, the NUPI researcher Dagsavisen quoted, replies:

That story in Dagsavisen was a bit annoying, but since my views were presented, from what I can remember, somewhat unclearly in relation to the issue, I just couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. These things have, as you write, become "commonplace" for most of us researchers who must deal with the media. There are many honorable exceptions, but there's a lot of things like this. But I still believe it is ignorance among many journalists that is the greatest danger. I think most of my colleagues here will agree with this. One of them had to explain to a journalist what the UN security council was. This obviously doesn't mean that there aren't journalists with enormous insight. The problem is perhaps rather that editors give these stories to ignorant people, people who know so little they don't even know how little they know.

To cover themselves, they turn any researcher into an expert in the field in discussion, even though the researchers often begin by making clear that they're not. I'm not a terror expert, I'm fairly good at security policy, defense policy and military theory and practice. But I relate to terrorists as only a part of this, I don't do sociological or psychological research into why terrorists act like they do. I suppose I came into this story because I made a statement about the lending of the laser pointers, which I was fairly critical to because it so radically violated Norway's official line, and because this was such a large share of the stock we have of these important systems that many of the military capacities Norway has focused most on in recent years would not have worked without them.

I told the journalist from Dagsavisen (don't remember who it was) that I didn't think this would lead to any increase in the terror threat. The reason was simply that we had already participated with soldiers and fighter planes in battles against the Taliban/al-Qaeda and others in Afghanistan. When you've first fired at (and killed?) some of the terrorists, I don't think lending weapons to the Americans will make them much angrier. So that makes the question of little relevance. I said that, and I stand by it.

What has struck me as most odd out of everything after 911 is how easy it has been to introduce meaningless and extremely expensive so-called security measures in Norway. And then where is the critical journalism? I remember a case with two boys who had managed to get onto a warship. In VG. The journalist asked if this didn't show how lousy anti-terror security is in Norway. I replied that this was irrelevant, that you couldn't have heavily armed mercenaries on every ship, and that even then it would be simple to go for a swim one night and place a magnetic mine on any cruisy ship. Or fire a missile or heavy projectile towards an airplane arriving at Gardermoen, from somewhere in Nordmarka, or .. You can of course not defend yourself against everything, and if we try we destroy our entire society. The journalist quickly lost interest, and I was naturally not mentioned in the article. The story went ahead with double pages and war headlines. I must admit I've lost much of the joy of listening to [NRK's satirical radio show] "Hallo i uken" over the last years. They've been bypassed by reality.

Oeyvind wrote:
There is almost battles raging between the French-speakers and the Dutch-speakers ......yes and you could listen to the same lectures at the university twice - in dutch and then in french.

But then the dutch speaking belgians distinguish themselves as vlaams speakers...they are not quite 'dutch' but flemish, much to the delight of the frisians who are still holding on to 'vries' in vriesland.....and likewise all those little pockets of peculiar provincialism: faroese in Danemark,letzeburgisch, provençal, langue d'Oc etc

Europe does get somewhat provincial at times. I recall my experiences when i was travelling through Spain how each region fiercely defends their language since language is an expression of provincialism...thus we have catalan versus valencio versus gallego/galician versus basque versus castillian etc.

Closer to home ...the francophones in Quebec have always agitated for seccession from the Canadian Union and the cajuns of the bayous of Louisiana had taken offence to the french bashing lately to the point that i am afraid they too may seccede from the US of A......lucky for us Mardi Gras prevails and the Cajuns are a forgiving lot ....or as they say down in New Orleans -- 'laissez les bons temps rouler ' / leeeet the goood times roll !!!

Mademoiselle Ayesha Kim
specialist in irrational adamic Cults

http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article1491452.ece

Knut. Very thoughtful response, thank you. I shall have to ponder it a little. There is an excellent book on the interplay between Nato and the UN by a professor of international law -- really the best on the subject that I have read and I have read a lot in this area. I highly recommend it: Michael J. Glennon "Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power: Interventionism After Kosovo" (Palgrave, 2001). He also has an article in http://www.policyreview.org/ this month entitled "Idealism at the U.N." Perhaps after you have read the article, which is fairly short, we can discuss the subject further. Whether I agree with him or not, he has a razor sharp mind and a colloquial writing style which I find appealing. I am so tired of reading people in this area that pontificate like they were giving a "sermon on the mount"

Now that BAE is buying the firm which makes our Abrams, this is going to get very, very interesting.

They've made their decision.

Recent news indicates President Bush has announced that he is nominating a prominent UN critic; John Bolton, to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

Bolton has led the attack against countless international treaties and has been critical of the UN's failure to address rogue terrorist-supporting member states like Iraq and North Korea.

It was Bolton who penned the letter to Kofi Annan declaring that the U.S. would/should not take part in the International Criminal Court. This organization (the ICC) is a nightmare to those of us who maintain we (USA) have a constitutional obligation to uphold American sovereignty; yet another departure from our European cousins that should be viewed as positive.

Will the good times roll? We'll see. Some may view this as an effort to salvage USA membership in the UN. Personally speaking; I hope not. Several officials from U.N. Security Council membership expressed astonishment that Bush would name someone known to have antipathy towards the United Nations. Yes Mr. Bush...that's the kind of brass we look or in our leaders. Tally Ho. I can already hear the negative press Bolton's nomination will generate during confirmatin hearing in the Senate. Crank up those boilers, full steam ahead, geronimo.

Please pardon my excitement. Some of us Yanks are a bit difficult to understand at times.

Here a link to the rest of the story: http://www.moveamericaforward.org/Link/200503-1.asp

So? what is wrong with nominating a critic of the UN. Maybe if the UN and Kofi had more critics and less sycophants around as members, the world would be be better place. At least now there will be a real debate at the UN and less pontificating

Get out the popcorn and watch the confirmation hearing on C-Span, this is going to be good!

Joe Biden - 2001 -
Democrats acknowledge that Bolton is highly intelligent, but they have questioned his judgment. "My problem with you over the years is that you've been too competent," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told Bolton four years ago. "I would rather you be stupid and not very effective."
--

And this guy was going to be Sec of Defense(?) in quasi-commie Cabana Boy's admin.

UGH!

What has John Bolton, the self-proclaimed enemy of all international law, to do with Dagsavisen and Norwegian media??

Back on thread:
Bjørn: Has Dagsavisen given you any kind or response to the fact that all their "experts" never meant what Dagsavisen claimed they meant??

Well the media besides having it´s own flavour also very much is ever on the lookout for the good frontpage scoop, yes. So either plays their part.
How it yet sounds likely and looks pretty evident in this case that the major motivation is personal disagreement with the war in Iraq.

But we send our, anyway, about useless contribution of a submarine and still nothing happened, that as yet.

But when a female! ( could it be that it is way enough torture ? ) army interrogator got accused of applying soft torture in Iraq some months ago, there was suddenly large stocks of Danish export ( with arab letters printed upon ) feta cheese avaible pretty cheap in Danish supermarkets.

Could there be a connection ?

Feel free to pass this information to the journalistic staff at "Dagsavisen" since it could appear they are in dire need of stories concerning the catastrophic consequences of liberating the iraqi people from their nice and honoured leader- former that is.

Anders,

Where would you like me to start? Let’s see, how about the number of quotes referring to threats of terrorism against Norwegian targets...gosh, where do you suppose those are coming from? Rouge state sponsored terrorism maybe? An issue some of your neighboring countries, UN members all, would rather leave as an unopened can of worms.

Or your own comments related to ethics...it this case journalistic ethics regarding a bogus story about weapons manufactured by Norway. Some UN members hide behind their own view of ethics totally foreign to our own.

Or how about the reference to quote shopping? There is a tremendous amount finger pointing and misquoting the intensions of responsible NATO members involved in a war against terrorism. The last time I checked Norway was still friendly to the USA. I'd sure like to see comments in Dagsavisen regarding John Bolton nomination as US Ambassador. Lets see if they can get the editorial correct.

Or am I just taken up precious space that you rather see dedicated to you own narrow topical view? This is a related story whether you can connect the dots or not.

Geronimo:
I still don't see your great link here Geronimo. But since you insist that the nomination of John Bolton is of great importance to the state of affairs in Norwegian media I will prsenet a quote from the distinguished senator which is all I need to form an opinion about him:

"It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so - because over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States"

Great Johnnie "Redneck"! Let's flush those Geneva conventions down the toilet immediately because they constrict the United States.

Now which one of you is going to tell me that this quote is taken out of context?? Prey...??

Sorry, just read through this... Bolton is no Senator. The Bush administration rather than the American people are responsible for letting this guy close to the seats of power.

Anders I think you do not understand the basis for antipathy to "international law" in the US. As a matter of philosophy and organization power flows upward to the government from the people. That is not a historical accident in the US it was a matter of considerable debate when this country was formed as evidenced by the Federalist Papers. In contrast, in Europe power flows downward from the government to the people. In Europe people are now only beginning to experiment with universal rights. Americans are not prepared, -- philosophically, historically or temperamentally – to cede power to an international body. Our constitution is bare bones and the spaces filled in by historical experience. In contrast look at the EU constitution – hundreds of pages.

"not prepared to cede power to an international body"

Only problem is....The US already has....to the UNSC. It is given a mandate to decide if offensive (non self-defense) military operations can be conducted. So your argument is not really relevant. The discussion here should be why the US has taken on a very concious line of breaking with its previous international agreements.

I'm not so sure that there is something inherently American about despising international law. I'm not sure if Presidents such as JFK, Jimmy Carter and Bush sr. thought that such rule breaking was a desirable activity like John Bolton does.

I do grant you that there is a great amount of contempt for Europe and any kind of mingling in alliances in the Federalist papers. This contempt has been overcome by some prominent Americans through the ages. Not all.

Ander you do not understand or chose not to understand what I wrote. As for the remainder of your comments they do strike me a silly suich as "This contempt has been overcome by some prominent Americans through the ages. Not all." Since I am well known in my field I can only say I am glad I am in the minority. You, on the other hand, appear to represent the majority of gratuitous European thought

Anders To continue: Under your views of international law the intervention in Kosvo was a violation of International law and the UN charter since the acts there were regarded as an internal matter. The US by passed the UNSC, with other countries, to intervene and stop the slaughter. As for Carter, what can I say except that I beleive that history will judge him to be moronic idiot as well as the Nobel prize committee for awarding him a prize

"would rather leave as an unopened can of worms"

If I indeed had a can of worms I am quite sure I would leave it unopen.

Anders I am fascinated by your view that “I do grant you that there is a great amount of contempt for Europe and any kind of mingling in alliances in the Federalist papers [which continues to this day].

Have you considered whether the view is justified? We have a more vibrant economic system. We have, certainly a more vibrant press. If one were to measure the values of a country by the protections and opportunities it offers to immigrants, we win hands down. You will note that except for Moslems, Europe is devoid of any appreciable immigrants – they all seem to be coming. Our birth rate adjusted to discount immigration is almost at a reproduction level; Europe’s is not just in decline it is collapsing. You have law after law to protect “minorities” we have almost none, yet minorities feel better protected here. Our schools systems with all of their problems still provide the best access. Our tax rate is lower or higher -- if you compute that we don’t tax welfare payments as Europeans do -- and yet people pay taxes voluntarily. We fought a terrible war to abolish slavery. Europeans imposed two terrible wars on the world because of the vagaries of their more ”sophisticated” social views. We had no empire or colonies of real import. In contrast, it was the Europeans that taught the world to pray while Europe preyed. Contempt is a word that does seem to fit or perhaps being realistic. What exactly do you have to be proud of that you should think that Europe is superior to the US? Nothing that I can see

You really do run a sophisticated debate here Herbie. How about three more posts off-thread about how great America is and how bad Europe is?
If you ramble on for a few more posts I think I'll have to apply for a green card to get out of this sorry continent :-)
I don't feel obliged to continue debating on behalf of "Europe".
Kosovo was of course questionable according to international law. Not just in my view...in any view. It paved the way for great historic wars such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Anders please apply we accept all kinds and so I will sponser your application :-) It doesn't matter whether I agree with you -- just as long as you are bright -- we need more bright people here -- to many Democrats :-) Someone once told me that the US was built on other nations' failures which is sort of true when you think about it

As regards Kosovo, you are absolutely correct: it was not questionable under Int'l law it flatly violated the UN charter. But I would maintain that morality demanded something be done -- just as in the Sudan. Iraq is a whole different thread --don't you agree.

Now Herbie do you expect, a lot of us quite fond of USA, not only on this site, but in lots of Europe as well as soon you move out of the glory glory hallelujah european superstate here we come parts called Germany and France. do you expect we should take such a "Anti-European" volley in silence ?

Herbie wrote:

"We have a more vibrant economic system."

Your country does indeed have the greates GNP of nations in the world.
But Denmark had for years though I think it dropped some recently the highest production per capita in the world. And let me add that though we have some big time businesses the core in our economy consist of small and medium businesses, homegrown and homebound - most of them unlikely to move production to asia, and the bulk of them actually completely unable. Our economy is indisputable one of the soundest in the world and that goes for both Norway and Finland as well as far I know, whereas Sweden has some problems right now.

"We have, certainly a more vibrant press"

No you got just as bad press as the rest of the world. It´s pretty biased (It has to be critical you know unless it agree ofcourse) everywhere from my experience and reading and following the American press I have been doing some. Even my little country however, which is what I can speak about the best has a pretty varied press due to the fact that people don´t just don´t come in leftish or pc numbers - not even in Europe!
However even on the conservative newspapers works a lot of leftleaning journalists because that´s what most journalists are. But don´t tell me that is not the case in the states as well.
We do also have a few very good rightwing journalists or academics which rivals a Steyn in quality and willingness to think their own and speak their mind - you should learn Danish it´s worth it at times.

"If one were to measure the values of a country by the protections and opportunities it offers to immigrants, we win hands down."

This is right so far you been better at attracting Indian Computerscientists to silicon Valley, plus a lot of other people with personal initiative and the will to make bucks. This has all been spun in the great myth of the "American dream" A dream indeed worthy of dreaming, im not saying anything else. But a part of the myth is that you have attracted the best minds of all the world and put em into "the great melting pot" and behold the result. It´s half reality and it´s half myth and certainly becomes myth when you actually consider those that moved from Europe were mostly poor people and a lot of them remained poor in the states, many that wanted to do better yes, but had failed in europe where as those that had succeded here naturally stayed.
But your land was then vast and there was plenty of things going on and people came and still comes to chase that dream - to be honest for most people it remains a dream.
But naturally let´s face it, the welfare systems of europe has not appealed to people that wanted to make it on their own. And we have thus been burdened and we have even done a bad job of integrating those coming to us with a high education. And all in all high living and service costs provides a harder start for anyone that wanna make their own business here now.
But when we speak of "protections and opportunities" and consider those broadly I would say there is plenty here, this could be discussed for ages in details, but you certainly don´t win hands down.

"Europe’s is not just in decline it is collapsing. You have law after law to protect “minorities” we have almost none, yet minorities feel better protected here"

This is not gonna be a free ride either, Europe clearly face some problems, but they could easily be exaggerated and I believe they are.
We don´t have law after law to protect minorities sry, We have laws that forbid killing, mugging, rape, etc. just like any other civilized country. let´s stick with the facts. We have a law against rascism here, given the history of jew hate that is perfectly understandable just as the patriot act is, right ?
But minorities feel better protected in the states yes ? Well tell me if we have held back any moslems here for videofilming a building for months without being allowed to see a lawyer or to ger a charge for anything? Denmark is one the safests countried in the world, that goes for the rest of scandinavia as well, we have like 200 murders each year and most of the guilty are caught. to give an example. we have gangs now of immigrants -yes as the joke goes; "when a group of danes gather it´s crowd, when a group of middleeastern men gather it´s a gang". But the streets are mostly safe, and people in general feel safe here.

"Our schools systems with all of their problems still provide the best access. Our tax rate is lower or higher -- if you compute that we don’t tax welfare payments as Europeans do -- and yet people pay taxes voluntarily."

Our school system certainly need a beff up, and it´s certainly not because we spend to little, but our government got it, the guy they put on the job is about the best they can get.
They are working to lower our taxrate because it was critical high, and I think they got upper hand when it comes to what reforms will be needed.

"Europeans imposed two terrible wars on the world because of the vagaries of their more ”sophisticated” social views. We had no empire or colonies of real import. In contrast, it was the Europeans that taught the world to pray while Europe preyed"

You just don´t like us do you ? there goes the the broadside, down with sinking ship.

It´s pretty easy for you to point at the age of empires, and blame it all on us. You are a part of a nation that was made during that time, and thus missed that bus. It also quite easy to blame it all on us that wars turned so catastrophic, but your close neighbour was Mexico and when you fought her she wasn´t much of a match. In europe it turned out quite differently lots of equally powerful nations pushed and pushed keeping rivalies alive for centuries and when germany joined that sad club after Bismarch, it all went so very wrong. And no, noone is proud of that certainly not Germany. And this history makes up for much the unwillingness to apply military force which you now bash them for so fiercely.
But nevermind the wound let´s just put the salt there.

My mind will not change about the states, i still like your nation, I know many wonderful people in the states, but care not much for myth or illusion nor do I eat such volley of prejudice and generalization in silence.

Thomas well said -- in part :-)

Thomas my rant like response to Anders was generated based on what "I do grant you that there is a great amount of contempt for Europe and any kind of mingling in alliances in the Federalist papers. This contempt has been overcome by some prominent Americans through the ages. Not all" -- which I thought quite condescending and condescension appears to be be quite common in Europe.

On top of that the reality is also that Moslems are not being integrated into the European system and the system is being forced to accommodate itself to Moslems rather then the other way around. Even here, Moslems have formed a number of organization that forcefully speak out in favor of a secular society. In Europe not so. I suspect that this is related, in part, to your social policies -- once someone is "in" they get government subsidies and can continue to exist in a separate universe never being forced to interact

As regards your critique, I do find that the press here is more varied and combative then the press in Europe and that has been the subject of a prior thread by Bjorn (he does manage to pick interesting topics or at least to me)

As for your view that "But minorities feel better protected in the states yes ? " and the commentary that follows about video taping I don't get the connection. The reality is that the US is still a magnet for immigrants from all over the world; Europe is not. Spin whatever commentary you want but the facts speak for themselves and if it were not the US would not still be an attraction.

As for “And no, noone is proud of that certainly not Germany. And this history makes up for much the unwillingness to apply military force which you now bash them for so fiercely.” So, this means what exactly that Europe will not defend itself but will instead accommodate itself to what ever threats exists. You will forgive me but I had thought that Chamberlain should be out of fashion. Apparently it is not.

As for "It́s pretty easy for you to point at the age of empires, and blame it all on us. You are a part of a nation that was made during that time, and thus missed that bus." No we did not miss the bus we made a conscious decision to not get on board

Thomas you might no rather should read a recently published book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis" by Bat Ye'Or

"On top of that the reality is also that Moslems are not being integrated into the European system and the system is being forced to accommodate itself to Moslems rather then the other way around. Even here, Moslems have formed a number of organization that forcefully speak out in favor of a secular society".

I live here, I am critical, very critical to the long term effects of moslem immigration, I cannot by any means recognize and inch of truth in what you write there. I can think of some organizations and I can think of politicians like Hirsi Ali in Holland. Naser Khader, Kamel Qureshi here not only talking about integration but practising it. And we are not adapting to islam - come with some examples plz.

"In Europe not so. I suspect that this is related, in part, to your social policies -- once someone is "in" they get government subsidies and can continue to exist in a separate universe never being forced to interact".

This however is both true and constitute a real problem. Which currently is causing us to revise our politics.

"So, this means what exactly that Europe will not defend itself but will instead accommodate itself to what ever threats exists. You will forgive me but I had thought that Chamberlain should be out of fashion. Apparently it is not".

Nope europe won´t do that, but we will try to come up with a rational solution, and try to avoid another headlong one. As for the interior threat it´s nothing more than we can handle, and I don´t think it will stay any different. As for the general threat my personally opinion we need to deal with it and improve our miltary forces - much can be done there by scrapping consription, and build some voluntary heavily trained forces instead alone.

I don´t in general recognise the picture you paint of Europe and that should give value to my point that your press is just as bad as ours, should it not ?

P.S. marshall islands, hawaii, philiphines etc. If you never were colonial at all, how/why you got your hands on those + more ? There wasn´t much there weren´t many colonies not already taken at the end of 19 th century though, that was the problem the Germans faced as well and it hurt their pride like hell - especially the Kaiser.

-- And we are not adapting to islam - come with some examples plz.--

Ikea's manual, via LGF.

The IKEA furniture store chain uses only pictures of men in their instruction manuals, and the prime minister of Norway says they are guilty of sex discrimination: IKEA criticized for male-only furniture assembly guides. (Hat tip: Grifin.)

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) - Swedish home furnishings giant IKEA is guilty of sex discrimination by showing only men putting together furniture in its instruction manuals, Norway’s prime minister says.

Why does IKEA refrain from showing women building shelves and putting together chairs?

IKEA, which has more than 200 stores in 32 nations, fears it might offend Muslims by depicting women assembling everything from cupboards to beds. Its manuals show only men or cartoon figures whose sex is unclear.

Daily Verdens Gang quoted an IKEA spokeswoman as saying: “We have to take account of cultural factors. In Muslim countries it’s problematic to use women in instruction manuals.”

“This isn’t good enough,” Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik was quoted Thursday as telling Verdens Gang. “It’s important to promote attitudes for sexual equality, not least in Muslim nations.”

“They should change this,” he said. “There’s no justification for it.”

"not prepared to cede power to an international body"

Only problem is....The US already has....to the UNSC. It is given a mandate to decide if offensive (non self-defense) military operations can be conducted. So your argument is not really relevant. The discussion here should be why the US has taken on a very concious line of breaking with its previous international agreements.

Oh, geez, here we go again.

You bet your ________.

International law is European law. We're not Europeans. You see international law as a feature, some here see that as a bug. There is no international law because there is no one nation. I never voted for the UN to represent me, oh, Allan, where are you? We've already had extensive conversations on this.

I'm not handing my destiny over to that thuggocracy.

The UN is as legitimate as the American people decide it is. And Americans are paying attention after 9/11. You like it, you better fix it. It needs at minimum major, major reformation. Not just expanding the UNSC. Otherwise, there's another option on the table.

The UN reminds me of the Imperial Senate scene in SWI - lots of hot air, billions of $ and statist or inert.

Thomas as for integration I offer Ikea

The Prime Minister of Norway told a newspaper yesterday that there was “no justification” for Ikea showing only men assembling furniture in its instruction manuals.

After a day spent poring frantically over instruction manuals, Ikea’s relieved staff told The Times that the Prime Minister had been misinformed. There were, in fact, at least two illustrations, in more than 2,000 manuals, showing women hard at work building furniture. Or there were if you included the one where a woman holds a cupboard door so that her man can do the difficult hinge-screwing bit.

As for International law. Why do you assume that it is Western Int'l law that is applicable. Why should it not be Sharia law with 1.5 billion Moslems. Why not cut off hands for stealing. My view is the West either takes a stand or it will lose beucase Islam does not suffer tolereance. The US has chosen not to get stepped on. When I was a small child (8 years) there was a bully who used to beat me up and my father would watch silently. I would come home and ask why won't you talk to him. My father responded "I will not be here for you all the time. Keep talking and he will keep hittig you. Hit him back and it will stop." Eventually I broke his nose -- literally -- and guess what, he stopped hitting me. So you keept talking but as for the US I say keep hitting until this stops -- no more talk no more bullsh**.

The Ikea case. We sure are bending and prostrating aren´t we ?

Now for one IKEA is from where ?

Sweden.

Sweden is a country that is currently considering to impose a law that makes sure that those holding leading positions are 50/50 % men and women. Now this is the atmosphere such questions rise in. And a case where another case of pcism trumpfs the notorious one of bending into moslems?

Btw this case is another example of "shoot first and ask questions later journalism".

There are women in IKEA´s manuals. However not equally represented in same numbers as the male.

Fredrik Wahrolén From IKEA however now promise the will 7 woman for each 7 men in the future:)

Hallelujah.

Don´t turn this into to bending to moslems, that´s just plain bullshit.

To continue the US did not start this, but he country as a whole does believe that we will put a stop to Islamic madness like Al Quida as forcefully as is needed and to use a quaint "60's expression -- if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem" I would venture to say that most in the US see Europe as part of the problem. Se the book I referenced above in a prior note

Thomas In the interests of full disclosure I lost a beautiful niece in 9/11 and went to the rememberance services of 3 different children of friends of mine. I watch and Russia arm Iran with nuclear weapons technology and am aghast I question whether you can appreciate what happened in the US. If they had bombed Tivoli and you had lost a niece do you think you would feel the same way

Hi all,
I'm the Marcus Buck who was portrayed as 'an expert on Al Queda terrorism'. I just thought i should throw in my two-pennies worth:
I've been lurkin' for a while to observe the responses on this blog to the issue of the increased 'terrorist threat' exposed by Dagsavisen. First of all, I want to thank Bjørn for raising the issue, which I find extremely important (and interesting).

My general comment runs as follows:

1) I always thought that the first law of journalism was to get a) at least two independent sources for a general 'expert' statement before exposing it to the public, and 2) Look for opponents to the view exposed in any article in order to show a balanced account.
This is at least what the journalists tell me when I'm approached by them on any other matter than 'terrorism' (perhaps the lack thereof on the matter of terrorism is an effect of the September 11th.?).
Anyhow, I was disgusted to see the way in which my statements were used to headline a front page story in the newspaper and I was even more disgusted to see not a single 'expert' statement opposing my view.
The main point (apart from the fact that I'm not an 'expert' on terrorism and hate being called so) is that I referred to the report published by the Instituto Elcano and, a I saw it, was expressing how this looked from a Spanish perspective (the, for the Spanish, interesting case of Norway being mentioned in the various messages from Al Queda spokesmen in spite of the fact that Norway de facto was far less involved in the US adventure in Iraq than Spain). In my view, the main conclusion in the Elcano report stands firm: The fact that Spains has withdrawn its troops from Iraq will not in itself alter the threat of Islamic terrorist actions directed against Spanish interestst and lives. Rather than the actual association with the US, it is how a country is portrayed in the Islamistic propaganda that determines the level of the hypothetical threat. Now, whether a threat implies real DANGER of terrorist actions depends on a series of additional factors, among which the CAPABILITY to strike is of primary concern. Terrorists, in order to carry out an action, will need to have in place the infrastructure (community in which to hide and make plans, money and explosives) to actually carry out an attack.
This is whole line of reasoning is cleary corroborated by the evetns in Spain: At least two islamistic terrorist actions against central political institutions have been stalled by Spanish security forces AFTER Spain withdrew from Iraq.

All in all, as I see it, the main question in all of this is WHEN and, indeed, WHETHER, the Norwegian media will mature in the dealings with the question of asymmetric conflicts and terrorism.

Once again, thank you Bjørn for raising the issue.

Marcus Buck

Well Europe is about 40 nations Herbie Germany and France are just two of those. They are 1/3 of the population of Europe and they are generally sceptical to US yes with Belgium also. But there is still plenty more to Europe than those, and even in those countries you have substantial amounts of supporters.
I don´t like, I strongly disagree with, Chirac´s multipolar ideology, Where several superpowers compete globally. I do think Wahabism and modern terrorism constitute a majot threat and a even a new kind of nazism/communism combined, and that we should stand together fighting this, and Europe should be willing to participate more in this, and put more ressources behind, both militarily and economically.

Thopmas Strange I don't wildly disagree with Chirac in some ways. Unrestrained power is dangerous. However, I am repulsed by French duplicity which surfaces time and again

Well Herbie I am very sry to hear that, and no I don´t have to lose my own niece to understand, believe me. I am not gonna go into details how I would treat people that commit such acts, and certainly not those that shoot children in the back like i Beslan. But it wouldn´t be civil, and it would not be in accord with international human rights.

But you should worry a lot more about what goes on in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China and NK than about what is going on in Europe.

And remember that even Charles De Gaulle, more of an opportunist than Chirac will ever be, did not even want to see the pictures of the missiles being transported to Cuba, before he pledged to be on the side of the US.

Thomas sorry for interjecting my personal issues -- very unfair to you. As for"But it wouldn´t be civil, and it would not be in accord with international human rights." Well civility is not high on the agenda here and as for Int'l law I am not sure what exactly applies. Unless both sides can agree on the standard that applies I do not see any basis to have our hands tied. In short, you kill our children we kill yours plus, you cut off heads of prisoners we cut off heads plus. Yo stop killjg children we stop, you stop cutting off heads we stop. I suibmit it is very simple and in a way elegant

As for the French enough said

Thomas, here's another.

It's called "white flight." Isn't Holland having that problem? Canada does, too.

There has been a few stories in parts of the US media lately about Brits, Scots, Irish, buying property in FLA and other areas because of the currency differential. We'll see how this plays out in a decade or so. Will they stay in Europe or will they vote with their feet?

I don't mind them becoming citizens, but if they're going to vote for the failed socio-economic policies which is one reason they left, they should stay where they are.

Sandy Woh! one tough lady :-)

--The European Parliament branded Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement a “terrorist” group yesterday and urged European Union ministers to take action against the organization. “Parliament considers that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by Hezbollah. The (EU) Council should take all necessary steps to curtail them,” a non-binding resolution adopted by a big majority said. The resolution, which also renewed a call for Syria to withdraw its troops and intelligence services from Lebanon, was adopted by 473 votes to eight with 33 abstentions.--

Is ChrIRAQ wearing a Stetson?

Well my view on this multipolar idea is that it is wrong for the moment.

It´s hard to explain shortly.

But it´s better I think If Europe and USA, indeed all the western civilization, stand together for democracy and freedom in the rest of the world. And not only do that but makes sure that we got plenty of military force to fight if we have to, multiple theatre wars.
We need to do this in order to hold China in a checked position and as well making sure the fairly optimistic wahabists lose their hope of any success.

In other words I am a inspired by the ideas of "project for a new American century" however find the term and scope should be expanded to "project for a new Western civilization century".

Thomas all I can is welcome aboard :-)

To get this back in line

Marcus Buck Wrote:

"1) I always thought that the first law of journalism was to get a) at least two independent sources for a general 'expert' statement before exposing it to the public, and 2) Look for opponents to the view exposed in any article in order to show a balanced account."

This is how it ideally should be, but it is also where journalists mostly fail.
There has recently been a report here in Denmark from a group analyzing and monitoring the press where one the conclusions were that the press had in general had developed the bad habit of running to the same selected "oracles" for comments all the time. And that often regardless of the fact that there might easily be found people with more expertize easily found.
The reason can be personal views or a personal idea of what story the public, or let´s not forget the editor, want. Or simply that it is easy to use an expert (oracle) already well familiar to everybody.
However where ever a view is transponded, an opposing view should follow, ideally.

But I think it´s clear enough in this case that the journalist was hunting a story with a certain perspective and conveniently overlooked everything else.

You see lots of examples of journalists everyday of journalists being critical, except of course when they agree and they like the story.

I believe that another survey in USA found that 70 % of the stories in the news ended up there as they were orignal spun. And with all the spinning going on this day it´s a kinda tragedy.

Thomas, the problem is we are still arguing about the definitions of democracy and freedom.

Europe - freedom from

US - freedom for

And Europe at this time seems to want to spread "freedom from" using my military and my tax $.

And let's not get into "democracy."

Thomas you say
"But you should worry a lot more about what goes on in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China and NK than about what is going on in Europe."

Strategically I agree with you, but, on a tactical level we/you have to stop Europe* from being obstructionist It's hard to focus on China when the Europe* wants to sell them arms and military technology. It's hard to focus on Pak & Saudi when Europe* is trying to undercut us in Iraq and wants to help Iran go nuclear.

Europe* isn't the source of the problem but they sure as heck ain't helping and in some ways are hurting us.

* ( and yes I'm talking about "old" Europe )

Marcus Buck: This will be a response to you, at least in a little while - i just need to berate some of the village idiots of this blog first..

Thomas. Herbie. Sandy P, AlanC: You are aware that the four of you have corrupted this thread to the extreme? This article was about Norwegian media abusing their sources and creating false articles. What you've done is derail the debate into something complete different - and completely irrelevant to the topic. I despise that kind of activity.

Now on to the topic.

Marcus: I want to thank you for your response. As an external reader it's great to read responses from the people involved.

From what I can see, our views on the media is quite similiar. You, though, seems to have been bitten quite badly by bad journalism on siste.no (Dagsavisen?)'s part. They seem to have been abusing their sources to the extreme.

Am I right in the assumption that you just commented on the issue from a "spanish" point of view, and in the context of the madrid bombing? In that case, it seems quite extreme for siste.no (Dagsavisen?) to extrapolate that this means that Norway is under threat _because_ of the weapons lending ...

I would like a clarification on what topic you made the comments on, and how it turned out in the article, if possible.

Hi Rune,
Yes, the jorunalist and I were talking on Al Queda and affiliated groups as to how the Spanish security forces and researchers on terrorism asserted the relationship between islamistic propaganda, association with the US and so forth. Norway was presented as a somewhat peculiar point of reference underscoring the fact than we have to distinguish between actual involvment in Iraq and being "thrown in" with the US in the Al Queda bulletins. Since Al Queda lacks infrastructure in Norway, the expressed threath would most likely materialize in the form of a blow to Norwegian interests abroad. In all of this, I stated explicitly that the 'lending' in itself would not cause any change in the level of danger against Norwegian interests unless it was to be fomented by Al Queda spokesmen. In short, the 'subjective' element was far more important than the 'objective' association with the US. All this according to the Spanish perspective - which in itself should be avaluated in light of the 11-M (as it is known in Spanish).
In fact, this is all to me very trivial. I teach Spanish officers on a doctorate program on the structuring of decision-making and action in asymetric conflicts in which the subjective element is paramount. The subjective element is basically the underpinning for the 'irrationality' of the terrorist actions (that is, 'irrational' from a structural point of view). As the 'structure' (the 'world order' if you like) is in flux, we will, in this perspective, see an increase in terrorist actions directed against the perceived centre of the power system (the US and its allies).
This was basically my line of reasoning with the journalist, but I'm not sure whether he grasped it or not.

Marcus

Rune no one corrupted anything. The debate wandered here and there as is frequently the case. Everyone learned a little bit. You might consider taking a laxative :-)

Rune, here is something else to dispise :-)

Meat Club Rub
1 Tablespoon ground coffee
1 Tablespoon ground coriander
1 Tablespoon kosher salt
1 Tablespoon ground pepper
1 Tablespoon ground chipotle
4 rib-eye steaks.

Mix all together and rub on all sides of steaks about 30 minutes before you grill, saute, broil or BBQ steak

Really good and simple

Oh, horrors, Rune.

Stay on target, stay on target.

News is a conversation, Rune.

Hva er feilaktig i at det øker risikoen når vi velger side?
Jeg har åpent stilt spørsmål rundt dette før i flere fora. Hvorfor er det ikke flere angrep på Norge?
Hvorfor er det ikke flere angrep på EU?
Det virker litt spesielt å kun kjempe i eget land når det så tydelig er lønnsomt for USA å kjempe utenfor landet.

Min oppfordring: Vurder hvordan dere mest effektivt får kjempet kampen. Personlig ikke for USA sin kamp.

Enlish.
I do not understand the "terrorists". Why don't they attack more? Why do they fight in their own countries?
Is it more effective to fight there and risk their own fammilies? Why not attack us?
Norway is to blame. The norwegian government is on the US side in mostly everything.

"Gutta på skogen" is a known term in Norway. It is term people use happily about the norwegian terrorists that helped us become a free country.

I am happy for the norwegian terrorists fight against Germany.

-martin

MARTIN., I DO NOT UNDERSTNAD WHAT YOU ARE SAYING EXCEPT THAT YOU SEEM TO DISLIKE THE uS AND TERROISTS SHOULD DO MORE ATTACKING.

The US government is proud of their ability to keep the fights out of USA. That is understandable and should be learned by their enemies.

Or should it? Maybe it should be learned by USA? USA might enjoy thinking about their situation.

I am against war in general. It is a last resort that is seldom needed.

I am realy deeply sorry for being Norwegian. I was proud before we elected this government.

I have no problem with the deaths of norwegian soldiers. I just hope we don't kill to many of the freedom fighters that protect their own country.

-martin

Martin I flatly disagree. Killing civilians is not a freedom fighter. It is terror. If there are no rules as you seem to imply then the weaker can do anything and so too can the stronger.

As for keeping war out of the US. You bet. Your position seems to lack any coherent basis except a dislike for war (so?) and a particular dislike for the US.

Martin I flatly disagree. Killing civilians is not a freedom fighter. It is terror. If there are no rules as you seem to imply then the weaker can do anything and so too can the stronger.

As for keeping war out of the US. You bet. Your position seems to lack any coherent basis except a dislike for war (so?) and a particular dislike for the US.

As for your "being deeply sorry for being Norwegian", why suffer your continued pain? Give up your citizenship and move to another country unless, of course you are a masochist.

As for the death of Norwegian soldiers (apparently good) in your view) vs. the death of freedom fighters (apparently bad) why not put "your money where your mouth is" so to speak and join the freedom fighters. Then you would be able to to have an impact. To use a quaint US expression "money talks and bullshit walks" To call for the death of your fellow citizens is repulsive

Under what circumstances do you believe that war is justified

Hi Herbie

You are rigth, but please remember that in Europe there is hate, as in the US. Please read Martin like that.

I absolutly agree, there are those who talk and those who have to act.

Jarle, I accept that hate exists but I am of the view that Martin is living is his own world -- which is not very odd from my point of new

"I have no problem with the deaths of norwegian soldiers. I just hope we don't kill to many of the freedom fighters that protect their own country."

It´s hard to believe you actually saying this Martin. Which planet you come from ?

Let me remind you that the land was actually invaded to make the Iraqi people free. and they were actually freed from Saddam Hussein, and are now free to do as they like, talk as they like, and vote for whom they like.

Or rather they would be free if it weren´t for those you call "freedom" fighters. Which actually deserves no claim to the name because they are not fighting for freedom, the are fighting against USA in order to remove an obstacle in the way of them making a new dictatorship. A new sunni baathist/wahhabist dictatorship. And once the Americans leave they start fighting the Iraqi elected government, and each other, because not all baathists are fond of wahhabists and not all wahhabists are fond of baathists. It´s a great world we live in I know, but it´s the world we live in. Now our soldiers are there to make the land free from such people, and if they die, they die in a good cause, but it would have been better if the Iraqi leaders had just treated their citizens well from the beginning, no mass slaughter, torture, imprisonment of critics etc.
Your freedom fighters kills about 1000 Iraqis each month, probably more everyone counted. They kill everyone that do not support them, they kill people that are not moslems, women that goes to university. they kill anything randomly in terror attacks, people that won´t quit smoking or basically do anything they do not like.

They do not want or stand for freedom, face it!

The problem is not freedom, but "freedom". Norway gives out the nobel peace price and Norway speaks openly about human rights.

But.. Norway is a country of double morals. We have laws against nuclear bombs. but we have them in our ports all the time. We have laws against torture, but we capture people in Afghanistan and gives them to USA. We was against the war in Iraq, but was early to get in with our forces. We was against the war in Iraq, but gave US the equipment they wanted.

The worst is all the people who talk negatively about US double morrals without caring about our own lying.

Who can afford moral when even a extremely rich country like Norway belive they can't?

Norway had a good periode from 1990 to 2001. Sad that one government could destroy it. It has nothing to do with twin towers. That was not our war. USA has 50% of the worlds military budget. They do not need us.

Yes, I am affraid. I am affraid of USA, China, Russia and "the new EU". To much power in to few hands.

This connflict gave the developed world a test. We failed.

Martin S. Langsjøen wrote:

But.. Norway is a country of double morals. We have laws against nuclear bombs. but we have them in our ports all the time.

They are not under Norwegian control. The laws against nuclear bombs are because of international treaties - such as the non-proliferation treaty. Those treaties are not meant for our bigger allies that already have the weapons. Our allies are not allowed, afaik, to store the weapons on ground though. It would not be very practical to require allied warships to stay out of norwegian territory if they carried nukes.

We have laws against torture, but we capture people in Afghanistan and gives them to USA.

The US is our ally. They also have laws against torture. At the moment, lots of people disagree on the definition of torture, and especially with the US definition of torture. They're still our ally in war.

We was against the war in Iraq, but was early to get in with our forces.

We sent _support_ troops. Not military troops.

We was against the war in Iraq, but gave US the equipment they wanted.

They're our allies. Of course we gave them equipment.

The worst is all the people who talk negatively about US double morrals without caring about our own lying.

I don't see any lying above. I see that we honor our alliances. I see that we send humanitarian troops to Iraq. I see that we help hunt down terrorists in Afghanistan. I see that we're not anal retentive about applying our own laws upon our allies.

Who can afford moral when even a extremely rich country like Norway belive they can't?

I only see _good_ moral above.

It has nothing to do with twin towers. That was not our war.

Of course it was our war. One of our close allies got attacked in a most heinous manner. In the time since that happened the following has happened:
- Afghanistan has been freed from religious tyranny.
- Iraq has been freed from their dictator
- The Kurds in Iraq finally isn't oppressed.
- Libya has started talking
- Democracy is brewing in Lebanon.
- Egypt is allowing a political opponent to run for presidency in the next election
- Saudi Arabia is going to let women vote.

You can argue that this isn't related - but quite frankly, I think most of it is.

Marcus: It was really interesting to hear you elaborate on this issue. As my early comments suggested I was very far from impressed by the story. I thought that someone must have messed things up here: Either the "experts" or the Journalists. Your clarifications are in many respects quite satisfying.

However, there is one thing that always puzzled me, and that I would like to hear you respond to. Why did you repeat the statements on NRK television when you had already seen how they were being misused by Dagsavisen? You repeated more or less the exact same phrase later the same day on "Dagsrevyen" news show. At that point, my impression is that rather sticking with your initial misused comments, you should have capitalized on the opportunity and made sure that the other parts of your arguments were given proper attention. Here I feel that you should have handled the situation differently.

I would suspect that the NRK-journalists may have asked you to repeat the phrase and if you were somewhat reluctant they would say...."so you are misquoted in Dagsavisen then?? you were just not thinking when you said that??...don't you mean what you said??" I have been exposed to that technique during quote checks, when I have refused to let journalists use comments that came out wrong.

This technique is a markerting device called consistency. Trying to make you look like a flip-flopper....It can be very effective...as we all know. Consistency for consistency's sake is by and large nonsense. One major exception being the realm of law.

Bjørn and other blogmasters: Is the "Dagbladet-story" among the first times Norwegian journalists have bothered to report on inaccuracies being pointed out by bloggers?

Anders: Is the "Dagbladet-story" among the first times Norwegian journalists have bothered to report on inaccuracies being pointed out by bloggers?

It's the second. The first was this case, where former blogger Lars Ruben Hirsch discovered that Aftenposten had plagiarized Newsweek. Dagbladet did a story, and Aftenposten made deceptive apology about poor creditation.

Hi Anders,

You're right in that I was asked to repeat what I said to Dagsavisen on the NRK radio morning news. I would here like to remark that I had, and still have, only read the web version of Dagsavisen. I don't know whether there was a mismatch between the printet version and the eletronic version. I thought the NRK gave me the opportunity to clarify some vital points:

1. I'm not an 'expert' on terrorism and my affiliation with the Centre for Security Studies in Granada is on a part time basis. This, as I recall, was how the news anchor referred to me when I was introduced.

2. As I recall, I clearly stated that it was not the lending of the laser gear in itself that would
increase the terrorist threat to Norwegian interests, but rather that it could be used by Al Queda spokesmen to uphold the focus on Norway as a close ally to the US. I also stated that Norway was already firmly placed in the group of close allies to the US.

The problematic point in the Dagsavisen article was the strong causal link established between 'lending' and 'increased terrorist threat'.

Whether this got through is a different matter.
As I've mentioned before, this line of reasoning was based on the somewhat peculiar fact that Norway, both in the internal and external Al Queda communication, was placed in the same category as for example Spain even though our actual involvment in Iraq was far from being in the same category as the Spanish one.

What I think is sorely missed in Norwegian media are journalists with some basic knowledge of the international and domestic research on asymmetric conflicts and international terrorism. When I comment on electoral behaviour, I generally find that more journalists have some basic knowledge of the field and that we merely disagree on, for example, the effect of political leadership versus the effect of issues and party identity in structuring the behaviour of the electorate (journalists in general put far to much emphasis on individual politicians).

I, for one, have learned my lesson: One can chat far more freely with a Norwegian journalist on electoral matters than on terrorism (strangely enough, in Spain it's the other way round).

Marcus

I would just like to add, Anders, that I absolutely agree with you on that I should have handled the matter differently when I got the opportunity directly on the air that morning by the NRK. In fact, I was so relieved by being able to rectify the points on my work affiliation and elaborate on the 'causal' link that I did not protest against the whole story being presented in the first place.

Marcus

Marcus: Interesting to read this. I agree that you only can do so much when doing media appearences. I have been in the same situation several times.

Journalists normally are very aware of people trying to use their media channel to enforce their own agenda. They only let you do what they want you to do. If you do something completely different, you will be edited out.

It should be noted that different journalists have different ethics on this issue. It's not fair to say that ALL journalists do the kind of blunders Dagsavisen did on this occasion. Generalization is nearly always wrong.

http://nanocrew.net/2005/05/28/hp-f2304/

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1543

Secular Blasphemy: Media: Hidden and open opinions, March 15, 2005 01:25 PM

Howard Kurtz watches the media watch itself : In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says.

Bjørn Stærk blog: Dagsavisen defends use of "terror experts", March 16, 2005 07:42 PM

One of the things I've come to learn as a blogger is that no journalist ever responds to criticism. I...

Stromata Blog: Fake-But-Accurate in Norway, March 17, 2005 04:34 AM

Bjørn Stærk presents a pair of anecdotes that illustrate the virulence and pro-terrorist bias of certain segments of the European Left. The first is “fake but accurate� raised to a more brazen level than even Mary Mapes dared. Several months

Nettet SV: All makt i denne blogg?, January 9, 2006 02:27 PM

Paul Bjerke undervurderer vanlige folks mulighet til å påvirke samfunnet gjennom engasjement og deltakelse. Det er dumt av en mann som kjemper for fellesskap mot markedsmakt. Nye arenaer for deltakelse kan i framtida bli viktige verktøy i kampen for