Author`s name Alex Naumov

Europe, beware: Obama speaks with two tongues

By Hans Vogel

Obama is holding out an olive branch to Islam: "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama is quoted as saying, adding "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect." Coincidentally, across the board US-muslim relations are quite good. Most Middle Eastern regimes are somehow or other supported by the US. Saudi Arabia is a close ally and so are the Gulf States. Egypt's regime can only survive thanks to regular wheat shipments from the US. Arab (Muslim) bankers and businessmen have invested heavily in the US economy and have been buying plenty of bonds over the past decades.

On the other hand, Obama has announced he will step up military efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the recently inaugurated US embassy in Iraq indicates the US is planning to stay indefinitely and continue to run the country like a colony or protectorate.

In line with Samuel Huntington's concept of a struggle between civilizations, at least since 9/11 2001, the US has been engaged in a widely publicized war on Muslim fundamentalism. It has been trying with reasonable success to draw its European client states into the fight as well, but the Europeans seem reluctant to go whole hog. After all, there are sizeable Muslim minorities in most of Western Europe. North African Muslims, especially young male Moroccans who tend to be woefully undereducated, constitute a serious social problem in countries like France, the Netherlands and Belgium. These kids tend to be violent, volatile and aggressive, engaging in periodic bouts of rioting with often devastating results. There are efforts under way by imams in Britain and elsewhere to introduce Muslim law (sharia) in neighborhoods with a Muslim majority. With segregation rampant-most Western European inner cities are in the process of being islamicized or are already muslim-it is understandable native Western Europeans are worried about the future. Most are now afraid of terrorism.

The Threat of Terrorism

There is a widespread belief, often nurtured by Western European governments for reasons of expediency, that Islamist terrorism has become a major threat. However, so far these fears are not at all supported by data.

According to Europol's "EU Terrorism Situation and Trend report 2007," (which covers 2006), there were only 498 terrorist attacks in that year, "the vast majority of them resulted only in material damage and were not intended to kill." Yet although there was only one terrorist attack identified as "islamist", almost 260 persons (out of a total of some 700) were arrested on suspicions of planning islamist terrorist attacks.

According to the Europol report 2008 (covering 2007), Islamist terrorism was as insignificant. Out of 583 terrorist attacks, almost 90% were separatist, most of the remaining left or right-wing extremist, and only 4 islamist. More than a thousand persons were arrested, 200 of them in connection with islamist terrorism. On the basis of these two official reports it is more than safe to say that in Western and Central Europe, islamic terrorism is still virtually non-existant, almost a figment of the imagination.

The only parts of Europe where islamist terrorism has been and still is a serious problem are the southern regions of Russia, such as Chechnya and Dagestan. However, in many acts of terrorism perpetrated here, the hand of foreign intelligence agencies can be recognized. For instance, trouble in Russia's southern regions is advantageous to the furthering of US strategic interests in the Caucasus.

This is not to say that terrorism is unknown in Europe. On the contrary: some parts of Europe have witnessed vicious terrorist attacks. None, however perpetrated by islamists. Since 1980, the most important of these were:

1.The Bologna train station bombing (2 august 1980): 85 killed, 200 injured.

2.The Lockerbie incident, the attack on PanAm flight 103 (21 december
1988): 270 killed.

3.The Atocha train station bombing (Madrid, 11 march 2004): 191 killed,
1755 injured.

4.The London underground bombings (7 July 2005): 56 killed, 700 injured.

European governments and most of the media would have us believe these terrorist attacks were all islamic inspired, but it so happens they are not. All of the above terrorist attacks are shrouded in mystery and the real perpetrators have not been caught. The Bologna bombing was probably done by the Italian secret service (at the time called SISMI), in cooperation with the secret masonic lodge P2. The operation has a strong scent of involvement by one of NATO's secret armies, set up in Europe since 1945 by the OSS (later the CIA) and the British secret service MI6. The Swiss historian Daniele Ganser has made a name for himself researching this sensitive topic, coming up with quite disturbing facts and shocking conclusions. The underground organization created by the US and British spy agencies, specialized in terrorist operations, is known as gladio. In several European countries gladio operatives have committed attacks under the guise of some extremist political group. Whether acting upon their own initiative or prompted by top-secret directives from Washington or some European government, gladio operatives have in some cases indeed helped to create a climate of fear by violent attacks, through terrorism that is.

This was precisely one of the reasons why gladio was founded in the first place: to create confusion and terror behind the lines in the event of a supposed Soviet attack on Europe. This attack has never come, but then gladio was put to work to serve the interests of the US and the ruling elites in Europe, namely to create confusion and blame political enemies for outrageous gladio actions. False flag operations would be the correct term for these. For instance, the immediate official and media reaction to the Bologna bombing was to put the blame on the Red Brigades, the left-wing urban guerilla group trying to put an end to the Christian Democratic hold on Italian politics.

Both the Madrid and London bombings are very controversial. One man, a Moroccan by coincidence, has been handed a verdict for the Madrid bombing, but the Spanish court could find no evidence for involvement of Al-Qaeda, the mysterious and elusive radical islamist group supposedly responsible. The four alleged perpetrators of the London bombings are reported as having died in the act, but the web of alternative versions of the event is at least as thick as that which surrounds the 9/11 attack on New York. Indeed it is as difficult to believe the official conspiracy theory of "7/7" as it is to believe the official US lies and inconsistencies of 9/11.

As for the Lockerbie incident, though the Libyan government has officially recognized its involvement, anyone doing any serious research will soon come across gross inconsistencies in the official story repeated ad nauseam by the media. There is a much more credible explanation, namely that the jetliner was brought down as a result of some interservice rivalry between US government agencies. Apparently, a profitable CIA drugline had been discovered by another US service which threatened to blow the whistle on the operation. The would-be rival whistleblowers were among the victims of the bombing. Thus the PanAm jet was taken care of, in what is known in Latin American drug dealing circles as an avionazo, an assassination disguised as a plane accident.

However, the fact remains that the most important terrorist attacks in Europe are still unsolved, while there are disturbing indications of the involvement of agencies of various governments-not some fanatical terrorist groups, and most certainly NOT islamist terrorists.

The fact that Islamist terrorism is still non-existent in Europe does not mean it will always be that way. There is a serious chance the growing and radicalizing muslim minority in Western Europe will be turned into a fifth column serving the US in pursuing the annihilation of Europe as a potential obstacle to its goal of attaining global hegemony.

The strange case of Bosnia and Kosovo

The main reason the US (followed by its NATO clients) has recognized the independence of Kosovo may have been to extend the Muslim bridgehead on European soil that was established with Bosnia's independence in 1992.

By recognizing Kosovo's independence, the US and its clients have broken international law and opened a veritable Pandora's Box by creating a destabilizing precedent. By violating the principle of national sovereignty, a cornerstone of international law, enshrined in the UN charter, the US has paved the way for any rebellious or disaffected region to declare its independence and get away with it. This is not only destabilizing for European states such as France, Spain, Britain, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, but also for Russia, China, India, Canada and ultimately even for the US itself.

The Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK), an Albanian muslim group, was once known as a terrorist organization. It was trained and equipped by Al-Qaeda, the CIA and the German and British secret services. Hashim Thaci and Agim Ceku, the UCK leaders who presided over Kosovo's declaration of independence in February 2008, were once high on Interpol's list of wanted terrorists. However, in 2000 Thaci's name was taken off the list upon specific US request. Apparently the US needed him to be "clean" in order to become president of their planned new client state Kosovo in 2008.

Both Bosnia and Kosovo have become US client states if not virtual colonies. Would it be a coincidence that both qualify as "rogue states," for having weak governments, both being ruled by people who were once wanted for all kinds of crimes, both being major distributing points for the international drug trade and both beng centers for the production of contraband? In addition, Kosovo has a sad reputation of being a harvesting ground for sex slaves for the Western European sex industry.

In 2000, French political scientist Alexandre del Valle published a provocative book: Guerre contre l'Europe: Bosnie, Kosovo, Tchétchénie, (War Against Europe: Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya) in which, based on a wealth of convincing evidence, he suggested that the US was working together with a wide array of muslim states, groups and organizations to subvert Europe. Del Valle argues that Europe, though divided, still constitutes the single most powerful obstacle to US global hegemony. Indeed no other region in the world can match the combined strength of European industry and its highly qualified, talented work force, the inventiveness of its scientists and engineers (with by far the worlds highest return per invested research dollar), or the superiority of its agriculture and infrastructure. No better way of undermining Europe than turning its growing Muslim minority into an angry, hostile fifth column firmly implanted in the very heart of the continent.

This analysis might very well be an accurate one, but a few observations are in order. First, it is the US that is mainly interested in securing definitive hegemony in Europe through the age-old tactic of divides et impera (divide and rule). Therefore it is from the US that radical Muslims trying to overthrow the social and political order in Europe are taking their cue. Not that the muslims themselves would not be interested in the same goal as the US, but since they are quite poorly organized and deeply devided among national, ethnic and religious lines (Sunnis and Shiites), they are unable to muster much clout. Secondly, as one would expect, the US takes great pains to hide its true intentions and to cover its tracks. Therefore, the US widely publicizes its so-called fight against Muslim fundamentalism, wanting the world to believe it is the sworn enemy of radical Muslims. From this point of view, the apparent contradiction between US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq on the one hand, and their support for the two Islamic rogue states in Europe can be explained.

How Europe is countering the threat

Terrorism and the threat of terrorism are best dealt with by eliminating the causes and the circumstances that may cause them. The worst way to fight terrorism is by turning the entire population into suspects. Yet this is precisely the policy adopted by European governments.

Over the past decade, most European countries have adopted draconian anti-terrorist legislation, taking away some of the most essential democratic rights of the citizenry. The sheer lunacy of these laws and regulations are obvious to anyone who has ever booked a flight recently. Since the failure of the fake "liquid bomb plot" of 2006, passengers are even forbidden to carry any form of liquids or creams in their hand luggage. Nobody has ever protested against this cruel and preposterous rule (introduced at the behest of the US authorities, by the way). Indeed, under ideal laboratory circumstances it would be theoretically feasible to put together a bomb aboard an airplane by using various liquids and a considerable array of chemical tools. But it would take at least up to ten hours to do so, much longer than any domestic European flight or most transatlantic flights. Of course, it has long been forbidden to carry aboard knives, but what harm could be done with a nail cutter? Apparently it has occurred to no one to question the ludicrous passenger flight safety regulations. Despite all the rules currently in force, it would still be quite easy for a small group of evil-intentioned martial arts experts to take control of any airplane.

Not only have all European citizens become suspected terrorists, but European states have themselves become terrorist organizations.

According to the official "counterterrorism" web site of a medium European country: "terrorism is defined as threatening, making preparations for or perpetrating, for ideological reasons, acts of serious violence directed at people or other acts intended to cause property damage that could spark social disruption, for the purpose of bringing about social change, creating a climate of fear among the general public, or influencing political decision-making."

Please note that the agency in question calls itself a "counterterrorism" agency. It is headed by a "National coordinator for counterterrorism." Perhaps this is a slip of the pen, because counterterrorism is also terrorism. However, might the state be admitting it is itself engaged in terrorism? It would certainly seem that way.

By this definition, every European country is a terrorist organization. Surely the poor people of Afghanistan have realized this by now, being the victims of "acts of serious violence directed at people" and "other acts intended to cause property damage." It certainly causes "social disruption," because NATO countries want to "bring about social change" in Afghanistan. Back in the 1990s, the people of Serbia were subjected to the same treatment. They have also come to realize that NATO countries have become terrorist organizations.

Obama like his predecessors may be talking about Muslims and the Middle East, but Europe is the main concern. As long as Europe has not been completely, utterly subjected, neutralized, controlled, dominated, it constitutes a menace to US aspirations, no matter how vehemently this is denied.

It would seem that Europe is not aware of the true dangers facing it, nor is it doing the right thing. It must be doubted whether any European government (with the exception of the French and perhaps one or two other governments) has any clue as to the true long-term objectives of US foreign policy. The US-Muslim alliance is a deadly threat to Europe's existence.

It is time Europeans realized the US is NOT their friend. Nor do Europe and the US share a common heritage and culture as is so often affirmed by romantic dreamers. TheUS is a reactionary theocracy, whereas Europe still cherishes some democratic principles. It is not yet too late to turn the tide and reinstate true parliamentary democracy. Therefore, there is but one real answer to the present threat to Europe's security: to reconsider its ties with the US and put them on a different footing. For instance, by throwing the US out of NATO, merging NATO with the European Union and establishing an alliance with Russia. Any objections by Poles, Czechs, Bulgarians, or whoever, should just be ignored. While this may seem too radical for the moment, it would certainly be a good start for Europeans to stop using English when dealing with US officials. It would be much so more advantageous to use a European language such as German, French or Italian. This would have the immediate effect of forcing US officials into an inferior position in every official meeting with European counterparts. Standing up against the US would moreover have the added benefit of gaining the eternal gratitude and friendship of Europe's Muslim minorities, who deep down dislike the US.

Instead Europe is toeing the US party line. It is fighting Muslim fundamentalism outside Europe, while pampering radical Muslims at home. Thus it is creating an entirely new set of contradictions. Moreover, by turning into terrorist organizations themselves, European nations are in effect contributing to their own eventual undoing.