I hate to say this, but attacks in India is "normal". Norway is a small and peaceful country who fight for justice and democracy and we were simply not prepared for it. This case was extraordinay; a Christian man who killed so many underage people and you think it was overemphasized? Besides, Norway is a part of NATO and that's why this attack got so much attention in Western media. If you look through the news papers of Asia you will see that there are many countries who care (or "give a fuck") about everything that's happening there. If you feel like nobody is making a fuss about it, then there's something wrong about your country. We refuse to belittle what's happening to us just because we were "fortunate" to lose no more than 90 lives.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you are from Norway, I apologize if this post offended you. However, it the truth that whatever happens in the western parts of the world is given more importance than similar events in the eastern parts of the world. I used this as an example because it is recent. However, this is not the only instance. When disaster struck in Japan in March, the news channels in Canada were talking about Charlie Sheen most of the time. We get all the American news channels too. Those channels too, seemed to think that Sheen was more important than millions of people dying. To get news about Japan, we had to watch BBC world. However, when natural forces strike in the USA, its the topic of discussion at all news channels in Japan and India. Additionally, Amy Winehouse died at this time. However, this time, the news channels chose to talk about Norway, not the celebrity. There was a clear distinction made between the events of the west and the east. And to counter your reply, you belittled India's problems too by calling them "normal". Maybe you should look at your own hypocrisy before pointing fingers. Also, every country fights for "justice" in its own way.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're mistaken if you think that some people believe that Charlie Sheen and Amy Winehouse are more important than Japan or Norway. The reason Sheen and Winehouse get "more" coverage (maybe on the news you're watching, but I would disagree but that's beside the point) is because to some people they're more interesting. Since a tsunami in Asia or terrorist attack in Europe don't directly affect them, they don't care about it. And while this is completely and utterly sad, it's the society we live in.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh, and saying there was more Charlie Sheen coverage immediately after the tsunami than there was Amy Winehouse coverage immediately after the attacks is just wrong. Maybe on late night talk shows, but not on legitimate news sources. Also, saying terrorism of this magnitude happens multiple times a year in India is incorrect. Over the past 20 years, you could make a case for 4 attacks worse than the one in Norway. I'm not trying to downplay those attacks, rather just pointing out your OP is misleading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_India#Chronology_of_major_incidents

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I am pretty sure that this list in not comprehensive because I personally witnessed a terror attack in the Indian city of Gujrat in 2008 which is not mentioned here. I am sure they missed many many more. Just saying...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Of course it doesn't have every terrorist attack, but I would hope it has the ones that would be on a scale of what happened in Norway.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hmm... well, that one was a series of 21 bomb blasts in a span of two hours or so and killed about 60 people and injured about 200. It was a pretty big attack even by Indian standards so I am wary of the completeness of this listing.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hmm, who knows then?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's not the location, it's the frequency of the attacks. You said it yourself that stuff like that happens in India every day, so that makes it less shocking, and can't really be considered "news." Unfortunate but true.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Umm... I don't think it happens every day... Maybe once every two years or so. And this stuff mostly only happens in two cities, probably because of the whole Hindu agenda of the local governments that fails to materialize itself, thanks to the people. The rest of the country is as safe as any other, with not a hint of conflict. But I must admit that the whole country is on high alert on Independence day due to our unfriendly neighbour to the west. :(

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ah, did I say day? I meant year. Anyway, you are right. And I guess what you originally posted about applies twofold, because the violence in those two cities is overemphasized and tends to define the whole country. Which is unfortunate because it really is a beautiful place.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Because Europe and North America are more developed than places like India. Western news tends to focus on first world countries and highly developed areas simply because it's relatable, as most people in first world countries don't have to deal with disasters like that. For instance, if there were a famine in Europe or North America it would be much more publicized than poverty and hunger in a place like, oh say Africa. As westerners we aren't used to these kinds of things as most of us lead very cushy lives. But I have to say, as an American watching American news channels, Charlie Sheen was an insignificant speck compared to the events in Japan. That's saying something, seeing as how Sheen's drunken antics lasted far longer and were much more ongoing than the events in Japan.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's what your preconceived notions would tell you wouldn't they? India is more violent because they're a "third world" country. In actuality, India has 6.3 murders per 100,000 people and the United States has 6.4 murders per 100,000 people. It is unusual in Norway (with just .63 murders), but saying third world countries automatically have more violence and attacks is the easy way out. http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2005$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=tZgPgT_sx3VdAuyDxEzenYA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=295;dataMax=79210$map_y;scale=log;dataMin=0;dataMax=131$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Hey thanks for stereotyping man. Maybe my wording wasn't quite correct, but as westerners we're sheltered from a lot of those things. And you can commit a violent or heinous crime without murdering someone.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I guess my first sentence came off a bit harsh, what I meant what "that's the logical answer, isn't it?" But basically I'm saying that just because India has a reputation as an impoverished nation (which is partly true and partly not) doesn't mean it's any more violent than some of the "western world".

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But don't you think it's logical to assume that with development comes the positive societal aspects coming from the luxury of a modern and (somewhat) effective police force with access to the latest technology and communication? I understand legality doesn't bring morality with it, but logic leads you to believe there would be less crime in places where it can be observed and dealt with.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, logic would bring that train of thought, but sometimes you have to look past the obvious. At first I was going to agree with that assumption, but then I went back to the graph I linked to, highlighted a few countries and played how their murder rate and GDP per capita changed since 1950. Some countries, like Japan, saw their murder rates decline as their GDP went up. Others, however, like the US, UK and Sri Lanka saw no correlation between GDP and murder rates (and all three of them saw their GDP rise a significant amount in that time span). I think what may be most telling is that from 1983 to 200, Sri Lanka's GDP nearly doubled. Their murders per 100,000 people, though, remained steady at 7.8-7.9 in that whole time span. They are now around 6 (as of 2005), so you could say there's a delayed effect of money, or it could be other factors, I really don't know.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That tells me there is no direct correlation between murder and GDP then. And I wasn't talking about murder, it's more about crime than murder.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Isn't it a safe guess to say that murder and other violent crimes would be high in the same places?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Perhaps, but not necessarily. I would imagine it would have the same general correlation as murder and GDP.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

But murder and GDP don't have a general correlation in most cases...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Exactly my point.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Umm, wasn't your point that with more wealth comes better policing, etc. so crime goes down?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes but I'm talking general crimes here overall. I just don't think there's a concrete correlation between murder rates and crime rates overall.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

The missing link here is the extreme gap in the incomes of the rich and the poor. The poor barely earn enough to feed their whole family while living in a tiny room for a house, if they are fortunate. Even the middle class struggles to keep up with the expenses sometimes. The rich, on the other hand, have enough money to buy out the whole country. In Canada, where I live, the rift between the rich and the poor is not as large. The poor too can buy a car, send their kids to university, get treatment for illnesses, etc. thanks to a huge welfare budget. Even in Japan, where although the poor can't live a comfortable live, they still can get some welfare to live by. However, in India, welfare does not exist. The hospitals refuse to treat poor-looking people sometimes before receiving a large deposit. I think it is this large rift between the hardships suffered by the poor and every one else that contributes, as least in part, to the crime rate.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Good hypothesis, but doesn't look like it Income share of 20 poorest percent vs. murder rate: http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2005$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pyj6tScZqmEdIyrBS31XAaw;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=tZgPgT_sx3VdAuyDxEzenYA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.66;dataMax=13$map_y;scale=log;dataMin=0;dataMax=131$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds= Gini ratio vs. murder rate: http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.59290322580644;ti=2005$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=pyj6tScZqmEcjeKHnZq6RIg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=tZgPgT_sx3VdAuyDxEzenYA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=19;dataMax=74$map_y;scale=log;dataMin=0;dataMax=131$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds= To be fair, a lot of countries don't have stats on those two factors, but there appears to be no correlation of the 40 or so th...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh damn it! i thought i was onto to something there. It's just that most of the murders reported in the news are during theft and robbery and most of the people, as reported in the news, who engage in petty theft apparently do so to survive. And then someone wakes up or protests and gets killed due to panic or something like that. But then again, the news papers and news channels are always a selective and publish/broadcast stuff that will produce the strongest emotional response, in this case, it is pity. Maybe low literacy has something to do with all the problems.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Haha, I think it might have to do with the culture just in and of itself. If you're raised in a society where violence is just out of the question and looked down upon, you're much less likely to resort to it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

people in the west hear more news about the west. people in the eats hear more about happening in the east. Just like the country your in focuses more on events in your country than international ones. We want to hear more about things that are going to directly affect us.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

well, actually, people in the east hear equally about the west, especially if they are big events like terrorism and natural disasters.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

that's not what my Chinese and Australian friends say, but i guess i can't really argue without having first hand knowledge.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, Australia is still a part of the "western civilization"...

by Anonymous 12 years ago

but [according to friend] they receive news about Japan, China and India more than America/Europe

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh... Well, that is definitely not the case here in Canada. When our media is not busy sucking our southern neighbour's ass, they go off to reporting home news about trivial things (such as a mayor giving the finger while driving), then to Europe, and then, finally, to celebrity land.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I live in China, and we definitely receive as much information about the West as about the East. We do receive information about the East in situations in which not receiving the information may be harmful (radiation scares from the power plant in Japan, the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan province), but apart from that, our news is very much America and Europe-oriented. Many major events that occur within china (everything that happened with Tibet, Tiananmen square etc.) are actually censored, and not publicized at all within China. I was here during the time when that was apparently televised on news channels in the Western world, but there was absolutely nothing on it here, and the only reason that I know anything happened at all is because I have friends in other countries who told me about it.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You know what else is weird? Everyone knows about the Holocaust in Germany, but very few people are even aware that there was one in Rwanda that lasted about twice as long.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh.... I wasn't even aware there were people that didn't know about that. We learn it in school here... or maybe that's just my school board.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

It's possible that it is in the curriculum and we just haven't covered it yet, but I learned about the European Holocaust years ago and knew all about it even before then. I learned about the Rwandan Holocaust just a few months ago because my friend lent me an autobiography about it and it's never even been mentioned in any of my classes.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yeah, maybe. One does become aware of the German holocaust much much earlier than the Rawanda genocide.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I feel ashamed to know that I have not even heard of a country called Rwanda.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I did learn about it in school (though I don't remember much), but I just googled it and 800,000 people died in Rwanda (which is a lot considering the population of the country) but between 11 and 17 million died in the holocaust. While the genocide in Rwanda was much more recent it was also not on quite the same scale

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well, one can not really compare the scale of the Rwandan genocide and the German holocaust. This is primarily because the Rwandan genocide was allowed to last for about a 100 days after which it was put to a stop, after much hesitation, by the UN. In a mere 100 days, 20% of the Rwandan population was massacred. The German holocaust however, unfortunately, lasted much much longer than that giving time for the sick and twisted Nazis to go on killing as many as two-thirds of all Jews in the regions that they controlled.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

20% in 100 days in really extreme, If the holocaust happened at that rate they would have easily wiped out Judaism

by Anonymous 12 years ago