Terrorists in Europe

[Abdul Rahman]

Are not Muslims.

A Neglected Report from Europol
The Islamic Threat to Europe: By the Numbers
By KRISTOFFER LARSSON

Some things interest the media, others don't. Since the fall of the USSR, the United States has sought another menace to designate as the ultimate evil, a world threat the Americans desperately need to take on. The 9/11 attacks gave them that enemy. And when the White House speaks, the media listens obediently.

Over the last number of years the "Islamic threat" has become one of the favourite issues for media coverage. It's all over the news--Muslims leaders pronouncing threats against the countries participating in occupying Muslim land.

While America is the Western country most succumbed to the fear of Islamism, things aren't much better in Europe. Its media is highly Americanised and thus eager to reiterate U.S. governmental positions towards the non-Western world. Islamic terrorism is subsequently a theme close to the hearts of European journalists as well.

Following this, you might think the journalists would be beside themselves with joy when the European Police Office (Europol) releases its first report on terrorism in the EU. I can assure you they weren't. In fact, to my best knowledge, not a single Swedish paper or news-channel has paid any attention to it whatsoever. I haven't seen it receiving much attention in other EU countries either (kudos to the EUobserver for having the decency to report on it). The report is namely a grave disappointment for the anti-Islamic campaigners.

There were 498 incidents in eleven EU countries last year labelled as "terrorist attacks." The Basque separatist group ETA did best (136 terrorist attacks) and was responsible for the only deadly attack, killing two in Madrid. The remaining 497 fortunately cost no human lives.

How about the Islamic terrorists then? Considering the perpetual warnings in our daily papers, the findings in the Europol report is, to say the least, surprising. The truth is that Islamists only carried out one out of the 498 terrorist attacks in the European Union in 2006. Don't believe me? The entire report is available on Europol's website. Had Islamic fundamentalists been behind a higher number of attacks-say 136-it would have been front page news at every big daily. One attack is simply too few--it won't do if the image of an "Islamic threat" is to live on.

The Europol report devotes several pages to Islamist terrorism, despite the low number. Except for the one attack in Germany this group was responsible for (which, by the way, failed and resulted in no victims), also Denmark and the United Kingdom reported that Islamists plotted to carry out one attack in each country respectively (incidentally, all three countries are accessory to the illegal occupation of Iraq). However, since these plans in both cases were exposed before they were set to work, they were not included among the 498. Either way, even after taking these plots into account, the report proves the genuine magnitude of Islamic terrorism in Europe--it's not exactly a huge threat.

If we look at the people arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences, the figures are rather disproportionate; about half of them arrested were Muslim. In plain English: Muslims are a group causing very little terrorism in Europe, while at the same time much more likely to be arrested on suspicion of it. The constant media coverage of Muslims being arrested creates the false image of a serious threat in order to benefit the imperialist world-view Washington wants us to adopt. Meanwhile the Americans and their accomplices are carrying out genocide in Iraq. Clearly, something needs to be done about the media.

You may not like the author but the facts don't lie.

[Mediocrates]

When you don't call Hamas a terrorist organization it's axiomatic that anything they blow up and kill is not a terrorist act. Seems to be largely a matter of definitions.

[andak01]

You may not like the author but the facts don't lie.

Who cares about facts around here. They get in the way of politics.

[Mediocrates]

Are not Muslims.



You may not like the author but the facts don't lie.

Facts lie all the time. That's why we call it history not chemistry.

[Abdul Rahman]

Facts lie all the time. That's why we call it history not chemistry.

whatever.

Keep hiding under your bed then.

[Mediocrates]

I'm not worried. I think 'terrorism' in the west is for the most part, nonsense.

[Reffo]

Some things interest the media, others don't. Since the fall of the USSR, the United States has sought another menace to designate as the ultimate evil, a world threat the Americans desperately need to take on. The 9/11 attacks gave them that enemy.

This one is a bit rich! The fact is that 9/11 happened. It was carried out by fanatics who happened to be Muslim Arabs. And they were not alone, they were backed up and funded by other fanatics who happened to be Muslim Arabs. So, it wasn't a question of what the United States needed or what it sought .... it was a question of what actually happened and who caused it!

Having said that, I for one don't want to demonize and vilify all Muslims. I want to live in peace with Muslims and I want to have Muslim friends (and I do) but having said that, I object to attempts to falsify what happened in 9/11 and to shift the blame for it!

[andak01]

I object to attempts to falsify what happened in 9/11 and to shift the blame for it!

Good, we know that it was all Saddam Hussein's fault! Were you objecting back when that baseless lie was gaining currency??? ROFL!

[ChicagoBlues]

Good, we know that it was all Saddam Hussein's fault! Were you objecting back when that baseless lie was gaining currency??? ROFL!

Muslim logic at its best!

If there are non-Muslim terrorists out there, then Muslim terrorists are ok,just like anybody else. Therefore, 9/11 was not a horrible act of MUSLIM terror. And if it was not Saddam, then 9/11 was just an excuse. Yes, the terrorists were Muslims, but very-very wrong ones, not the real Muslims at all.

[andak01]

Muslim logic at its best!

If there are non-Muslim terrorists out there, then Muslim terrorists are ok,just like anybody else. Therefore, 9/11 was not a horrible act of MUSLIM terror. And if it was not Saddam, then 9/11 was just an excuse. Yes, the terrorists were Muslims, but very-very wrong ones, not the real Muslims at all.

Let's try this on for size. If Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for 9/11, then why spend a couple of years insinuating his name into every discussion of Al Qaida and Terrorism? It was a lie, a big lie and its use as a propaganda tool along with the second lie about WMDs enabled Bush and company to fashion a case for a costly war that had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, which in fact has sent us backwards from the progress we made in Afghanistan.

As for the real Muslims, they're shooting terrorists in Algeria, hunting them down in Morocco and on the border of Pakistan. I'll tell you what's more, there are more than 15 of them. There are more real Muslims than all the terrorists in the world by a factor of many times.

[Reffo]

Let's try this on for size. If Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for 9/11, then why spend a couple of years insinuating his name into every discussion of Al Qaida and Terrorism? It was a lie, a big lie and its use as a propaganda tool along with the second lie about WMDs enabled Bush and company to fashion a case for a costly war that had nothing to do with fighting terrorism,

Even though we have mostly disagreed, nevertheless, from our encounters on this forum, I have formed the opinion that you are basically a decent person. When I say that I don't want to have Muslims vilified and demonized I have people like you in mind. So, I just cannot fathom why on earth so many of you guys are so up in arms about what happened to Saddam and his regime. You are saying he wasn't part of Al Quaida? He didn't support terrorism? He didn't have WMD's? It was all a big lie? Well, I don't think you are entirely right! He may or may not have fostered Al Quaida, let's just say there is no indisputable proof for it, so for the sake of argument, let's just say that he didn't. He did however support terrorism, that is indisputable and yes, he did have WMDs! Were they all recovered by the time of the invasion? Maybe, then again, maybe they are well hidden either somewhere in Iraq or in Syria but really, it's irrelevant because it's an indisputable fact that he did have them in the past and he did use them in the past on the Kurds and the Iranians! So, did the invasion of Iraq occurred as a result of a big lie? Again maybe and perhaps probably but that's not even the point .... the point is that it should have happened many years before! Indeed, Saddam should have been toppled right after Gulf war 1! Why? Because he and his regime represented all that is evil in this world! He and his regime were responsible for the deaths of over one million Muslims! He oppressed and killed his own people, he invaded neighbouring countries, he fostered terrorism in the region, I would have thought that all good Muslims and Arabs would have rejoiced about his downfall. Certainly, they should! You guys should have been cheering along with the rest of us.... Aren't we always saying that the fight shouldn't be a clash of civilizations? It shouldn't be between Christians/Jews (this time around) against the Muslims? Aren't we saying that it should be us? Christian, Jew and Muslim against all the extremists? Against all the fanatics? And by all accounts, Saddam and his regime was all that can be described as evil!!!!

[ChicagoBlues]

Even though we have mostly disagreed, nevertheless, from our encounters on this forum, I have formed the opinion that you are basically a decent person. When I say that I don't want to have Muslims vilified and demonized I have people like you in mind. So, I just cannot fathom why on earth so many of you guys are so up in arms about what happened to Saddam and his regime. You are saying he wasn't part of Al Quaida? He didn't support terrorism? He didn't have WMD's? It was all a big lie? Well, I don't think you are entirely right! He may or may not have fostered Al Quaida, let's just say there is no indisputable proof for it, so for the sake of argument, let's just say that he didn't. He did however support terrorism, that is indisputable and yes, he did have WMDs! Were they all recovered by the time of the invasion? Maybe, then again, maybe they are well hidden either somewhere in Iraq or in Syria but really, it's irrelevant because it's an indisputable fact that he did have them in the past and he did use them in the past on the Kurds and the Iranians! So, did the invasion of Iraq occurred as a result of a big lie? Again maybe and perhaps probably but that's not even the point .... the point is that it should have happened many years before! Indeed, Saddam should have been toppled right after Gulf war 1! Why? Because he and his regime represented all that is evil in this world! He and his regime were responsible for the deaths of over one million Muslims! He oppressed and killed his own people, he invaded neighbouring countries, he fostered terrorism in the region, I would have thought that all good Muslims and Arabs would have rejoiced about his downfall. Certainly, they should! You guys should have been cheering along with the rest of us.... Aren't we always saying that the fight shouldn't be a clash of civilizations? It shouldn't be between Christians/Jews (this time around) against the Muslims? Aren't we saying that it should be us? Christian, Jew and Muslim against all the extremists? Against all the fanatics? And by all accounts, Saddam and his regime was all that can be described as evil!!!!

You answered your own question. Saddam was EXACTLY what these guys need and deserve, don't you think?

[ForceRecon79]

Certainly not all terrorist groups are Muslim or Islamic. During the 70's and
80's the German Red Army Faction, French Action Direct and Italian Red Brigades were highly potent and vicious non-muslim groups. Also for the past 30 years the Basque ETA, and in particular the IRA, were considered the most violent and lethal terrorist/paramilitary organizations in all of Europe.
Today the Tamil Tigers remain one of the most potent terror/guerilla organizations in their area of the world, and in Colombia the Narco-Terrorist and leftist FARC are the biggest terror threat in South and Central America.

Having said all that. it is important to relaize that groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaida, are not only the biggest terror threats in the Middle East, but at least in terms of Al Qaida, the world. The Tamil Tigers and FARC, do not have global ambitions. The ETA has lost the vast majority of it's support in the Basque area, and after 35 years of war with Spain and France...are not nearly the organization they were even ten years ago.

As for the IRA, what was once one of the most feared and vicious terror organizations in the world, has now almost totally abandoned violence and embraced politics.

The bottom line is that radical Islamic terrorisim is the major issue in the world today. That doesn't mean Muslims are a bunch of evil terrorists, they aren't, but groups like Al Qaeda and the ideology they preach are as dangerous now as the Nazis and their ideology was 50 years ago. The same was true of the radical communist ideology the dominated terrorisim and conflicts up untill the 90's. Al Qeda is a big a threat to their fellow muslims as they are anyone else...look how many muslims they have killed in the past 10 years. More Muslims need to band together to reject the kind of evil distortion of Islam that Al Qaeda preaches, then Muslims and non-Muslims will have a much better world in which to become friends.

[Parsi]

I can only speak about the situation in the UK.
In a similar discussion Aviva convinced me that the mainstream Muslims are not doing what is necessary to convince people that the terrorists are not Muslim.

We get fascists freely and openly authorise killing of "the infidels" in well-known and respected mosques, while the "good" Muslims leaders keep their heads in sand and go on about their daily prayer.

As long as this inaction by Muslim leaders continues, it will be very difficult for non-Muslim to make the distinction.

[Kenneth]

The problem of convincing does not solely lie in the realm of terrorist acts. When you have attitudes like this:

"Hands off Muslims!" and "UK — You will pay!"

"They bomb us, and occupy our land, and here they arrest at you early in the morning!" he said, to cries of "UK — You will pay!" and shouts of "Allahu Akbar! (God is Great)"

"One day, my dear Muslims, the flag of Islam will fly over Downing Street!" he said, to renewed shouts of "Allah Akbar!"

Source>>

Normal well balanced people realise that this is not the attitude of the UK's Muslim majority, but the problem is that the average person doesn't hear silence, and they scare easy.