ClumsyMonkey.net

That isn't a threat from the outside. The man was from Finland. Crime is impossible to stop. You missed my point. Why aren't these countries targeted by Terrorist groups?

yeah he makes point

"It is too early to say whether it was a terrorist organisation or a single person acting," he said.

Well unless you have an article that I haven't seen you don't have a point. Nowhere does it say that he wasn't a member of a group. In fact it says that they didn't know.

I have found articles where it says that it was a 20 year old Finnish dude, and they don't know exactly why he did it, but probably just suicide, not an attack and he's got nothing to do with terrorism. I'd post them, but they're in Dutch.

Edit: Here it is in English, from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2322275.stm

Police still have no motive for the attack, but they say they did not consider it likely the attack was linked to terrorism. The bomber, whose identity is being kept secret, had no previous criminal record.

Richard Reid was British and Moussaui (sp?) was French. They were members of terrorist groups. This is one of those things where you can't say one way or another because they "don't know".

Of course people from western countries can be members of terrorist groups, but in this case it's very unlikely he was.

But that wasn't even the question. The question was why Scandinavian countries are not being attacked by terrorist groups. A single incident doesn't disprove this. I think it is because Scandinavian countries are pretty isolated. They don't interfere with the rest of the world. I'm not sure if that's a good thing though. For those countries it probably is, because they don't have the threat of terrorism, but the rest of the world still needs to be cleared from terrorism and Venom is right that the US can't do it on their own (but if the US really wants support they're not acting very smart by going against the UN and ignoring other countries' opinions).

(but if the US really wants support they're not acting very smart by going against the UN and ignoring other countries' opinions).

The UN doesn't do anything forceful. Good luck. We've realized that and so thats why we've done it twice. Once for the Kosovars and once for the Iraqis.

But that wasn't even the question. The question was why Scandinavian countries are not being attacked by terrorist groups.

You coulda asked the same about Turkey about a month ago. Or Bali a year ago. Just because thy haven't been attacked yet doesn't mean they won't be.

Turkey can be easily explained, they became a target because they supported the US. Bali is a different situation. A different kind of terrorism has been active there for many years. Indonesia has been a mess since the Dutch screwed it up with colonism.

Well Finland and Sweden both expelled Iraqi ambassadors before the war. That could be seen as helping the US. They have also committed to the War on Terror.

I think you're still missing the point. Why are the terrorists so pissed off at the US? People say it's because the USA has a better way of life, and all that sort of jazz, yet it's known throughout the world that the scandinavian countries are the best countries to live in in the world.

It's about foreign policy, and if the US didn't stick their nose in everything, I doubt terrorists would target them.

It's not a matter that they haven't been attacked yet either. You're trying to prove an argument with evidence that doesn't exist. You can't read into the future, and to say that this or that is going to happen is rather naive.

I knew what you were trying to get at but why do they attack all those other coutries. They haven't attacked the US since 9.11. Your logic isn't all that bullet proof either. They have Jews, Christians, women, freedom, etc.