PÄÄSIVU


For immediate release
Reykjavik, Iceland
August 14, 2007

 
Nordic cooperation in teaching terrorist techniques

 
by Elias Davidsson
Reykjavik, Iceland
August 14, 2007

 
Today and tomorrow NATO exercises are taking place in Iceland under the heading North Viking [1] These exercises are twofold.  One part of the exericise is so-called air defense, in which US Awacs aircraft take part.   The other part is an exercise in coping with domestic terrorism.  

 
In the light of the motto "learn to know your enemy", those who teach how to cope with terrorism must include in their curriculum a thorough understanding of terrorist techniques, including practical training.   So, even if there would be a legitimate need to train police and military forces in counter-terrorism techniques, the defenders must also be taught the techniques of the attackers.

 
However, it is not plausible that the true purpose of  North Viking is to prepare Icelandic and other Nordic participants to cope with non-existing threats [2]. So what is the purpose of such exercises?  In order to find out, it is necessary to understand the crisis that befell NATO after the demise of the Soviet Union. 

 
NATO was established after World War II in order to maintain  the political and ideological unity of the Western capitalist world.  The main mechanism for doing so, was to depict the Soviet Union as the main threat, or enemy, of Western societies.  This threat kept intact Western political unity.    Since the fall of the Berlin wall, this Soviet threat cannot anymore fulfil this function.  The very existence of NATO, as an institutional mechanism to maintain cross-Atlantic unity,  was threatened by the demise of the Soviet threat.  There was an urgent need for a new, potent and long-term enemy that could help maintain the ideological unity of Western nations, as institutionalized through NATO.  The events of 9/11 permitted the immediate designation of a new enemy, namely the "global Muslim conspiracy" whose aim is to transform the entire world into a Caliphate, including by terrorism [3]  Notwithstanding the inner contradictions of this myth, modelled on Adolf Hitler's myth of a Jewish global conspiracy, the new myth had significant advantages over the Soviet threat:  The new enemy has no geographical centre. This provides the justification for mililtary and police intervention anywhere around the globe (by those who possess the requisite power).  The threat can emerge anywhere where Muslims live, or even where individuals convert to Islam and thrives on open communications and globalization.  This, in turn, provides the justification for the abolishment of privacy in the name of the overriding need to discover the "terrorists". The secretive nature of a conspiracy justify secretive measures to combat it, as well as derogations from general principles of justice and law.  The increased use of the concept "sleeper cells" permits the implementation of long-term surveillance measures against "suspects".   NATO's terrorist enemies today can be "discovered" anywhere in the garb of a teacher, physician, engineer or other professionals, who are designated as "sleepers".  Any person could thus be designated as a "sleeper" who would perhaps become a terrorist 10 years later.  The elusive nature of the enemy has both an ideological and practical advantage.  It is easier to cause public fear from a mystical and ghostly enemy than from a tangible and localized force.  In former times Satan provided the necessary threat.  The ideology of the "terror threat" is promoted by practically all states as a means to strenghten their power over the population, as well as by the conveyors of ideological values, such as Hollywood films and mass media.  The practical effects of the "terror threat" is to provide states with the justification of strenghtening police controls and mass surveillance measures, in other words, the political justification for abolishing the last remains of democratic rights, including public accountability and transparency.

 
NATO is, however, confronted with one major problem.  Muslims living in the West are not terribly keen in sacrificing their job security, health and lives in terrorist adventures.  Last year, for example, not a single person died from terrorism in the whole of Europe [4]  Among the 20 million Muslims living in Europe (excluding Turkey), not one was willing to commit a suicide operation in Europe last year.  

 
As Muslims are not helpful in maintaining the Muslim threat, NATO must find other ways to maintain the terror threat alive.  This is done by staging terrorist acts attributed to Muslim fanatics.  Exercises aimed at coping with terrorism should be seen in this light.  Counter-terrorism exercises are considered as legitimate activities by the police and the army.  Under the cover of such legitimate activities, the respective entities can teach the techniques of terrorism.   When such techniques are learned, it becomes much easier to stage terrorist acts, as has been demonstrated in the case of 9/11 and the London bombings of July 7, 2005.  In both cases, exercises were conducted  that simulated terrorist attacks at the same time as the real events took place.  In the case of 9/11, the connection between the exercises and the events has been established:  Air traffic controllers could not distinguish between radar blips of simulated aircraft which were part of the exercises and the "real thing".[5]  In the case of the London bombings, no connection has yet been established between the simulated terror attacks conducted by Visor Consultants at the same time, and the real bombings.  However, the almost exact simulation of the real bombings suggest the existence of links.[6] The refusal of by the US and UK governments to disclose the truth on these events prevents us from exposing the full relationship between the exercises and the "real thing".  The existing evidence, however, is sufficient to ask the relevant questions and demand the full truth.

 
The terror exercises in Iceland provide an opportunity to raise numerous questions regarding the purpose of NATO, the premises of the "war on terror" and the exact nature and purpose of such exercises.    This challenge should be taken up by honest journalists and politicians.

 
END

 
[2] No one has been threatened by terrorism  for at least 30 years in any of the countries participating in North Viking.  There is no reason why this situation will dramatically change in the coming years.
[3]  Obviously, NATO statements are not couched in the language used here.  These do not refer to the Muslim nature of terrorism.   The ideological work of demonizing Muslims is left to mass media who see to blur the terms "terrorist" and "Muslim".  See: http://www.nato.int/issues/terrorism/index.html