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.

Their more important enemies are also probably more difficult to attack.

Their more important enemies undoubtedly have more security theatre, but I highly doubt they would actually be harder to attack.

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.

> I guess I just feel like they have more important enemies, from their perspective, to attack.

What do you believe their motivations are?