Subscription 790/year or 190/quarter

State of emergency: What is Holland's agenda?

From being one of the foremost symbols of freedom in the world, France as a nation has entered a bleak part of its history, where the people suffer at the expense of simple governance and "suspicious" acts of terror.


The attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo's premises and surroundings on 7. January 2015, as well as the shooting in Paris on 13. November the same year, caused the introduction of the state of emergency in France by the Netherlands. The newest attack is, as is well known, the wilderness run with a trailer in Nice two months ago, which has resulted in the deaths of 84.

The first thing we learned from the investigation was that nothing indicated that the suspect was affiliated with a terrorist group or was an extremist, but that he was described as a mental sufferer. With this in mind, Hollande came on the scene and demanded to extend the state of emergency he introduced eight months earlier. So the president wanted to expand the state of emergency without knowing if there was a terror group behind or not. This is strange. For had it only been the action of a now dead mentally suffering man that caused the tragedy, there would be no danger of repetition. Ideally, the president should prioritize calming down the people. He did the opposite.

Another thing that raises questions about Holland's goal for the state of emergency is that he has not yet secured France against possible terrorist attacks. At the same time, the opposition, among others, points out Nicolas Sarkozy, the president's failure to act against terror (1). These allegations are supported by French politician Sandra Bertin, who was responsible for the video surveillance in Nice during the attack. Bertin gives a blow to the French authorities with his claim that the Minister of the Interior pressed her to change a report on where the police forces were deployed during the Nice attack (2). The fact that the Minister of the Interior should have pressured Bertin to change his report also indicates that French authorities themselves may have been involved in the attack.

Now ISIS has blamed the Nice terror, but it was only after Holland's decision to extend the state of emergency. However, it is necessary to ask how the threshold for the state of emergency can be so low that it is introduced because an allegedly newly recruited jihadist with mental health problems goes berserk with a truck in a national day trip. It should not be forgotten that France's large police and military forces have kept France safe and relatively stable for the last 70 years. Thus, it appears very exaggerated to expose 65 million French people to serious rights and liberty restrictions 24 hours a day indefinitely because these "suspicious" terrorist attacks have killed a total of 231 French over the last two years.

The three French terrorist attacks are put on suspicion.

It is a numerous other factors that also put the three French terrorist attacks in suspicious light. One thing is the timeliness of the Nice attack for Hollande just over a week before the country's state of emergency would cease, thus giving the president the "perfect justification" for the expansion he announced just after the attack. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that Hollande did not await the announcement until it was confirmed that a terror group was behind. One possible explanation for this may be that the president knew in advance that ISIS was going to assume responsibility. How the president could know this in advance is the big question. However, it is a fact that almost all terrorist attacks in, for example, the United States for the past 15 years have been carried out with the direct participation of agents or informants working for the government (11).

Furthermore, it is suspected that Al Qaeda and ISIS are allegedly behind the three attacks. Several sources (3,5) cite Al Qaeda and ISIS as created, armed and funded by Allied forces including France, despite the lack of EU support (4). According to President Putin and Russian intelligence, ISIS consists of mercenaries as well as other rebels with similar ideology. These should be paid for, given military training and armed by our allied forces (5). According to researchers Alec Coutroubis and George Kiourktsoglouved at the University of Greenwich in London, European countries are also financing ISIS by buying oil from occupied oil fields at ridicule prices from the organization (6). Parts of the oil from ISIS are delivered to the EU through the French port city of Marseille (6). In parallel with this, the EU imposed a boycott of oil imports into the EU against the Syrian authorities in 2011 (7). The EU and France show that they prefer to buy oil from ISIS rather than the Syrian authorities. This suggests that the EU and French authorities have a self-interest in maintaining a strong ISIS against all presumption. This is in stark contrast to their claims that ISIS is behind the attacks in their own countries.

France has one long history of supporting rebel forces against the Syrian authorities. After France ended the colonization of Syria in 1946, it took 17 years before the NRC rebel group carried out a new coup in the country, then with diplomatic assistance (recognition) from France and the Allied forces (7). Since the conflict in Syria arose in 2011, France has now emerged as the foremost supporter of Syria's militant opposition groups (10). France, along with its closest allies, has financed and provided military support to the rebel groups SNC and FSA, which have fought side by side with ISIS against Syria's government forces (7). In addition, several thousand SNC / FSA soldiers have jumped to ISIS (8,9). ISIS is thus considered to be France's "ally" on the runway – and worst enemy at home. A contradiction that misses unparalleled.

So, the president of France demanded extended state of emergency hopefully before they knew a terrorist group was behind the latest attack. The fact that a terror group has subsequently assumed responsibility for the Nice attack could to some extent legitimize the president's claim. However, this only contributes to further suspicion, since in practice the group that assumed responsibility is created and financed by France itself with allies. No evidence has been published that Hollande himself was instrumental in carrying out the alleged terrorist attacks in his own country. What seems likely, however, is that the French president's agenda is to exploit the attacks to the maximum – to keep a tight grip on the people, deprive them of their rights and strengthen their own and government's power over the people without any real and legitimate basis.

Sourceinstructions: (1) (2) allegations (3) (4) http: // www. (5) https: // www. (6) .pdf (previously published in Nettavisen) (7) (8) https: // www. \ (9) (10) https : // CMP = twt_gu (11) ent-agents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report? commentpage = 3

You may also like