People are talking about poor little Norway, so innocent, now losing its virginity. As Glenn Greenwald reminds us, Norway got slutty when it participated in the NATO attack on Libya where where they bombed the house of Gaddafi’s son, thinking the old man was there. Instead they killed his son and three of his grandchildren.* In those circumstances, is it not logical to suggest that Norway’s own rulers and their families are also culpable, and targeting them is as legitimate as targeting Libyan innocents? Even if they don’t actually get the Prime Minister, isn’t all the other carnage just collateral damage?
Anyway, even as it was assumed and reported without evidence that the bombings and shootings of all those kids was the work of Muslim terrorists, it turns out to be right wing nationalists.
Yes, it’s awful, just awful, to see innocents killed like that. And the killings in Norway are just as barbaric.
___________________
*Typically when that happens the US claims that the victims were being used as human shields.
Piece of Mindful 
Hey, it’s Palin’s fault. From you buds at Firedoglake.
“The bombing-shootings took up enormous bandwidth in our media machine until it came out that the alleged perpetrator has more in common with Sarah Palin and Alan Dershowitz than with Rachel Corrie or Furkan Doğan, both of whom have been labelled terrorists by Dershowitz.”
LikeLike
Oh I get it. You don’t think the comparison is apt. Do you know who Rachel Corrie is? She dared stand before an Israeli (Catepillar) bulldozer to act as a human shield to prevent it from leveling a Palestinian home. It ran over her and killed her. Dershowitz, never short of hyperbole, called her terrorost. FDL is saying that with that as the standard for terrorism, given the Norwegian and his right wing reactionary beliefs, that using the Dershowitz standard, Sarah Palin is a terrorist too.
I get that. Don’t you?
LikeLike
Dershowitz went over the edge with name calling. Sarah on the other hand would never call Corrie a “terrorist.
Slow footed perhaps-but never a terrorist.
LikeLike
Did she not say that Assange should be assassinated? He didn’t care about that, but she also said that he had bad grammar. That, coming from her, cut deep.
LikeLike
Huh?
LikeLike
Mark – now you’ve really gone over the edge. You’re comparison is atrocious. It would be appropriate if a Libyan had accidentally killed Norwegian civilians while attempting to kill a Norwegian military officer. To try to kill a man who is orchestrating (and has orchestrated) mass murder and repression, and sponsored genocide, and instead kill children is a tragedy and, in this particular instance, a mistake. But to aim at a child swimming for his or her life, away from you, and pull the trigger, out of a racist anger against a completely different group of people? That’s not the same ballpark, that’s not the same league, that’s not the same fucking game, and to suggest that it is the worse kind of moral equivalency. To suggest that Norway had somehow gotten ‘slutty’ by participating in an internationally accepted mission to save civilians, to say that somehow that ‘sluttiness’ justifies this horrific ‘loss of innocence’, is the worst kind of heartlessness. Mark, you’re smarter than that, but more importantly, I have to believe you have more emotional intelligence than to seriously equate those two things, or even posit it as a hypothetical.
LikeLike
That you cannot pierce the veil, that you somehow see that one group’s “… orchestrated … mass murder and repression, and … genocide” is different in quality from another’s, is the problem here.
Fix your perceptions, and things will clear up for you.
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with my perceptions. Even if we assume that the Prime Minister of Norway and Colonel Gaddafi are morally equal, the fact remains that one attack targeted a military leader, the other targeted a group of children and a few bureaucrats.
Not to say that the Jens Stoltenberg is actually morally equivalent to Muammar Gaddafi. He has in fact never orchestrated repression or genocide. He leads a country that gives a larger portion of its wealth to charity than almost any other. He is leading his country in a humanitarian mission against a man who has repeatedly massacred citizens who he is trusted to protect, who has funded operations to kill civilians with no intelligible legitimate goal, and who has (most importantly and most frequently forgotten) given support to those responsible for thousands of deaths in Sudan and Chad. Mr. Stoltenberg is in fact leading the country with the least to gain from the NATO mission in Libya – they have nothing to gain from re-opening the oil fields in Libya, and indeed from a purely economic standpoint, rising oil prices benefit Norway. And so to the extent that they participated in the current action, they were doing it for the benefit of the LIbyan people and people throughout the Arab world.
Now, I won’t argue that an attack against our president, even if civilians were killed in the process, would be justified by the rules of war we ourselves have laid down – the president is commander in chief, and so he is a legitimate military target, and collateral damage is inevitable, especially against such a high-value target. However, your moral equivalency ceases to make any sense when you equate targeted attacks against military infrastructure to attacks directed purely against civilians with no hope of achieving military advantage. You want to see the world completely in shades of gray; your worldview requires that, on the international stage, good and evil be merely manipulated perceptions. However, the majority of terrorists of the past couple decades have not been ‘freedom fighters’ by anyone’s definition – they aren’t bombing police and soldiers, and they aren’t even really trying. There are terrorists, apparently from Norway to Saudi Arabia, who justify killing civilians with in ways that are completely incomparable to the actions of, for instance, the State of Norway. That’s not perception and that’s not some veil, it’s reality.
LikeLike
I disagree on every point except for Norway’s admirable world-citizen behavior.
1. Gaddafi’s son’s home was not part of the “military infrastructure.” It was his home where he lived with his wife (wives?) and children.
a) Careless disregard for civilians is the moral equivalent of targeting. That’s not me. That’s Geneva.
2. Gaddafi has not been found guilty of any of the crimes you so blithely assert him guilty of.
a) The fact that he runs a repressive regime is of no concern to anyone, as there are scores of them around the world.
b) That millions were in danger of death without “NATO” (US) intervention is but the most recent example of WMD’s and yellow cake.
3. Most of what we call “terrorism” is minor and not significant on the world stage. Only a few thousand have died at the hand of Muslims, We, on the other hand, have killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
a) We are intensely aware of crimes committed against us, and somehow blind to our own. That’s a function of imperialist hubris.
b) Whatever the reason for the attack on Libya, it cannot possibly be about human rights or freedom. If it were, it would be a first.
4. Gaddafi is known to have attempted a shake-down of some oil companies in the wake of his agreement to pay a couple of billion (?) in reparations to the Lockerbee victims. That is far more likely the reason for the attack than anything else.
And yes, Gadaffi is likely mental, though it’s hard to tell, as we paint all of our enemies as mental. But he is no more, probalby far less a megalomaniac than our own Dick Cheney, whose grandchildren are safe and secure.
LikeLike
I responded to this, but it had a link, so maybe it disappeared?
LikeLike
Yeah, Mark, your moral equivalencies are strained.
Anyway, it looks like Anders B.’s political motivations are a bit of a head fake, akin to Ted Bundy’s claim that pornography made him do it.
LikeLike
Equivalencies are not strained at all. Perceptions are managed.
Where the hell you been?
LikeLike
Where the hell you been?
Web’s a big place. I got lost.
Perceptions are managed.
Et tu?
“Most of what we call “terrorism” is minor and not significant on the world stage. Only a few thousand have died at the hand of Muslims, We, on the other hand, have killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions.” I find this line peculiar. It is up there with the breathless lines that, “Doctors kill more people than criminals”,”Accountants steal more money than bank robbers.”, or “Mechanics damage more cars than vandals.” It relies on dicey measurements and who is taking risks toward what ends.
LikeLike
Not at all – the numbers are well known. I have put them up, relying on others who chronicled all of the Muslim attacks, Reagan forward (he was the first to say that Islamic terrorism was a scourge.) Counting 9/11, over thirty+ years, it’s about 4,000 westerners killed by Muslims.
And of course the empire does not count bodies, so others have, and we’ve been there, and even though the empire does not count, it disputes the numbers given by any who do. But I know it is hundreds of thousands, and suspect it is millions.
I don’t know about mechanics and doctors, but do know that accountants and bankers are in a position to steal, as they are close to the money. 2007-2008 was a massive meltdown with criminal negligence everywhere. and not one white ass went to jail. You, on the other hand, could be arrested for shoplifting.
LikeLike
You bring an accountant’s sensibilities to these things: debits in one column, credits in another, one number at the bottom, and America must be utterly destroyed because we have the biggest debt to humanity.
Also interesting is the dramatic narrative here: America up to its elbows in the blood and gore of others, yet unaware of its actions.
…
There is something horrible about terrorism that, like nuclear power, you need to multiply the horribleness by the likelihood to get the fear factor. You can argue that the fear is overblown, but there it is.
but do know that accountants and bankers are in a position to steal
That’s the point about US action: we’re playing policeman to the world, so we’re in a position to kill. Fair enough to argue that we shouldn’t play policeman. But keep in mind the commensurableness (wd?): if doctors really wanted to kill, they could lay out great swaths. If accountants really wanted to zero out your balance, they could do so in short order. If mechanics really wanted to disable cars, they could do much. If policeman had a policy of killing large numbers, the count would be high. If America wanted to maximize the killing of Muslims etc, I imagine it could do better than at present. Terrorists have as a stated goal to kill. There is a significant difference here you don’t seem to grasp.
…not one white ass went to jail.
Still race conscious and using a small “w” I see. Status signalling is so important in the coffee house.
LikeLike
Not that at all. It’s the absurdity of the balance of power that is telling, them having none, us amazingly well-armed, and yet our barking about how threatened we are. The game afoot is not Muslims, “terrorism” is not a concern.
Nothing new here. It’s imperial hubris, that’s all. Empires never admit to crimes, rarely even acknowledge them, but anything done against the empire is a catastrophe. It was no different with the British aristocracy, the Spaniards or Soviets.
You think that American terror and violence not engender the very same fear. Are you daft?
I mention numbers because people have no clue. I do believe that in Iraq, as in Vietnam, the object was simply to kill everyone who presented a current danger and a future one as well, or disinfection, to use counterinsurgency terminology. Numbers are not the issue, but mass slaughter, no matter the strategic objective, is what it is.
Regarding white asses and jail time, imagine all of the black asses sitting in jail for pot offenses, versus no one for the biggest set of financial crimes in history.
LikeLike
You have a weak grasp of risk assessment. Irrational as it is from an accounting perspective, humans fear damage from the relatively unknown, strange, or horrific more than from well known dangers. Thus while death from accidents or acquaintances are rather high, we instinctively recoil more from “stranger danger”. When discussing measures taken against terrorism, you can’t just do a body count, you have to include the high emotional distress when contemplating death by terrorist.
I see you are now suckling Black pot smokers. For someone who constantly preaches counter intuitive, thinking outside the box, and challenging perceptions, you reliably fall back on the usual liberal tropes.
LikeLike
I think, quite frankly, that your ideas about fear and threat perception are a crock of shit. Imagine Iraqi children running from bombs and soldiers, and the parents offering comfort: “Don’t worry kids. They’re Americans.”
LikeLike
Non sequiturish analogy. You missed my point, but what else is new.
Your unstudied take on risk and threat has you placing blame in ways that don’t illuminate what is going on.
LikeLike
Contraire! Contraire! I am no genius, but I do try to cut through crap. I do now that a great deal of American intellectual effort goes into finding a definition of terrorism that excludes our activities. They’ve not succeeded, but for the sake of the American intelligentsia, they’ve done enough. We’re not terrorists even though we are the best killers on the planet.
Fear of the unknown, fear of the unexpected is part of the terrorism meme. Travel if you will now to the top of this page, and read the Mencken quote.
LikeLike
The Mencken quote seems apt for you, who constantly tells us to quit defending ourselves lest vengeful foreigners come for payback, who hectors us to raise more street lights lest we can’t see the criminal, or pay your medical bill lest you leave the country.
Your moral equivalence between the US and terrorism is just a gratuitous thing. Iraqi children overwhelmingly fear their homegrown dangers over the US.
LikeLike
What fear am I exhibiting here? You are the one who seems afraid of inter group activity, lest something go wrong and we make an enemy. Queue your usual screed about the dangers of the Iraqi womb or of the dark street.
LikeLike
You honestly don’t know that you are being manipulated by fear? Terrorists, immigrants, multiculturalism … You name it, you’re scared.
LikeLike
In sales the two greatest motivators to get people to buy are sex and fear. It is hard to sell these wars based on sex, though Muslims seem to have a line on that. We use fear, and man does it work on you.
I( do not claim moral equivalence between American terrorism and that of others – we do far more of it, and because we are so well armed, even when we occasionally mean well (?), we still bump people off like flies.
LikeLike
“I disagree on every point except for Norway’s admirable world-citizen behavior. ”
Well, that would be the most important point, because on that rests the crucial difference between whether a Norwegian leader and a Libyan leader are equally valid targets. But, the rest of what you said is also wrong.
1. If there was a belief that Gaddafi was at his sons home, he made that a legitimate target. It is known that Gaddafi’s family was involved in running the regime. In the Libyan government, there is no distinction between civilian and military. If not, Gaddafi would go by President, not Colonel.
a) Nothing in the current action in Libya suggests careless disregard for civilians. If that existed, the war would be over by now and many more Libyans would have died.
2. Gaddafi cannot be found guilty of any of these crimes, of course, because he hasn’t been tried by any court. Indicted, sure, but never tried.
a) So you actually admit he runs a repressive regime, you’re just pretending that doesn’t matter. But remember, I’m comparing Libya to Norway, not Saudi Arabia, so this point doesn’t make any sense.
b) I’m pretty sure no one said anything about ‘millions’ in danger of death. But hundreds had already died, and Gaddafi’s past behavior would suggest that he would not hesitate to kill thousands more. I don’t know how many links I can add, but here’s I think the most important one, because it’s the one you’re least likely to have read already. http://www.africanews.com/site/Gaddafis_seeds_of_hatred_in_Darfur/list_messages/23381
3. You’re right, terrorism is not significant on a world stage. But far more Muslims have been killed by Muslim leaders than by ‘The West’. And yet your perception views them as different. For example – more Palestinians were killed by the Jordanians when they ran the West Bank than have been killed in the Second Intifada, and yet which one is considered a bigger deal in the Western press?
a) I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I’m talking about Norway. But as Ed noted already, when you get beyond discussing how bad the US, you get out of your element. Happens to the best of us.
b) Again, I’m talking about Norway. It seems quite possible to me that the Norwegian electorate could pressure their government into participating in this action for humanitarian reasons. Not to save Libyans, alone – rather, to show the other leaders in the area that bullets are not an acceptable alternative to ballots.
4. That makes little sense. Gaddafi has been for more amenable to Western interests recently than in the past. Moreover, the attacks weren’t well planned – thus, it seems clear that the west here is reacting to situations on the ground, not fulfilling any specific plan.
LikeLike
That’s a value judgment on your part, and to useful. Two countries are at war, each attacking the other. Both are targets. When there are natural disasters, Americans step forward with amazing generosity. That does not absolve our government from its crimes.
Surely you can do better. As you later admit, he’s not been found guilty of any crimes, though I’m pleased that you are pleased that he’s been more amenable to ” the West.” Assassination of foreign leaders is illegal under US law, no matter how efective our demonization agitprop.
You have no way of knowing this unless you’re wired into Wikileaks. We’re being told nothing. That’s all.
Oh, it matters to the people of Libya. It matters. But not to NATO (US). Any actions taken there have strategic objectives that are not shown or known to us. If you don’t know that by now, you’re willfully blind.
Casus belli is our specialty. We’ll find out down the road if any of this is true or if the attack was justified. For now, you’d we wise to withhold judgment.
Huh? One, your second sentence does not follow your first. Two, there’s hardly any criticism of Israel in the American media, and three, this goes back to 1948, when it was decided that Palestinians would be punished for Nazi crimes. All in all, don’t you wish you could edit that remark?
Hard to say, pointless to speculate. I only clipped this remark because in Norway, public policy can indeed be affected by voter referendums. Unlike here.
The whole Gaddafi amenable narrative is stripped of context here, ‘muff said. Indeed however, it was not planned. The whole of the Arab Spring is not planned. The “killing” of bin Laden is telling, indicating he need for an unplanned drawdown in AfPak, and use of NATO for the Libyan attack. They are grab-bagging to a degree. Although multi-theater warfare was a strategic objective in Neocon writings, I don’t think that either side of the party or the oligarchy saw that coming.
Indeed interesting. To imagine that we can see anymore than surface features at this time is foolish.
Typed on IPad, surely many typos. Edited.
LikeLike
Well, Mark, I’ll grant that it would seem that the Prime Minister of Norway is legally an acceptable target for Libyan military, in a legalistic sense. But that does not make him in any way comparable to Gaddafi in a moral sense. One is acting to save lives in areas where warfare already exists, the other has a history of sponsoring violence and the blood of thousands on his hands. And the fact that he hasn’t been convicted of a crime doesn’t make him any less guilty of them; Hitler was never convicted of anything he did as dictator, either.
As to my remarks on terrorism – you’re right, terrorism is largely insignificant in terms of numbers, compared to the casualties caused by warfare in which the US is involved. Here, however, Iraq is a notable exception. In most other situations, even Afghanistan, US intervention was to a situation where violence was already extant. Moreover, in our interventions including Iraq, it has been forces opposed to the US that are responsible for the greater number of civilian casualties. Though the US must still take blame for creating a violent situation in Iraq, it is not directly responsible for most of the deaths there, and certainly not for the majority of civilian casualties in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan. This is quadruply true for Norway.
LikeLike
That is how it is viewed through the American lens, I’ll grant you. That is how it is played out for us. I doubt others see it that way when you leave our bubble.
Anyway, round and round. Good place to stop.
LikeLike