With my friends here there is already a Facebook worm going on which is supposed to show some video footage about the explosion but when you click it you're just spreading/liking the video.
I'd bet these guys have templates in place just for major events - especially terrorist attacks.
I recall on Sept 11th the sheer rush from users to consume information on the Internet. If something like 9/11 ever happens again anywhere in the world, spammers will jump right on the event like flies on sh*t.
It's already happening. There is this example, and I recall one of the recent Christchurch earthquakes had someone complaining about similar spamming of a hashtag related to the quake on Twitter.
I remember someone noting that "If the world ended, I'm confident it would be covered immediately on HN."
I think this qualifies as something of sufficient importance that it should be here just so everyone is aware. We could do without the comments though. Maybe a "no comment" sort of link for events of vital importance that are off-topic? It would make a lot more sense than disabling comments for YC job postings.
I'll second your first paragraph, but would prefer to leave the comments. HN is one of my two primary news sources, largely due to it being the only place I've found this quality of discussion. When something really significant happens, I enjoy participating in a discussion about it with the HN crowd.
Agreed. That's why I flagged this article (not that it mattered much). It's new I care about, but it was the #1 headline on CNN and every other European news site so I don't need to see it on HN.
And everyone jumped to conclusions that it surely was islamist extremist terrorists, al-qeada or the like. But no, it was a right-wing nationalist anti-islamist (apparently single) guy. I am so glad.
You're so glad, really? This guy was apparently Christian, so I hope that makes you feel better about the religious aspect of it. Extremists and fundamentalists are all the same, regardless of what they're worshiping.
Also, given that Islamic extremists would be the most obvious conclusion, how is it unreasonable to draw such assumptions, especially when a supposed Islamic group claimed responsibility?
> Extremists and fundamentalists are all the same,
> regardless of what they're worshiping
Wouldn't this make it less likely to be Islamic extremists vs fundamentalists from <insert religion>?
> given that Islamic extremists would be the
> most obvious conclusion
Because Muslims are more prone to being crazy and/or extreme than Christians (or people of <insert religion>)? Because Islamic extremists are the only people that use guerrilla tactics and explosive devices to get their point across?
>> Because Islamic extremists are the only people that use
>> guerrilla tactics and explosive devices to get their point
>> across?
Until July 1997, the IRA carried out several bombing and
shooting attacks. These included the Docklands bombing
and the Manchester bombing, which together killed 2
civilians, injured 212 more and caused around £500
million in damage.
Police just confirmed that at least 80 is killed at Utøya, earlier reports were 9-10. All killed by one gunman, and the deaths (at least 7) from the bomb in Oslo is in addition to these 80. :(
I was at work 3 blocks away from the bombing. If there were several bombings, they were detonated simultanously. I heard a single bang and our building shook once.
I'll add that the blast was unlike anything I've withnessed, even 3 blocks away.
It was only a single explosion. There were rumours of multiple explosions, but they were not true. People mistook glass falling from buildings and fake CG YouTube videos (Sky News retweeted it), but the rumors were quickly denied in the Norwegian media.
The problem with distributed command & control, is that sometimes small groups of people working on their own initiative can talk themselves into wacked-out stuff. There is a lesson here for startups.
EDIT: And by "wacked-out" I mean, "wack by even the standards of Al Qaeda." 9-11 didn't help their cause in my eyes, but I can see how they justified it to themselves. Whoever bombed Oslo - is a WTF on top of a WTF.
Norway's troops in Afghanistan have contributed to the deaths of far more civilians than were killed in this episode.
Killing people is a bad long term policy.
I suppose bad people do bad things, regardless of an honorable ideology. Still, I see Norway in the same way as I see Canada. They do not take strong statements for or against others, they do not engage in the affairs of others, they have had a long (modern) history of peaceful relations/intentions. The most aggressive thing they've done is commit handfuls of troops to a multinational "peacekeeping" missions.
I guess I just feel like they have more important enemies, from their perspective, to attack.
What honorable ideology do you mean? Or are you speaking generically?
Al qaeda's ideology is quite simple. They reject modernity, they reject individualism, they reject modern commerce, and industry, and open societies. They want to end the influence of the western, liberal world on the arab/islamic world so that the latter can be returned to or preserved as a bastion of conservative and traditionalist culture and religion. Norwegians are as objectionable to their ideology as Americans, as they represent precisely those forces that they are fighting against (hedonism, personal liberty, etc.)
Aside from that, Norwegians have not shown as much respect or deference to Islam as al qaeda imagines they should. Norwegian newspapers reprinted the famously blasphemous "Mohammad cartoons", for example. We may not imagine that such a thing is important, we may imagine that free expression including blasphemy is indeed even a right that all people should have, and I think we should. But we shouldn't have any illusions that there are a lot of people who think otherwise. Who believe that blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy should be banned and punished to the most severe extent even up to death. It's curious to me that so many people could so easily misapprehend the motives and ideology of so prominent a movement as militant Islamism and so prominent an organization as al qaeda.
"Norwegian newspapers reprinted the famously blasphemous "Mohammad cartoons", for example. We may not imagine that such a thing is important". Actually they did. That was the entire point of reprinting the cartoons- to show they would not cower in fear and gag themselves because a very small minority threaten violence. If you are willing to sacrifice free speech, art and rational civilised debate for fear of offending people because of "blasphemy" then those terrorists are already winning.
I'm speaking generically. It is difficult to imagine a moral code by which al'Qaedas actions are not objectionable (although there is obviously at least one). That being said, we often conflate absolute morality with personal perspective. Some causes have more gray areas than others for certain.
Good point on the cartoon, I had forgotten it was published there and can understand the outrage stemming from it.
Often, schoolyard bullies attack peaceful bystanders of high status, if they think they can get away with it. Often, they even think of some justification for themselves. I think the same principle applies here.
Exactly. Al qaeda is not some freedom fighter movement, they are fighting to create a new world order. An order where western powers no longer interact with the islamic world, and are also ideally disempowered and lowered in stature. An order where the islamic world is united under theocratic control (a new caliphate) and ideally is the dominant power on Earth with all other races, religions, and cultures their inferiors.
And if your out to sow terror, then why not attack someone like Norway. If they can get countries as 'moderate' or whatever the word is as Norway (or Canada) to panic, and clam up, and think twice about international engagement (Norway does/did have a non trivial presence in Afghanistan as others have pointed out), then they're good.
I mean really, what is Norway going to do to you that America can't?
For a really twisted and super simplified frame of reference, think of the Joker's plan in Dark Knight. Put some 'innocents' in a screwed up situation to bring out the worst of them.
Security theatre isn't the extent of all security measures being taken in the US and other countries. There is a lot of effort going on that is less visible, though sometimes there are arrests that make the news. In the end we only have the crude statistics of observing events vs non-events, if the US were actually just as easy to hit then logically there should have been more successful attacks, but that's not the case.
"The most aggressive thing they've done is commit handfuls of troops to a multinational "peacekeeping" mission"
ie: They are aiding the Americans in killing civilians. I guess that the civilians are now fighting back. Funny how that happens...
That doesn't necessarily rule out al qaeda involvement, there have been caucasian taliban et al before. But we shouldn't jump to conclusions until we have the facts regardless.
Arabs tend to be caucasian as in Europoid - they're semitic, and semites are usually Europoid. I don't have a word for what you wanted to say readily available, sorry.
"White people" is a perfectly reasonable term; you don't need to dress it up if that's what you mean. Genetically, it's not totally accurate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#21st_century ) but socially, it's a thing.
Yes, but only to an extent. There are no (to the best of my knowledge) actually blond arabs (though hair dye is a dime a dozen these days, of course). And Semites can generally be readily identified by certain features that while they can be shared with Caucasians are rarely not present on Arabs (bridge of the nose, the brow, the eye placement, etc.).
Race is determined by genes, not looks. There are, AFAIR, only five human races and arabs, being semites, belong to one of those called "europoids" (aka "caucasians").
I remember the Oklahoma bombing and the first picture was of some random brown muslim guy. Turns out, it was a white athiest.
Look up the FBI stats on radical muslim bombings on US soil vs radical christian vs radical athiest bombings. In fact, I seem to recall that radical jews had more attacks on US soil than radical muslims.
And since 9/11 was so neatly sown up, we'll never really know who was truly behind it.
Come on man. You are delusional!!! Terrorist attacks are 90% by muslim extremists... Stop living in a fantasy world... new york, washington dc, london, spain, egypt, turkey, mumbai, kenya, yemen, thailand, Philippines, russia etc... I am not saying all of them but 90% is probably very accurate...
Instead of blaming it on others, it should be addressed by the muslim world and not just denied. When a radical christian does something like, he is denounced by all christian leaders and people.
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is
> inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or
> offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag"
> link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If
> you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
sorry but this article is absolutely awful, my sympathies to the affected victims, but there's not a single analysis of the situation. was it terrorist based, was it a hate crime, why is this stoltenberg guy such an apparent tool, what does his party do, and i love how the article makes an ass out of stoltenberg by possibly mis-quoting him as someone who has a god complex by stating that all govt ministers are ok, what about those injured and killed!? unimportant? obviously the article is against stoltenberg unless he's really that much of an incompassionate dickwad
the police in oslo much be very tight lipped, this must also be the first crime aince medieval times :)
