In the morning of 22 July I finished a comment on a research paper on terrorism. However, I was unable to get much work done later following the news of a major explosion in my home town of Oslo (Terror strikes Norway in attacks on island and Oslo city centre, 23 July).

Illustration: Gary Kempston

BBC news coverage quickly turned to various terrorism experts, who were happy to comment extensively despite the lack of clarity over exactly what had happened. A number of experts told us that it was not surprising that Norway had been attacked due to its international involvement in various conflicts and the large Muslim immigrant community. One expert reminded us that Bin Laden was assassinated two months ago, and argued that this was the normal time required to plan a terrorist attack. Some people looked beyond an Islamic terrorism connection, with the Tamil Tigers cited as a possible perpetrator (rather puzzling, as the Sri Lankan authorities repeatedly have accused the Norwegian government of a pro-Tamil bias).

It is entirely normal that people seek answers to explain horrific events of this nature and turn to experts. However, these terrorism experts display a remarkable willingness to comment in the absence of any actual information. This should lead us to question the quality of their advice. More worryingly, the experts that are most willing to speculate may be precisely those that are most likely to generate media attention.

I believe terrorism can be studied scientifically. However, the conclusions drawn from research rarely appeal to the media. My own research, for example, demonstrates clear patterns in the statistical distributions of terrorist attack patterns and their severity, but leaves little hope for event prediction. Group size likely influences attack patterns, but does not tell us much about who may turn to terrorism in the first place. Counterterrorism can encourage terrorist to search for alternative targets and may be ultimately be counterproductive.

Terrorism research can provide insights and demonstrate the important limits to our knowledge, a point that often gets lost in reporting. Researchers could probably do more to communicate scientific research on terrorism. There will always be individuals willing to provide comments. However, the events of 22 July also illustrate why we should be cautious in placing too much confidence in alleged experts.

Kristian Skrede Gleditsch

Department of government, University of Essex

• I'm writing to voice my concern over the online articles that describe the recent events in Oslo (Norwegian gunman boasted of links to UK far right, 23 July; Anders Behring Breivik: profile of a mass murderer, 23 July). The words "terror attack" and similar phrases were immediately used to describe the events in Oslo, until it transpired that the acts were committed by one local individual, when the labelling of the atrocities changed to a "bomb and gun massacre".

I can't help but feel a sense of embedded passive racism developing; if the terrorist attacks in London, crimes against UK citizens with the intention to terrorise the public, were committed by a fellow white, previously law-abiding, devoutly Christian UK citizen, would they have been considered terrorism, or just mass murder? Yet here in Norway, the suspected perpetrator of the attacks is still due to be charged and is being held for acts of terror.

White terrorists are always humanised by the media and labelled differently. The individual is now stated to be a Christian, an extremist, somebody who enjoyed "popular films, television shows and video games". Muslims are dehumanised through stereotype. It's portrayed as being in their nature to be cruel and hence deserve invasions and torturous imposition of foreign rule.

So, can we continue to refer to the acts of terror in Oslo as such, or do we now see a future where all terrorist attacks are merely terrible crimes, with the criminal humanised, regardless of race, religion or targeted nation?

Matt Cox

Oslo, Norway

• It seems a fundamentalist rightwing Christian was responsible for the attacks in Norway. Following precedent, does our government now have the right to attack any other country which harbours similarly minded people?

Liz Brandow

Leicester

• Perhaps the Association of Chief Police Officers might now consider redeploying its undercover officers from non-violent climate change campaign groups into violent rightwing groups such as the English Defence League.

Martin Quinn

West Devon Green party