It is perfectly silly to assume that any country is immune from organized crimes such as "terrorism."

He likes me. He really likes me. Musta hit a nerve. Good.

I'm a child of the 80s, and I still thought that that was the very definition of a terrorist attack?

They are cowardly and pathetic criminal attacks against innocent people with no justification whatsoever. You can bet your bottom dollar that the scum who carried them out would attack Scandinavian cities if their immigration policy changed and the UK, France and US stopped giving them the excuse by bombing Syria.
The above is not to say that I agree with the foreign policy of the dictators in charge of my or any other country but to say that cowardly criminal scum like to kill innocent people and use any excuse they can. If they wanted actual political change they could at least target the people responsible for these policies and not the poor schumcks who have to live in their so-called "democracies"*.
We see this time and again with people as diverse as member of the IRA, Al Quaida and loners like Anders Behring Breivik as well as those who massacre their classmates in US schools. These are cowardly scum with inferiority complexes and the inability to do anything useful with their lives who decide to try to make themselves seem important by killing innocent people.

*For example, anyone notice how "Bush The Christian Republican" was the reason the US suffered terror attacks and, now, miraculously, it is now "Obama The Muslim Democrat" democrat who is risking inciting terrorism? Only somebody brain-dead would think that the man-on-the-street in any of our co-called Western Democracies has any control at all over foreign (or domestic, for that matter) policy.

An attempt at a little Middle East enlightenment here, please:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/14612.cfm

Although this version of history is "artfully over-simplified," it does at least reflect the truth that "since World War I, the Middle East is not what it seems to the West."

By the time that the 19th Century rolled around, the Ottoman Empire (by then about six hundred years old ...) was nearly finished. It had suffered badly over the preceding century, and then some. It was, as they say, "ripe for a change," and a group called the "Young Turks" (hence the catch-phrase of today ...) seized power. Unfortunately, (a) they had no idea how real "global politics" actually works, and (b) they had no clearly defined (and internationally recognized) "state identity" nor "state boundaries."

They were a bone to be chewed ... by both sides ... when World War I finally exploded. They knew it, but they didn't know what to do. They were a major battlefield, but they were not yet "owned" by either side. They sided with Germany, probably because "Germany wasn't Britain," and lost ... everything. The victorious dog ate the entire bone.

The Ottoman Empire, officially, "ceased to exist." Trouble is, in the minds of a great many people who still live there, "it didn't."

In many ways, these are still "a nomadic, tribal people ... born of the harshest deserts and able to thrive in them ..." surrounded by "nations" who tie their identities to fixed national boundaries but who cannot manage to stay in them. Their collective history is "truly ancient." Their "modern" (sic) rivalries against all the peoples against whom they now find themselves (once again ...) opposed, stretches back well before "zero AD."

. . . and this(!) is what the "not yet three-hundred years old United States" has blundered into . . .

If you mean "crime" [local or international] it is correct: every nation is always infested with crimes.

But the term "terrorist" finds no basis from the ancient. There were barbarians and vandals, but no terrorist, not in the kor'an, nor in the bible, neither in the talmud, nor in any writings of Plato. "Terrorism" is a term was of later invention, a term so generic as aimed to discount any righteous or just agenda other people hold and wish to get recognition in the international expression.

Do you have links to credible sources that provide information on that? All I could find were some right wing blogs and sites that are known for lying to get clicks (like Dayly Caller), but no actually information form news organizations or even the Swedish government. I also tried to find a list of these zones online (one would think that, if the police deems these areas as dangerous, there should be a list of these areas available to warn the public, especially tourists), but I couldn't find one.

This sounds astonishingly similar to the current German right wing rhetoric, which simply makes up tales of no-go zones (when the only thing resembling no-go zones here are a few "National befreite Zonen", where it is not really safe for non-white people) and increased crime and rape rates, to the point where the police departments where so fed up with the lies that they released their statistics and showed that those increased crime and rape rates to show that these simply were lies. To add some anecdotal evidence, I lived in Hanover for the past ten years, one of Germany's larger cities whith a high percentage of foreign inhabitants, and there weren't any no-go zones, and now I live in a relatively small town (about 15,000 people) with a large refugee center (currently about 360 refugees), and there are no problems at all.

Well, they did call the crime by various names. For example, Sacco and Vanzetti were called, "anarchists." The people who blew-up a wagon in front of J P Morgan's office were also, "anarchists."

The terminology has changed. The crime has not.

The operative act is that you commit senseless violence in a public place, so as to "terrorize" the plebeians and make them feel insecure "in their own homes and in their daily lives." And/Or you lay claim to a senseless act that somebody else has just done. You can do this "for a reason" or "for a cause," or for none at all: you might simply be a psychopath.

What we should fear is "paramilitary terrorism." That is, terrorism as the functional equivalent of a conventional military attack. We should be especially fearful of the degree to which the Internet facilitates this:

1. That phone in your pocket knows exactly where you are, as does your car, etc.
2. That data can be transmitted anywhere, without your knowledge or consent.
3. That data can be placed into the hands of ... anyone, anywhere. Specifically including people from foreign countries who are in the country on "non-immigrant worker" visas, and/or who are employed at "cloud" data centers located anywhere in the world where labor and electric power are "a little cheaper."
4. "Data mining" technology allows this data to be assimilated.
5. There need be no "central command." Crime can be committed and sustained without the use of Internet data transmission: the multi-gigabyte memory chip from a "jump drive" can be removed from its carrier and hidden beneath a postage stamp, or in any article of clothing or luggage. A dossier is valuable and tactically useful even years after the data was collected. "Old, off-line" computers can be used very effectively for this purpose.
6. Literally anyone, anywhere, anytime, can be a target.

Another way of saying it is that "Cold War thinking can leave your butt naked when you think that it is well-protected."

I also tried looking up that and it gave this as first result. Maybe that is what he is speaking about?
http://swedenreport.org/2014/10/29/s...l-no-go-zones/ scroll down

That is merely a blog, and not even a good one. There must be an official statement with a list of those zones somewhere.

http://www.svd.se/55-no-go-zoner-i-sverige

For your information, SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) is a major Swedish mainstream (politically correct) newspaper.

Also, I live in Sweden. I have seen it. It's nice that you haven't had any problems but we have. Feel free to visit Rinkeby or Rosengård and see for yourself. Malmö is not that far away from Germany, just drive through Denmark over a weekend.

So, since my Swedish is non-existent, I ran that site (which happens to be an opinion, as it seems, not an actual report) through Google Translate and found not a single sentence that ties these no-go zones to immigrants or foreigners, but to gangs that 'are held together by "ethnicity, kinship or friendship"'.
I also fail to see where they cite their sources, especially the mentioned report is not linked, something that I expect from a serious news organization. I found links to the alleged source in other articles on right-wing sites, but each and any of those links ends in a 404 error on polisen.se

The source is the Swedish police (Rikskriminalpolisens underrättelsesektion).

Demographics for some of the no go-zones mentioned in the article:

• Rinkeby: 90.7% immigrants (2014)
• Tensta: 87% immigrants (2014)
• Fittja 91.1% immigrants (2014)
• Alby 81.9% immigrants (2014)
• Rosengård 86% immigrants (2007)
• Herrgården 96% immigrants

(Source: Statistiska Centralbyrån [Statistics Sweden])

The ethnic gangs in those areas are not Swedes.

Like I said, I live here. I have seen it with my own eyes. Do you really think I am lying to you?