Showing posts with label Critical terrorism studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critical terrorism studies. Show all posts

Saturday, January 10, 2015

The absurd and silly "Islamic terrorism" narratives.

One of the main goals of the Jihad in the Netherlands site is to educate readers on narratives and discourses related to "terrorism" and how we got to labeling violent crimes by criminals with "Islamic" motivations as "terrorism." The reaction that we see in Paris after three violent criminals with apparent "Islamic" motivations shot up Charlie Hebdo has it's roots in the wrong and irresponsible ways Dutch society reaction to the killing of Theo van Gogh. Mark Rutte's reaction of "they will never take our freedom" is equally absurd and silly, and not just Dutch Islamophobe ideas, but are ideas that come from Rutte's own VVD party over the past 20 years.

Oh the absurd rubbish of turning every violent act by a person or persons of a Muslim background or some way connected to Islam into "an act of terrorism" has now surpassed the height of absurdity with the Paris mass shooting!  What if a disgruntled employee shot up Charlie Hebdo? What if these were bank robbers that were being held up in a building? Would we be saying that this was "an attack on our values" and a "threat to liberty?"

I think not...

The problem here is that this horrible crime was the product of three people with a personal religious and political agenda. These three cold-blooded killers are not the equal of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany when it comes to a "threat to our freedom and way of life." They were simply cold-blooded killers, and not soldiers from a foreign hostile power. Their horrible crimes are not statements about Islam in Europe or the "dangerousness" of French Muslims. Quite the contrary, as we had a French Muslim police officer give his life in a vain, but brave defense of the Charlie Hebdo journalists.
The problems here are contained within the discourses and narratives of turning every violent crime by someone with a personal Islamic agenda into "an act of terrorism." These discourses and narratives also contain notions that the Muslim criminal is " attacking our values," "attacking our way of life" and "threatening our freedom." Pronouncements by Western leaders are full of this silly and absurd language. These discourses and narratives are placed on the level of national security discourses - and this is only done for "terrorism" crimes by Muslims. Similar crimes by non-Muslims are never subjected to these types of threat discourses and narratives. The paradigm of treating violent crimes by Muslims acting out a personal agenda as "terrorism" and "a threat to our freedom" is anti-Muslim discrimination of the highest order!

It's these narratives ("Islamic terrorist") that are the problem and we must start to dial this down this "Islamic terrorist" rhetoric. First of all, the public needs to be made aware of these discourses and narratives and that they are anti-Muslim discriminatory. The next time a Muslim commits a violent crime" (let's hope never) let's ignore the "terrorism" label and ignore those national leaders that want to call such an act "terrorism," along with silly and absurd notions that such Muslim violent crime is a "threat to our way of life, a threat to our values, a threat to our freedom, blah, blah blah."

It's these narratives that are the real problem of making Europeans afraid, and Islamophobic, not a real threats from "Islamic terrorism" (a phony problem). Once the public is taught to be more critical of narratives and discourses in the aftermath of these events, there will less acceptance of the jackbooted and police state policies that Western governments like to bring down on Muslim citizens and their communities.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

A pillar of Emancipation in the Hague? Possible Dutch Pillar community in an Orthodox Muslim neighborhood in The Hague.

A Dutch Pillar community in an Orthodox Muslim neighborhood in The Hague? I had said that the Dutch pillar system really was not dead, but just sleeping. Since national traditions die hard and the Dutch pillar tradition was an accumulation of 400 years of working for religious peace in Dutch society - there is probably some ability to revive it. We now have an example of a possible religious pillar community in The Hague - and it is under attack - including from those outside of the PVV - and these attacks against this possible pillar community should be called "anti-Dutch." Despite Wilders other baseless claims that “Islam causes criminal behavior,” which it does not, we also have, shamefully, members of the Labor Party (PvdA) also shamelessly abusing women’s liberation to attack this Dutch tradition.  We will see who they are and how Dutch traditions and national identity that were once admired by the world are continuing to be attacked and dismantled, even by the Labor Party, the PvdA.

There have been a series of articles appearing in the Trouw about an Orthodox Muslim "enclave" Schilderswijk or driehoek in the City of The Hague. We are told that youth gangs and crime are non-existent because young criminals are made to "feel the fear of Allah." Sharia law is in use. Community residents often tell the police to allow for settling of conflicts and issues without police and state help. A certain kind of strict religious behavior is in force on the street, especially for women and outsiders. While any abuse of women or anybody else should be referred to the police – the continued destruction of Dutch history, culture and values in the name of women’s rights is outrageous! What women need to be “liberated” from this community? And if there are a few who want to be “liberated,” don’t spousal abuse programs exist to help them out, if that’s what they want? Even if one woman is “abused” in this community – it simply does not warrant the destruction the Dutch national treasure of the pillar model of integration that integrated Catholics into the Dutch nation.

 When I read about this Islamic faith community, it strikes me as being a type of Dutch pillar community.It would be interesting to use the measures of Arend Lijphart to measure how strong or weak this Orthodox Muslim pillar in the Hague really is. What are the instructions and organizations inside of the Orthodox Muslim community? Are there any schools? We do know that this community has mosques. The community is isolated, and probably not just for self imposed isolation, but excluded as Catholic once were. Another part of this sad story is that the Dutch State itself is hostile now toward even Dutch history, culture and values (or the Dutch have replaced their beloved national identity with Fortuynism, the ideology of Pim Fortuyn) and even the Dutch intelligence and security service, AIVD, is hostile and quick to call anyone “radicalized” who dare proposes Dutch pillar communities for Muslim minority communities. The cherished Dutch pillar model is now viewed as “a threat to the democratic legal order” by the AIVD.

See: 'Haagse Schilderswijk domein van orthodoxe moslims' - Haagse buurt domein orthodoxe moslims - 'Optreden in moslimenclaves Nederlandse steden'

Below is a paper that contains excerpts and ideas from my upcoming work, The Pillars of Emancipation: Communities and their struggles for security and emancipation in the Netherlands. The paper uses Critical security and terrorism studies frameworks, concepts and discourse analyses to examine the securtization process of religion and its politics in the Netherlands with two case studies. The first case study is how Calvinists came dominate the Dutch Republic and cut out an exclusive place in Dutch national identity and how Catholics became suspect and the strategies that had to be taken to desecuritize and emancipate Catholics, which includes a discussion of the pillar system (verzuiling). The second case study is focused on the Muslim-Moroccan community, how Islam in the Netherlands came to be securitized (long before 9-11) and the prospects and proposals for deserutrizing Islam in the Netherlands and the possible use of the Dutch pillar model to emancipate Muslim communities. 

How the Dutch pillar system worked and why it is a great Dutch tradition. First of all, an extensive examination of the 400 year development of the Dutch religious tolerance tradition and the pillarization (verzuiling) system is beyond the scope of a blog post. There will be an extensive discussion of the religious tolerance tradition in the forthcoming work, The Pillars of Emancipation, and some words here are excerpts from that work in progress. What is clear from scholars of Dutch history is that there is no dispute that the Netherlands was and is a nation of religious tolerance and plurality. Religious tolerance was never perfect, but helped to bring about religious peace and integrate Catholics into the Dutch nation. Tolerance was also good business and trade (Kaplan 2002):
Tolerance is represented as smart economics, but also as a national trait - a virtue by most people's account, a vice by others', but either way as something rooted in the history, customs, and very character of the Dutch people. The Dutch, in other words, do not just practice tolerance: by their own account and others', they are tolerant; it is considered one of their defining characteristic.
Discussion of the Dutch pillar system is usually centered on the Catholic pillar, as it is the “most pillarized” according to the measuring system created by Arend Lijphart (1975). This “most pillarized” status may have been the result of the Dutch Catholic community being subject to suspicion of their loyalty to the Dutch nation. Being Catholic was not a crime, but implied disloyalty to the Dutch nation (Lijphart 1975; 80). Lijphart describes the dilemma faced by Dutch Catholics as they tried to become a part of their nation with symbols and associations between the House of Orange and the Calvinists that go back to the revolt against Catholic Spain (82-83).  According to Joke Spaans, the there is also a ‘gap’ in understanding just how religious toleration worked in the Dutch Republic among scholars of Dutch religious tolerance, but it is tied to the development of religious communities, or ‘pillarization’:
This gap in our understanding of the place of religion in Dutch society, and how this society coped with religious diversity, is mainly a product of historiographical trends in the past. Religious toleration has long been, and still is, an item of national pride, and historians have not been really interested in the particulars of its legal basis and the policies that gave it its characteristic form. Historiographically religious toleration is embedded in the nineteenth-century contest over Dutch national identity that resulted in the famous verzuiling or `pillarization'.
There was, however, differences in just how much “tolerance” was extended to Catholics, but all non-Calvinist religious faiths. At the same time that Prince Maurice launched his purge and persecution of the Remonstrants and the followers of Jacobus Arminius culminating in the 1618-1619 denouncements at the Synod of Dordrecht, Lutherans and Jews enjoyed open faith communities in Amsterdam. There were strings attached to this tolerance of these communities, such as not proselytizing and caring for their own poor. The Jewish community was viewed as profitable in terms of the trading routes that were viewed as economically useful to the Dutch Republic. After the death of Prince Maurice in 1625, Remonstrants in exile returned and set up churches and a seminary. Catholics remained excluded from having such open communities. Catholic Mass was banned, but not being a Catholic. In many provinces Catholics were excluded from citizenship, which meant that they could not join trade guilds  (Olsen 2006; Kooi 2002).

After the Catholic Spanish were driven out of mainly northern Dutch towns, local magistrates were faced with religiously diverse communities. In the context of the late 1500s, this was a rather new situation and the majority of the towns' Erasmus-humanist leaning magistrates largely choose to ignore the anti-Catholic placards that came down from the Calvinist dominated Dutch Republic authorities. The practice of “making it right” was a type of bribe paid by the Catholic community to local magistrates to overlook enforcements of the placards. In the early 1600s Catholics paid 400 guilders a year to be able to celebrate the sacraments.  (Spaans 2002; Van der Pol 2002, Kooi 2002). The defection of Rennenberg, the governor of Friesland and Groningen, was a sign to the Calvinists that Catholics were not trustworthy as citizens. Another form of coping with religious diversity was for religious communities to create their own boundaries and institutions. During times of hostility and conflict with Spain, the worship spaces that Catholics forged were feared to be a hotbed of sedition (Nierop 2007,  Kooi, 1995, 76).

During the time of the “patriotic” revolt and Napoleonic French occupation (1795-1813) Catholics would be granted full citizenship rights (along with other non-Calvinist protestant faiths) by the French approved administration. The “patriots” had passionate pleas for religious tolerance, pointing out that not all of world’s great Dutchmen were Calvinists. Catholics were so confident of their new liberty that Catholics in Utrecht founded a club called   “Truth and Liberty” that came to dominate the new societies (Schama 1977, 20-21; 330).

The pillars (zuilen) are defined by Thomas Rochon (1999) as “networks of organizations that create ideological homogeneous subcultures within a larger pluralistic society” (25). The “amount” of “pillarization” is measurable by the “strength” of various religious community institutions and their separateness from larger society. There were two categories of pillar communities, religious and economic class, and a four fold division of Dutch society: According to Andeweg and Irwin (2005) is was the Catholics who “were the most pillarized” and the Social Democrats “the least pillarized,” and that religious communities were seen as the ‘strongest’ (23-25). The degree of pillarization, according to the criteria by Lijphart, is measured from this list (23):
  • The role of ideology or religion in the pillar;
  • the size and density of the pillar’s organizational network;
  • the degree of social ‘apartheid’ or the absence of deviant, that is, non-pillarized social behavior; and 
  • the extent to which pillarized behavior and loyalty was encouraged by the subculture elite

Pillarization is linked to “consociational democracy” and avoiding “fatal” fragmentation by cooperation and accommodation in national politics– but that concept will not be discussed at length here. What we need to know is that the Dutch example is regarded as a highly successful one. The presence of pillarization and its fragmentation is regarded as unstable to a democratic system, yet the Dutch example shows us otherwise (Lijphart 1975, 2).  Various authors, chiefly Lijphart and Bakfis, have tried to explain the success of the Dutch consociational democracy system and the basic explanation is also a noble one of the spirit of cooperation on issues to govern the country (Bakfis 1984, 316):
that elites have the ability to accommodate the divergent interests and demands of the subcultures; that they have the ability to transcend cleavages and to join in a common effort with the elites of rival subcultures; that they have a commitment to the maintenance of the system; and finally that they understand the perils of political fragmentation.
During the time that the pillar system was visible (after WWII),  it was said that a Dutch Catholic was born in a Catholic hospital, went to Catholic school, belonged to a Catholic trade union,  shopped at Catholic stores, voted for a Catholic political party, joined only Catholic associations – and was buried in a Catholic cemetery. The relationships within the pillar were maintained by the Catholic clergy and the church dominated a tight organizational network. There were ‘spiritual advisers’ in all of these organizations, for example, the trade union or bowling club would have a priest as ‘spiritual adviser’ (Andeweg and Irwin 2005 23-25). The Dutch Catholic in the 50s and 60s was under Church pressure to engage in only Catholic associations, which included pressure read only Catholic newspapers and vote for the Church approved political party. The Church in the Netherlands provided its own separate social services and resources for Dutch Catholics. The reality is that the maintenance of a pillar structure requires both a strong feeling of association along with tight control in the areas of social, politics and labor relations and this control was exercised by church leadership. (Bryant 1984). 

The “depillarization” or “end of the pillar system” is said to have occurred in the 1960s and there were many reasons for its demise. The first is that there was a crisis of unity within the pillar system whereby the modern times and seculartazation of Dutch society loosened the tight grip that Catholic clergy had on pillar intuitions. In the 1960s Catholics were better educated and as incomes rose Catholics spent their extra incomes on television sets, cars and other material goods (Bakfis 1984, 544; Andeweg and Irwin 2005 23-25).The tight and centralized subculture of the Dutch Catholic church was, according to Bakfis (1984), a result of isolation from the Reformations and being forced to practice their faith in secret. (530). The separation and isolation from the rest of Dutch society had ended and this was evidenced but a better educated and more prosperous Catholic population that had “caught up” with the rest of the Dutch population. Dutch Catholics realized that they no longer needed the pillar for protection, unity and the pillar institutions were abandoned, and this can be taken as a sign of their final acceptance in the Dutch nation (Bakfis 1984, 544; Bryant 1981, 61-63).

The Dutch pillar system as a possible form of Emancipation
. While the some authors and experts, especially Lijphart, on chiefly the Catholic pillar acknowledge that the need to isolate to practice their faith in secret gave rise to the “pillarization” – with its separate isolated institutions – the final acceptance of Catholics in the Dutch Nation in the modern age have also contributed to the “demise” of pillar system. According to Lijphart’s  measures into the extent of pillization, the Catholic pillar scores the highest and the social democratic pillar the lowest. The perceived need for a separate and isolated community for Dutch Catholics to practice their faith is found in the works of historical authors on Dutch Catholics, like Christine Kooi and Joke Spaans. Thomas Rochon (1999) writes that the pillars “developed over several generations, from the nineteenth century until after WWII” (33).  It is easy to see, however, that the economic exclusion,  the need to practice their faith, and questions of their loyalty to the Dutch nation undoubtedly helped pushed Dutch Catholics to construct their “separate but equal”  institutions and organizations of the Catholic pillar. All of these dilemmas once face by Dutch Catholics are now being faced by Dutch Muslims.

A growing subfield with Critical security and terrorism studies is the idea of emancipation of groups and individuals. Part of the idea of Emancipation is that communities and the individuals residing in them are free from especially state government interference in their lives and that they can freely carry out daily life activities free of state government interference ( a definition of ‘security’). The Dutch pillar model can and has served as a type of assimilation and emancipation model for allochtoon (non-Western immigrant) communities in the Netherlands. According to Rochon the same “pillar privileges” in such areas of schools and broadcasting that have been used in the past by both Catholics and Calvinists have been used by Muslim newcomers (1999 58-59).

 It is the clear that the Dutch pillar model can be used and adapted to allow for suspect and excluded communities to – eventually – become accepted into the national community – while keeping their distance. In Emancipation studies we must first identify, locate and break down discourses and narratives that have placed communities and communities of “threat and danger.” Often, the exact paradigm that a community takes is not set and there are no set Emancipation models. We must discover what works to emancipate Dutch Muslim communities, and the Dutch pillar model has that history of working.


Andeweg, Rudy B. and Galen A. Irwin. 2005. Governance and Politics of the Netherlands. Palgrave Macmillian: New York, NY, 17-42.

Bakfis, Herman. 1984. Toward a Political Economy of Consociationalism: A Commentary on Marxist Views of Pillarization in the Netherlands. Comparative Politics, Vol. 16, No. 3 (April), 315-354.

Bryant, Christopher G .A. 1981. Depillarization in the Netherlands. British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 32, (March) Number 1, 56-74.

Kaplan, Benjamin J. 2002. Religious toleration in the United Provinces: from `case' to `model'  In Calvinism and religious toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Hsia, R. Po-Chia and Henk van Nierop, eds. Kindle Addition.

Kooi, Christine. 1995. Popish Impudence: The Perseverance of the Roman Catholic Faithful in Calvinist Holland,1572-1620. The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring), 75-85. [accessed 25 March 2012].

Kooi, Christine. 2002. Paying off the Sheriff. Strategies of Catholic toleration in Golden Age Holland. In Calvinism and religious toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Hsia, R. Po-Chia and Henk van Nierop, eds. Kindle Addition.

Lijphart, Arend. 1975. The Politics of Accommodation. Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. U. of California Press:Berkeley, CA.

Nierop, Henk van.. 2002.  Sewing the bailiff in a blanket: Catholics and the law in Holland. In Calvinism and religious toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Hsia, R. Po-Chia and Henk van Nierop, eds.  Kindle Addition.

Olson E., Roger. 2006. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL.

Rochon, Thomas R. 1999. The Netherlands: Negotiating Sovereignty in an Independent World. West View Press: Boulder Co.

Schama, Simon.1977. Patriots and Liberators: Revolution in the Netherlands. 1780-1813. New York: Vintage Books.

Spaans, Joke.  2002. Religious policies in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic. In Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age. Hsia, R. Po-Chia and Henk van Nierop, eds. Kindle Addition.

Van der Pol,  Frank. 2002.  Religious Diversity and Everyday Ethics in the Seventeenth-Century Dutch City Kampen. Church History, Vol. 71, No. 1 (March), pp. 16-62.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

One year after Breivik and nothing has changed

[caption id="attachment_2267" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Breivik: A terrorist and enemy to Western democracy and freedom!"]Anders Behring Breivik[/caption]

Norway after Breivik. It was one year ago when right-wing terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, committed the "twin terrors" on his own nation of Norway. "The bomb and the shots were intended to change Norway. People responded by embracing our values. He failed, the people won" said Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. Rather than allow the tolerance and democratic society of Norway to change, Norwegians have embraced more democracy and values of openness.  In his "sanity trial" Breivik rants about the court in which he is being tried as "supporting multiculturalism," and therefore "illegitimate."   What the so-called "terrorism experts" in Western security, intelligence and law enforcement fail - utterly - to realize is that Breivik and his sympathizers are actually opponents and enemies of their own liberal democratic nations, they are also enemies of freedom, individual liberty, as well as equality before the law and the rule of law in liberal democratic nations. Breivik and those of his ilk are anti-democratic  and have placed themselves as enemies of Western liberal democracy!

[youtube id="VoiXqU_NgxE" w="250" h="250"] [youtube id="HiSM6obdlMQ" w="250" h="250"]

Yet - Norway has now taken the footsteps of anti-Muslim, oriented counter-terrorism in outlawing "training in a terrorist camp" (what ever that means) - while Breivik never "trained in terrorist camp."  This is a sure sign that we are back to the notion that Muslim communities are "threatening," even in Norway. Yes - one year after Breivik mercilessly butchered teenagers at the Utøya summer camp - Western security, intelligence and law enforcement act as if Norway, July 22, 2011 never happened - or was not as bad as it really was - compared to the mere presence of bearded, dark-skinned Muslims with loud, "anti-Western views" living in their own "suspect communities" in our countries.

Right-eye blindness continues to be a real problem with Western security. In other European countries, "political leaders" holding Breivik's views sit in parliaments and in security and intelligence agencies. Breivik and his sympathizers have nothing to fear from Western security, intelligence and police agencies, in contrast to outspoken Muslims and the political left engaging in legally protected speech acts, the targets of Breivik terrorism. "Terrorism" continues to be something that only Muslims do and violent criminal acts by suspects of a Muslim background are now "lone-wolf jihad."  Violence and suspicion of violence by Muslims is still viewed, in a discriminatory and Islamophobic sense, as more dangerous than the prospect (or likelihood) of another Norway attack. We still see discourses out of agencies, like Europol and the Dutch AIVD, that actually downplay the attacks in Norway and the security threat from the radical, dangerous European right-wing.

Over this past year, we have seen the unchecked growth of the radical, and possibly dangerous right, with several violent acts by members of the English Defense League, the most serious threat to the security of the UK. A couple of weeks ago, and EDL member was sentenced to prison for a knife attack on his neighbors. This week convictions were secured against EDL members for breaking the jaw of a Muslim man who was attacked while walking near his home with his brother.

In November, we have learned of the killings of mainly Turkish shopkeepers in Germany by the National Socialist Underground and that German intelligence may have know about this terrorist group.  As I have demonstrated, German intelligence has a blind right eye, as the victims of the NSU are Muslims and, therefore, "deserving victims." The NSU was believed to have carried out the murders of nine shopkeepers between 2000 and 2007 and a nail bomb attack against Cologne’s Turkish community. There was a German intelligence officer known as “little Adolf” who was believed to be present, or at least nearby, when one of the murders took place. This right-wing terrorist group was allowed to terrorize at liberty because, as I demonstrate, some in Germany police and intelligence may have viewed the Turkish-Muslim victims as "deserving victims" and not deserving of equal police protection.

"Terrorism" that is viewed as acceptable by a larger society (terrorism against Muslim communities) tends to provide tacit support for the terrorist groups that perpetrate terrorist violence against "deserving victims." The reality is that the EDL is the Number One threat to the security of the United Kingdom, yet, we still see Muslims "arrested" under the so-called "Terrorism Act" of the UK - which - as in the Netherlands - appears to be a law that only Muslims can be charged with ...

Yes - police DO, indeed, make up "terrorist plot" evidence. We know how British police made up "evidence" against a graduate student of terrorism studies, Rizwaan Sabir, at Nottingham University and levied  accusations of a "terrorism plot" (yep - here we go). Sabir obtained a document about al-Qaeda terrorism from a US government website. It's not what happened to the student, who was also being slandered  by Nottingham University - but what happened to his professor, Rod Thornton, a former intelligence officer in the British Army and terrorism expert, who became outraged by the student's treatment by British police.  Professor Thornton spoke out and authored a paper about the ill treatment his student received from British police - and was essentially persecuted and punished (in violation of academic freedom rights) for his noble efforts. Professor Thornton said of the ordeal he and his student were put through by British police:
"The police were totally unprofessional. After their mistakes they tried to cover them up. I've seen some altered police notes, I've seen evidence made up. The whole thing seems to be a complete tissue of lies, starting from the cover up of their mistakes in the first place."

"What should raise alarm bells is how and why the police think it is acceptable to make up information to send innocent Muslims to prison as terrorists. The onus is now on the IPCC to conduct a full and proper investigation into this matter."

Even after the the lies of the British police were exposed, Rizwaan Sabir continued to be stopped and has been stopped numerous times since his 2008 "arrest."
In June 2011 for the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that “for some Muslims, these stops have become a routine part of their travel experience, and that―this power is silently eroding Muslim communities ‘trust and confidence in policing.’”

Those on the receiving end of Schedule 7 stops report: intrusive questioning over social, religious and political views or community activities; the taking of their bio-data despite not being under arrest; officers refusing to wait the arrival of a solicitor before conducting the search and questioning; the stress caused to the person stopped and to those travelling with them, as they worry about missing flights or losing baggage; and the seizure of mobile phones and credit cards.

And - do they seriously think this tyrannical and utterly useless busy-work is  "keeping us safe from terrorism?" What rubbish! What outrage! How stupid! How counter-productive!!!

[youtube id="nKsFQYGiqGE" w="250" h="250"] [youtube id="ZUK1KsrcttQ" w="250" h="250"]

Well - this week we were shown just how safe the "counter-terrorism practice" in the Western world keeps us. Unless you were sleeping in a cave this week, you know that there was the massacre at a movie theater in Colorado. The accused in is James Holmes a white, upper-income "good kid" - non-Muslim- which is what makes him totally undetectable for "terrorist activity."   Holmes is a brilliant  bomb-maker as he was a neurobiology student - as he booby-trapped his apartment so well that police bomb experts had to do a lot of careful work to defuse his handiwork.  Holmes was described as having ordered 6000 rounds of ammunition from the Internet. Where did he get his ballistic vest, helmet and the smoke grenades?  Isn't James Holmes a terrorist who perpetrated a terrorist attack - in a "Mumbai style" of shooting people with firearms in a movie theater?

Nope - as the saying goes: Not a Muslim, not a terrorist!

[caption id="attachment_3589" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Holmes: Not a Muslim, not a terrorist!"][/caption]

Western counter-terrorism efforts continue to be backwards oriented and utterly useless in protecting us. There is plenty of other evidence that Western security and counter-terrorism efforts have forgotten about Norway and have gone back to chancing the phantoms of "Islamists and jihadists" - and perhaps fabricating evidence or exaggerating "terrorist plots."   In fact - it is quite arguable that the Western security and law enforcement agencies charged with protecting us from real terrorism are utterly useless and serve as nothing more than agencies to chill religious freedom and speech of Muslims and the political Left.

If the victims of terrorism are Muslims or their "leftist allies" - then this is hardly "terrorism," but something else less than "terrorism" - as Muslims and the "leftist allies" are deserving victims of "terrorism."

Yes --- what we don't hear about the Colorado movie theater murderer is the T-word, either in the media or from the FBI. Mohammad... uhhh ... James Holmes is a brilliant bomb maker and in the spread of his message - what ever message that is supposed to be. But - wait - what if the alleged killer's name was Mohammad Holmes? Why - we'd be talking about "possible links to al-Qaeda" and Holmes "radicalization process." We'd also hear about "radical imans" and "lone wolf jihad." Since James Holmes is a "good" -  white - upper-class kid and non-Muslim (like Breivik) he cannot possibly be branded as a "terrorist" and his killings at the movie theater are never "terrorism."  "Terrorism" is something only Muslims do...just ask any terrorism expert in any Western security and intelligence agency.


Trying to Forget Breivik: One Year After the Norway Massacre

Utoya remembers one year after Anders Behring Breivik massacre

Norway tries to put pain of Breivik behind year on

Anders Behring Breivik

A year after Breivik's massacre, Norway tightens antiterror laws

Rod Thornton's suspension is a serious attack on academic freedom

Sabir on Security | Police fabricated evidence against me but civil liberties concern us all


Wednesday, April 11, 2012

German State concern for "A Koran in every home" campaign exposes misguided security concern

Religious and political activity by Muslims as a "security problem." The anti-Muslim bias among European and American police and security forces shows itself in what is viewed as a threat and what is as not a threat. When a Muslim commits horrible criminal acts, this is "terrorism" and "lone wolf jihad," but when a non-Muslim commits similar horrible criminal acts, the explanations lie in insanity or an "anger problem." From Germany we now have the latest example of how the religious and political activities of Muslims are a "security problem." Given that religious and political activity of Muslims are now a part of biased "radicalization models" it is not hard to see why a Salafist Muslim preacher is now a threat to German national security because of his "Koran in every home" campaign." Nope - not some advocacy of "jihad" that Salafists are often accused of (there are different types of Salafists, you know) - nope - but a campaign to pass out 25 million German language Korans.

[youtube id="UdzR2U0uXQ0" w="250" h="250"]

Video above shows the free Koran program in Germany - what is so wrong with it?!

What is unbelievable is how the "Christian Democrats" in Germany have "slammed" this campaign, including some "Christian Democrats" in Angela Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union, and have called this campaign an "act of aggression."  While the German government states that there is nothing illegal about the passing out of religious texts, we still see the notion that religious and political activity by European Muslims is a security issue that comes under the discourse of "terrorism and national security."

We should recall that this is the same German intelligence that failed (or overlooked) the killings of largely Turkish shop keepers by the so-called National Socialist Underground. If the terrorist group had not blundered a bank robbery, would they still be at large? Would the video showing the murder victims have been delivered to Islamic community centers and media outlets, as the terrorist group had intended?

Germany continues to be blind in the right eye. At the same time, the Sehitlik mosque in  Berlin has been subject to four arson attacks over the past three years. Last Saturday, the mosque was subject to a "paint attack" and insulting pictures were left. The Muslim community has repeatedly asked for increased security in the face of Angela Merkel's downplaying of anti-Muslim violence in the country. Well - since members of Merkel's CDU regard the passing out of Korans as "aggression" we can see why the Muslim community is viewed as not worthy of protection. The Muslim community is not only not worthy or protection, but it is a "suspect community" that is also not regarded as a part of the larger German national community.

So, this is why we are here again.  We see the legally protected religious activity of Muslims living in European nations defined as a "security problem." We have whole regions of Germany dominated by radicalized right wing, neo-Nazi and ethnic cleansing - while  German intelligence is concerned with this single preacher passing out Korans?

It is obvious that the German State and German national intelligence simply have not learned painful lessons after the  discovery of the National Socialist Underground terrorist group brought international shame on the German nation.  We still see Muslims and their communities as suspect and what are supposed to be legally protected religious and political activities demonized and criminalized.

It's the discourse, stupid! At the root of this problem of "terrorism discourse" that is dominated by "Islamist jihadists" and the State (German State) as the dominate security definer and actor. The German State and its actors only hear from those "experts" and media outlets that it chooses, and excludes others views (including this Author) and this exclusion is extended its human rights responsibilities and responsibilities as a European liberal democracy to the rule of law in fulfilling the security needs of the Muslim (Turkish) community. The Muslim-Turkish community is also excluded from the discussion of security, as Muslim communities across Europe are view as threat and suspect communities.  Because of this type of discourse on "security and terrorism," the German State, like the French State and Dutch State, is failing to live up to its obligations as European nations and civilized members of the international community.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

The French State and its abusive reactions to Toulouse shootings.

Going after the French State and its abusive response to the aftermath of the shooting by a "lone wolf," a lone gunman at Toulouse. The response of the French State is now one of an iron fist, which now includes "arrests" of "Islamists" in the phony problem of "Islamist network."  The misguided and anti-Muslim response to the shootings by a lone gunman, Mohamed Merah, also now include denying imams who have never preached violence entrance to the country for an annual Islamic Conference.

There is now the added element of the French elections and Sarkozy is looking for a bump in the polls. Sarkozy has traveled the road of persecution of with regard to the Roma which was followed by a rebuke from the European Union. The French State responded in a positive manner when it came to the presence of the Roma - it is unbelievable how the EU cannot come to the rescue of Muslim EU citizens that have to endure post-violence attacks on human rights and civil freedoms.

Islamist networks and the "threat" is probably a made up "threat." We now seen the "arrests" is "Islamists" by the French State. If these "Islamist networks" were such a danger - then why not close them down before this "lone wolf" shooting? It is quite possible that the people being arrested are being arrested for their religious faith and perhaps their political opinions - not their actual threat of "terrorism." These arrests, including of Merah's mother - should be closely followed by European and international human rights institutions.

Much to their credit, French police now believe that Mohamed Merah was not some "al-Qeada mission" - but was quite alone in his actions. That is not hard to understand, as anybody can claim to be an "al-Qeada operative" and this has been done by individuals in the past. Yet - we see the usual dubious claim of "an Islamist network" and the usual "clash of civilizations" response in collectively blame and punishment of the entire Muslim community. This misguided response is something we simply do not see against radical right networks, but only with "Islamist networks" (which may be nothing more that religious study groups. Expect Rob Wainwright and his Europol to explot the notion of "Islamist networks." Yes - I hope that "Islamist networks" do exist and that the limit their activity to discussion only.

In fact - now we are finding out that the Islamist group - the members that have now been arrested - had NO connection to Mohamed Merah. So - why on God's Green Earth are they being arrested?! What of THEIR freedom of expression and religion? What are the French State's obligations to the human rights of the Knights of Pride Islamist group!

That we will study...

That we will learn about...

That we will raise awareness about!

In a the ideal world, the French State lets the members of the Knights of Pride  go and leaves then alone - or suffers international rebuke and consequense for its actions against the Knights of Pride Islamist group as it did in its actions against Roma people!

So - some people like al-Qaeda  - so what - liking al-Qaeda has nothing to do with a person's involvement in "terrorism" -whatever the defination. Some people also think that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were also really great, but we don't see many arrests of Nazi networks around Europe. People that think that the Nazis were great are - well - ignored by Euroepan states and Rob Wainwright and his Europol. There is something very wrong here - in terms of equality before the law in the EU and in European states, as well as equal enforcements of the laws!

That will change, as the case study of the French State's abusive responses to the  Toulouse shooting is underway.The misguided and openly anti-Muslim response by the French state to the shootings by a lone gunman is now forming a case study that will lay the ground work for an even larger study of the Dutch Nation and its responses to the Theo van Gogh murder.  What appear to be constancies are that any violent act by someone of a Muslim background is now "terrorism":

1. then followed by claims of "our 9-11";

2.  then collective punishment, including "arrests" of "an Islamist network."

3.  Also throw in the claim that the attack by a lone perpetrator of Muslim background is "an attack on our values. 

Violent crimes by Muslims are now "terrorism," but beyond the collective punishment that follows is the unwillingness to include the voices of opposition to these abusive policies on the part of the "victim" State. The Muslim communities that fall victim to post-violence policies appear to be excluded from any debate about security issues and criminalization of the community appears to also occur.

The study framework - emancipation-advocacy approach from Critical Terrorism studies.  The framework I will be using uses a rational actor, "the French State" and what is referred to as emancipation-advocacy approach from Critical Terrorism studies. The approach includes removing the state centric approach and the view of the "French State as victim," used by orthodox terrorism studies and the global mass media’s coverage of the Toulouse shooting. The approach is from the view of the French Muslims who are now enduring oppressive measures and arrests in the aftermath of the shooting. Also a part of the approach will be the French State's obligations under European and human rights conventions, these "arrests" as part of an "Islamist network" as part of limits on religious freedom and expression, which is a part of the limits on freedoms of French Muslims, including attempts to close an up coming Islamic conference.

Question: What are the reactions of the French State after the lone gunman shootings at Toulouse and how do they square with the French State’s as a democratic, pluralistic society and international obligations to its Muslim citizens?

A couple of hypotheses:

  1. The responses of the French State to the shooting by a lone gunman amount to violation of human rights: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, religious freedom, among other possible violations.

  2.  "Islamist networks" are actually religious networks and  "arresting members" in the aftermath of violence is due to associations (real and over the Internet) the religious network has with the perpetrator.

  3. Violence by anyone of Muslim background is always branded as "jihad" and "terrorism."

Something will be done about these abuses of the French State. I will be mailing through standard posts this report to international institutions, including the United Nations,  and hope that awareness can be raised and actions taken against misguided and anti-Muslim responses by European nations in the aftermath of "Muslim violence." Again - this case study will lay the ground work for a larger study of the Dutch State. While Sarkozy intends to abuse the human rights of Muslim in the aftermath of this horrible shooting for his own political gains - I also intend to take full advantage in the name of advocacy for French Muslims, raise awareness of how much work needs to be done in Europe to advance human rights and frame proper responses to violence that do not collectively punish whole communities and criminalize the practice of religious faith or speech.

The paper will make recommendations for individuals and international organizations to get involved and to raise awareness that will based on study findings. Since European Union institutions, as well as other international institutions (like the United Nations) are not doing their jobs – we must do their jobs for them. The European Union, through Europol,, will probably join in efforts to collectively punish French Muslims from the crimes of a single person. There are important issues in terms of human rights, the rule of law and basic justice the French State must anser for in terms of its highly misguided and anti-Muslim response from the violent crimes of a single person.  This must not be allowed to continue!

[caption id="attachment_3387" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="Sarkozy, the French State's anti-Muslim thug. (From Wiki)"]Sarkozy, the French State's anti-Muslim thug. (From Wiki)[/caption]



NL - Gaan na de Franse staat en zijn misbruik reactie op de nasleep van de schietpartij door een "lone wolf", een eenzame schutter bij Toulouse. De reactie van de Franse staat is nu een van een ijzeren vuist, die nu ook "arrestaties" van "islamisten" in de nep probleem van de "islamistische netwerk." De misleide en anti-moslim reactie op de beschietingen door een eenzame schutter, Mohamed Merah, nu ook onder meer het ontkennen van imams die nog nooit geweld gepredikt ingang naar het land voor een jaarlijkse Islamitische Conferentie.

Er is nu de toegevoegde element van de Franse verkiezingen en Sarkozy is op zoek naar een hobbel in de peilingen. Sarkozy reisde de weg van de vervolging van met betrekking tot de Roma, die werd gevolgd door een berisping van de Europese Unie. De Franse staat reageerde op een positieve manier als het ging om de aanwezigheid van de Roma - het is ongelooflijk hoe de EU niet kan komen tot de redding van de islamitische EU-burgers die moeten na het geweld aanvallen op de mensenrechten en burgerlijke vrijheden te doorstaan.

Islamitische netwerken en de "dreiging" is waarschijnlijk een verzonnen "bedreiging." We hebben nu gezien dat de "arrestaties" is "islamisten" door de Franse staat. Als deze "islamitische netwerken" waren een dergelijk gevaar - waarom dan niet sluiten, voordat deze "lone wolf" schieten? Het is goed mogelijk dat de mensen die gearresteerd worden gearresteerd omdat hun religieuze geloof en wellicht ook hun politieke opvattingen - ". Terrorisme 'niet hun werkelijke dreiging van Deze arrestaties, onder meer van de moeder van Merah's - moeten nauwgezet worden gevolgd door Europese en internationale instellingen voor de mensenrechten.

Tot hun krediet, Franse politie nu van mening dat Mohamed Merah niet een of andere "al-Qeada missie" - maar was helemaal alleen in zijn acties. Dat is niet moeilijk te begrijpen, omdat iedereen kan beweren dat een "al-Qeada operatieve" en dit is gedaan door personen in het verleden. Maar - we zien de gebruikelijke dubieuze claim van "een islamitische netwerk" en de gebruikelijke "botsing der beschavingen 'reactie in collectief schuld en straf van de gehele moslimgemeenschap. Deze misleidende reactie is iets wat we gewoon niet zien tegen de radicale rechts-netwerken, maar alleen met "islamitische netwerken" (die wellicht niet meer dat religieuze studiegroepen. Verwacht Rob Wainwright en zijn Europol tot het begrip explot "islamitische netwerken." Ja - ik hoop dat 'islamitische netwerken' bestaan ​​en dat het hun activiteit te beperken tot discussie alleen.

In feite - nu zijn we uit te vinden dat de islamitische groepering - de leden die nu zijn gearresteerd - GEEN verbinding met Mohamed Merah had. Dus - waarom op Gods groene aarde worden ze gearresteerd? Welke van hun vrijheid od meningsuiting en godsdienst? Wat zijn de Franse staat de verplichtingen om de mensenrechten van de Ridders van Pride islamistische groep!

Dat bestuderen we ...

Dat leren we over ...

Dat zullen we de bewustwording over!

In een de ideale wereld, de Franse Staat laat gaan de leden van de Knights of Pride en laat vervolgens alleen - of lijdt internationale berisping en consequense voor zijn acties tegen de Ridders van Pride islamistische groep als zij heeft gedaan in haar acties tegen Roma!

Dus - sommige mensen, zoals al-Qaeda - zo? - liking al-Qaeda heeft niets te maken met betrokkenheid van een persoon in "terrorisme"-ongeacht het Begrip. Sommige mensen vinden ook dat Adolf Hitler en de nazi's waren ook echt geweldig, maar we zien niet veel arrestaties van de nazi-netwerken in Europa. Mensen die denken dat de nazi's groot waren zijn - goed - genegeerd door Euroepan staten en Rob Wainwright en zijn Europol. Er is iets heel erg mis hier - in termen van gelijkheid voor de wet in de EU en in Europese landen, en de gelijke versterkingen van de wetten!

Dat zal veranderen, aangezien de case study van misbruik van de Franse Staat reacties op de Toulouse-opnamen zijn underway.The misleid en openlijk anti-moslim reactie van de Franse staat aan de opnames van een eenzame schutter is nu de vorming van een case study die leggen de grondwerk voor een nog grotere studie van de Nederlandse natie en haar antwoorden op de Theo van Gogh moord. Wat lijkt te zijn constanten zijn dat elke gewelddadige handeling door iemand van een moslim achtergrond is nu "terrorisme":

1. dan gevolgd door claims van "onze 9-11";

2. dan collectieve bestraffing, met inbegrip van "arrestaties" van "een islamitische netwerk."

3. Ook gooien in de bewering dat de aanval door een enkele dader van islamitische achtergrond is "een aanval op onze waarden.

Gewelddadige misdrijven door de moslims zijn nu "terrorisme", maar verder dan de collectieve straf die volgt is de onwil om de stemmen van de oppositie tegen deze onrechtmatige beleid van de kant van het "slachtoffer" staat te nemen. De islamitische gemeenschappen die slachtoffer zijn van post-geweld beleid lijken te worden uitgesloten van elke discussie over veiligheidskwesties en criminalisering van de gemeenschap lijkt zich ook voordoen.

De studie kader - emancipatie-advocacy aanpak van kritische Terrorisme studies. Het kader dat ik zal gebruiken maakt gebruik van een rationele actor, "de Franse Staat" en wat wordt aangeduid als emancipatie-advocacy aanpak van kritische Terrorisme studies. De aanpak omvat het verwijderen van de staat centric aanpak en de visie van de "Franse staat als slachtoffer," wordt gebruikt door de orthodoxe terrorisme studies en de mondiale massamedia de dekking van de Toulouse schieten. De aanpak is vanuit het oogpunt van de Franse moslims die nu doorstaan ​​onderdrukkende maatregelen en arrestaties in de nasleep van de schietpartij. Ook een deel van de aanpak zal zijn van de Franse Staat verplichtingen op grond van Europese en mensenrechtenverdragen, deze "arrestaties" als onderdeel van een "islamitische netwerk" als onderdeel van de beperkingen op de vrijheid van godsdienst en meningsuiting, dat is een deel van de beperkingen van vrijheden van de Franse moslims, met inbegrip van pogingen om een ​​up komende islamitische conferentie af te sluiten.

Vraag: Wat zijn de reacties van de Franse staat na de eenzame schutter schietpartij in Toulouse en hoe ze zijn vierkant met de Franse staat is als een democratische, pluralistische samenleving en de internationale verplichtingen aan haar islamitische burgers?

Een paar hypotheses:

1. De reacties van de Franse Staat aan de beschieting door een eenzame schutter bedrag aan schending van de mensenrechten: vrijheid van meningsuiting, vrijheid van meningsuiting, godsdienstvrijheid, naast andere mogelijke overtredingen.
2.  "Islamitische netwerken" zijn eigenlijk religieuze netwerken en "arresteren leden" in de nasleep van het geweld is het gevolg van verenigingen (echte en via internet) de religieuze netwerk heeft met de dader.

3..Geweld door iedereen van islamitische achtergrond is altijd gebrandmerkt als "jihad" en "terrorisme".

Iets zal worden gedaan over deze schendingen van de Franse staat. Ik zal mailing met behulp van standaard berichten in dit verslag aan de internationale instellingen, waaronder de Verenigde Naties zijn, en hopen dat het bewustzijn kan worden verhoogd en de acties tegen misleidende en anti-moslim reacties van Europese landen in de nasleep van "moslim geweld." Again - dit geval studie zal de grondslag worden gelegd werk voor een grotere studie van de Nederlandse Staat. Terwijl Sarkozy is van plan de rechten van de mens van de islamitische misbruik in de nasleep van deze verschrikkelijke schietpartij voor zijn eigen politiek gewin - ook ik ben van plan om optimaal te profiteren in de naam van belangenbehartiging voor de Franse moslims, bewust te maken van hoe veel werk moet worden gedaan in Europa om de mensenrechten te bevorderen en kaderen de juiste antwoorden op het geweld die niet collectief te straffen hele gemeenschappen en criminaliseren van de praktijk van het geloof.

Het papier zal aanbevelingen doen voor individuen en internationale organisaties om betrokken te raken en het bewustzijn dat zal op basis van bevindingen van de studie te verhogen. Aangezien de Europese instellingen, en andere internationale instellingen (zoals de Verenigde Naties) zijn niet hun werk te doen - we moeten doen hun werk voor hen. De Europese Unie, via Europol, zal, waarschijnlijk aansluiten bij de inspanningen om gezamenlijk Franse moslims te straffen van de misdaden van een enkele persoon. Er zijn belangrijke kwesties op het gebied van de mensenrechten, moet de rechtsstaat en de fundamentele recht van de Franse staat anser in termen van de zeer misplaatste en anti-moslim reactie van de gewelddadige misdaden van een enkele persoon. Dit moet niet worden toegestaan ​​om verder te gaan!


Thursday, March 22, 2012

Shootings in France to become “terrorism?!” Of course – only Muslims commit "terrorism!"

As sure as the sun rises in the east, the murders of children in a Jewish school will be turned into “acts of terrorism” by French authorities. Since the perpetrator is Mohammed Merah, we can fully expect the French government to now claim that this lone crazy is “linked to al-Qaeda terrorism,” just as Mohammed Bouyeri is “linked to international terrorism” when he killed Theo van Gogh.  Note that only the Dutch State called Mohammed Bouyeri a “terrorist” and only the Dutch State has called Hofstadgroep an “international terrorist group.”  There actually is no evidence outside of the Dutch State that the Theo van Gogh killing was “an act of Al-Qaeda terrorism” and Mohammed Bouyeri probably acted alone for his own twisted reasons. Likewise, this killer probably acted alone for his own twisted reasons, just as the US soldier slaughtered 16 civilians, 9 of them children in an Afghanistan village or when Gianluca Casser acted alone when he gunned down Senegalese street vendors in Italy last December .  The above acts are not “terrorism” –and neither was the Alphen aan den Rijn attack a year ago by a native Dutchman with a love for weapons.

What is and isn’t “terrorism” based on religious background of murder suspects. As in a previous post, the Orthodox terrorism field is largely entangled with governments and views these governments as “innocent victims.”  The Orthodox terrorism field used shoddy scientific methods and Orthodox terrorism studies lacks study frameworks and over-indulges in disputable labels and categories, often wrapped in anti-Muslim narratives.   Another of the Orthodox terrorism studies field is that it has not arrived at a definition of “terrorism,” so nobody who is in the Orthodox terrorism studies field, especially if they are connected to the French State, has any business calling this “terrorism.”

We can also see how “terrorism” is operationalized to see that “terrorism” applies only to violent acts by Muslims. I have extensively pointed out that the most horrible terrorist attack in the Netherlands was the 2009, Queen’s Day Parade attack in Apeldoorn by Karst Tates against the Dutch royal family (directly attacking the Dutch people) in which 8 people died and 10 were injured.

[caption id="attachment_2582" align="alignleft" width="259" caption="Tristan van der Vlies was a shooter like Mohammed Merah - but not a "terrorist" because he was not a Muslim!"][/caption]

Just about a year ago, another young man with an interest in weapons, Tristan van der Vlies, went on a shooting rampage at a shopping mall Alphen aan den Rijn, a town located between Leiden and Utrecht. Besides killing himself, “Tristan” killed six people and injuried 16 others. “Tristan” was said to be a PVV voter and had a history of mental health problems.

We also know about the deadly shooting attack in Florence, Italy in December, by a radical right extremist, Gianluca Casser, directed at Senegalese street vendors.  This also has not been described as “terrorism” by the Italian government or the Orthodox terrorism studies field – but these shooting in France are “terrorism?!”

So– take a long look at what is “terrorism” and you will see that horrible criminal violence is “terrorism” because the suspect comes from a Muslim background.  These shootings in France as “terrorism” means that the operationalization of the “terrorism” label is based on the religious background of the suspect – meaning that counter-terrorism practice is biased and discriminatory against Muslims.

The shootings in France are “jihad terrorism” because “a Muslim did it.” These are horrible murders, criminal acts, (not terrorism) and an individual murder commits criminal acts as individuals for which the individual is punished for. However – you can bet that this “act of jihad terrorism” will become, as in the Netherlands, justification to criminalize religious faith and political opinions of the Muslim community. The French Muslim community did not commit this attack on a Jewish school, but Mohammed Merah alone is responsible. Also – labeling this (wrongly) as “terrorism” will then justify the drawing up of a profile from this single individual and attempting to pin it on others – who may not at all be thinking about murder. Most of all, these horrible murders will be used to justify the continued advancement of the “clash of civilization” as a foreign and domestic governance paradigm, which will lead to more violence and wars, more loss of freedom and social cohesion.

We must work to resist this and demand that the “jihad terrorist” label not be pinned on every violent criminal from a Muslim background. We must work against the mad tendency to not only label these killings as “terrorism,” but the tendency to overblow this act out of proportion to other similar acts or worse acts committed by non-Muslims.

Governments, especially Western governments, have a lot to gain by “having acts of Al-Qaeda linked terrorism” on their soil, and they can be profitable.  For the Dutch State, the murder of Theo van Gogh as “terrorism” justified the criminalization of religious faith and political opinions bring about a system of “Muslim control” in the Netherlands.  It also has spawned a whole “jihad in the Netherlands” genre of books and papers – all of which are an echo chamber for the Dutch State’s claims that Mohammed Bouyeri was a “Al-Qeada terrorists” and Hofstadgroep an “al-Qaeda terrorist cell.” The Dutch State’s relations to the US and other nations are now defined on “preventing radicalization” exclusively focused on religious radicalization of Muslims.

The Theo van Gogh murder is now the calling card for the Dutch State and its phoney "security interests" on the international stage. Yep - the killing of "Theo" has been paying off for the Dutch State.

This is not “terrorism,” but a single,  perhaps highly disturbed,  individuals who like Karst Tates, Tristan van der Vlies, Gianluca Casser - Staff Sgt. Robert Bales-  – are in need of some intervention before going on a killing spree.  This intervention must also not be biased against religious faith or poilitical opinions. A killing spree has real victims no matter whet the motivations of the killers are – but to treat killing sprees by suspects based on the religious background of the suspect is discriminatory and used to then justify collective punishments and violations of the human rights of whole communities.

So - we see "terrorism" operationalized as "something only Muslims do." This is why the worst terrorist-type attack in the Netherlands, the 2009 Queen's Day attack in Apeldoorn against the royal family (8 dead, 10 injured) nor the Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall attack last year. Since neither the attackers were Muslims - these are not terrorist attacks - and this gives us a good idea of how "terrorism" is operationalized in the Netherlands.

To now label these horrible murders "terrorism" will build mounting evidence that "terrorism" is something that "only Muslims do." This means that Western governments (France, the Netherlands, the UK, the USA) use the label "terrorism" when a single person kills for his own personal reasons is a Muslim. This means that Western governments engage in discriminatory practices in counter-terrorism - and this violates various international and European human rights treaties and conventions.

We must work against the demonization and criminalization of religious faith and political viewpoints. We must provide some kind of pushback against the discriminatory use of the “terrorism” label appears to be applied only to violent acts by those with a Muslim background. This case out of France will be treated as “terrorism” when other similar crimes by non-Muslims are not “terrorism” and become mounting evidence that Western counter-terrorism studies and practice have a biased against Muslims – and we must work against this anti-Muslim, counter-terrorism bias.


Dutch Mall Shooter Fired More Than 100 Times

7 killed, 15 wounded in Dutch mall shooting

'No contact' with French shootings suspect

Florence street vendors shot dead by lone gunman

Merah: From petty criminal to killer





Monday, March 12, 2012

Faulty and biased terrorism studies field behind NYPD's radicalization model

“I asked these two [advisers to a government counterterrorism expert], ‘how did you get your jobs?’ and they say, ‘oh, we had the only qualification this person wanted...we knew nothing about terrorism.’” (from an interview with a terrorism expert, 2006)- qtd. in Stampnitzky 2011, 1.

The faulty and biased world of (Orthodox) terrorism studies. The NYPD’s “radicalization model” emerged out of a study field that has been criticized in the past of shoddy social scientific methods, the overuse of labels and stereotypes, and producing anti-Muslim narratives. What is especially noticeable about terrorism studies are that they do not calculate the effects of State (Western governments) practices and policies on such important things, like human rights. The ramifications of counter-terrorism policies on human rights on the part of State policies are never considered in terrorism studies.

The Dutch State (aka “the Netherlands”) is not innocent victim and Theo van Gogh murder appears to be used as an excuse for the Dutch State to embrace the repression of Muslims, as well as AIVD spying that probably has a chilling effect on Muslim participation in the social and political life of the country. The use of the “radicalization” label in the Netherlands is as it is in the NYPD, as short-hand for “dangerous Muslim” and provides mere suspicion to investigate without a crime having been committed (Center for Human Rights and Global Justice 2011, 43). In a manner of Pim Fortuyn, all Muslims are dangerous and Islam is a “violent ideology.” Orthodox terrorism studies views states, like the Netherlands (the Dutch State), as an innocent victim of terrorism (the Theo van Gogh murder) that should “meet challenges to its power.”

There have been a few observers that have rendered their critical judgments against (Orthodox) terrorism studies. The field of terrorism studies, which has blossomed after September 11, 2001, is void of especially study frameworks and standard social scientific practices. Studies of the discourse of Orthodox terrorism field show also show that the field, besides viewing states as innocent victims, extensively uses labeling, anti-Muslim narratives and the view that Islam is always violent and there is a threat anywhere there are Muslim immigrants. The most damming accusation is that Orthodox terrorism experts are often employed by governments, and findings by such experts cannot be trusted (Blakeley 2007, Jackson 2007, Weinberg and Eubank, 2008, Stampnitzky 2011).

“Islamic terrorism” discourse is, first, loaded with key terms, labels and assumptions are highly contestable and the discourse is based on simplifications and generalizations. The dominate narratives of “Islamist terrorism” in Orthodox terrorism and counter-terrorism studies are of a political and contestable nature. The ways in which “Islamic terrorism” is interpreted and socially constructed are an “existential threat” serves to justify various political and social policies in the social order in a state (Jackson 2007, 412, 425), like the Dutch State.

In his study of 300 works of “Islamist terrorism” discourses Richard Jackson (2007) found that there was an extensive use of various labels, including, but not limited to: “Islamist,” “jihadist,” “political Islam,” “the West,” “Salafis,” “radicalism,” “global jihadist movement.” The usage of these terms was often vaguely defined, if defined at all, and was highly flexible in deployment and categories. These labels are arranged in dualistic, oppositional pairs, such as “the West versus the Islamic world” and “democratic versus totalitarian” (400). Jackson finds that the discourse’s underlying assumption is that violence, contrast to Christianity, is inherent to Islam as Islam marks no difference between Church and State. The assumption also includes the notion that governance of Muslim nations includes State regulation of the public and private lives of Muslims and the connection between political Islam and violence. From these assumptions between Islam and violence springs the assumption that terrorism is directly linked to, and inspired from, extremist and fundamentalist forms of Islam. Many works appear to take an automatic link of “Islamist,” “Wahhabist” and “Salafist” directly to terrorism and political violence. These works often drew upon cultural stereotypes and long-running hostility toward Islam and Muslims in the mainstream media (403-404, 401).

The mad, mad, mad, mad search for a “radicalization model.” At the same time, terrorism studies is in a mad, mad search for a “radicalization model” that appears to demonize faithful Muslims, especially faithful Muslims with various political opinions and world views. To the NYPD’s “radicalization model,” being a Muslim already marks the Muslim as a deviant and a criminal. As a result of this mad search for a “radicalization model” by a field with faulty scientific methods, this field is adapting the NYPD’s “radicalization model” – and this is why we have anybody who is “Muslim” being investigated by police intelligence without a grain of evidence the “Muslim” is actually involved in criminal activity. Radicalization models exist, and they don’t demonize any religious faith or political viewpoint, but stick to violent criminal behavior only.

Anthony Richards (2010) is his study of the UK’s “Prevent” program found that the term “radicalization,” which implies threat, can be used to describe behavior and beliefs that have nothing to do with violence and terrorism. Richards questions the utility of “radicalization” as a focus of responses to terrorism, as establishing what the term means have become confused and convoluted, and no real clarity exists to the meaning of “radicalization” (144). Richards then asks: Who then are the “radicalized? Are they just people who engage in violent acts – or people who understand why some might want to commit violent acts? Richards noted a survey that was given by the UK Office of Security and Counter-terrorism that included focus groups and interviews with British Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Somali individuals and found that while they rejected the means carried out by the terrorists, they sympathized with causes of injustices and oppression of Muslims as espoused by terrorists and felt that they had legitimate grievances.

Are these people “radicalized?” Do people that believe that Islam is incompatible with democracy radicalized? Or people who believe that sharia law would be good for the UK, are they radicalized? Richards questions the focus of the term “radicalized” on what people think and believe, and not on behavior, especially violent behavior (144-145). While Richards believes that the root causes of terrorism should be understood, the focus on broad and opaque notions of “radicalization” lends to confused and convoluted responses (146).

The term “radicalization” and its anti-Muslim definitions are also causing problems in the US. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (2011) describes how the use of the NYPD’s “radicalization model” has become “popularized” and innocent, legally protected activities, like “growing a beard, wearing Islamic clothing” as “self identification,” along with cultural practices and political beliefs as “radicalization.” From this discriminatory definition, the government can and is taking actions against individuals without any evidence of criminal activity (42). We also know that, coupled with the use of biased, anti-Muslim materials that are used in law enforcement training, Orthodox terrorism studies and its mad, mad, mad, mad, search for a “radicalization model” are behind the targeting of innocent Muslims for nothing more than being Muslim. This is the abusive powers of states and their patrons in the Orthodox studies field.
The government’s targeting of the Muslim community in law enforcement operations also implicates the right to freedom of opinion and expression when individuals are subjected to greater scrutiny because of the particular political opinions they express. Anti-radicalization policies and resultant law enforcement practices—coupled with the general climate of Islamophobia they foment—also have an indirect chilling effect on freedom of expression and religion in the Muslim community more broadly (Center for Human Rights and Global Justice 2011, 43-44).

The Orthodox terrorism studies field cares little about human rights, religious freedom and free expression in liberal democracies, and such practices in liberal democracies are perhaps counterproductive and get in the way of “finding jihadists.” To the Orthodox terrorism studies field, it is as if we all live in states where freedoms, like religious freedom, don’t exist. Since “finding jihadists” (if any exist at all) is the only worthy goal of the State, we have the acceptance of the NYPD’s “radicalization model” by members of this field. The State (especially Western governments) must come to the place of setting the rights and liberties outside of protection just to find perhaps a few or no “dangerous jihadists?” Yes, the NYPD has done exactly that with its massive spy program. This is not freedom and liberty – it is tyranny – and the NYPD is an anti-American policing organization that is openly flaunting American values. The ramifications of bringing anti-Muslim terrorism studies into policies and the search for a “radicalization model” that fits only Muslims has now manifested itself in the NYPD’s spying program.

What is and isn’t terrorism in Orthodox terrorism studies. The State, like the Dutch state, must place Muslims outside of the protections of human rights and free expression that are defended for other groups, like PVVers and Volkskrant. Hate speech and “threatening speech” are vigorously prosecuted in the Netherlands when the speakers are Muslims or Leftists. At the same time, Geert Wilders is acquitted from his charges for abusing his notoriety and media access to spread myths about Muslims and creating societal hostility through the use of war talk that may have played a part in the terrorist attacks in Norway last July.

Just as Hofstadgroep has never been studies as a street gang and branded a “terrorist organization,” we can learn what a state like the Dutch State regards as “terrorism.” We can also note that the worst terrorist-type event on Dutch soil since the September 11 attacks on the US was NOT the Theo van Gogh murder – but the Queen’s Day 2009 attack in Apeldoorn by Karst Tates (a suspected right wing radical) against a bus carrying the royal family. This attack is nowhere on the radar screen of terrorism studies “experts and researchers.” So – what is “terrorism,” like “radicalization,” is confined to Muslims – and this view is biased and discriminatory, and has no place in security and law enforcement in liberal democracies. There should be NO adaption of the NYPD model by police and security forces of liberal democracies that defend religious freedom and expression for ALL its members – and the usage of the NYPD model by democratic societies must be prohibited.

Ethnic registration for the Netherlands by other means. A warning to the Dutch: We now see that the Dutch Justice Ministry’s Ivo Opstelten wants the NYPD model for the Netherlands. This could mean just police organization, but it could include the “Demographic Unit.” We should remember that Geert Wilders (the puppet master in the Dutch state) wanted and ethnic registration program. Here is the quote from the Netherlands Embassy to the US:
While in New York City, the Minister will meet NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly and the New York Port Authority to focus on policing techniques and countering violent extremism. The organization of the NYPD will also be of interest to the Minister. In the Netherlands, the police are now organized by region. Under Minister Opstelten, the police will become an integrated national police force reporting to one police commissioner, a construct that will be similar to the NYPD model.

It seems that Geert Wilders will get his ethnic registration by other means…and I, for one, am keeping a fixed eye on the Dutch State and its abuses.



Blakeley, Ruth. 2007. Bringing the State back into Terrorism Studies. European Consortium for Political Research. 6(3), 228-253.

Burke, Anthony . 2008. The end of terrorism studies. Critical Studies on Terrorism. Vol. 1, No. 1, (April), 37–49.

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. 2011. Targeted and Entrapped: Manufacturing the ‘Homegrown Threat’ in the United States. New York: NYU School of Law. Located at accessed on March 9, 2012.

Franks, Jason. Rethinking the Roots of Terrorism: Orthodox Terrorism Theory and Beyond. October 10, 2005.

Jackson, Richard. 2007. Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse. Government and Opposition, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 394–426.

Jackson, Richard. 2008. The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies.

Jackson, Richard, Eamon Murphy and Scott Poynting, eds. 2008. Contemporary state terrorism: Theory and practices. Routledge: New York, NY.

Richards, Anthony. 2010. The problem with ‘radicalization’: the remit of ‘Prevent’ and the need to refocus on terrorism in the UK. International Affairs 87:1, 143–152.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. 2011. Disciplining an Unruly Field: Terrorism Experts and Theories of Scientific/Intellectual Production. Qual Sociol. 34:1–19.

Weinberg, Leonard and William Eubank. 2008. Problems with the critical studies approach to the study of terrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism. Vol. 1, No. 2, (August), 185–195.

Related post:

Questioning Dutch and American uses of Muslim "Radicalization"

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Defecte en bevooroordeeld terrorisme studies veld achter NYPD radicalisering model

"Ik heb deze twee [adviseurs om een ​​regering te terrorismebestrijding deskundige] vroeg: 'hoe heb je je werk te krijgen?' En ze zeggen:" oh, we de enige kwalificatie die persoon wilde hebben ... we wisten niets over terrorisme. '"(uit een interview met een terrorisme-expert, 2006) -qtd. in Stampnitzky 2011, 1.

De defecte en bevooroordeelde wereld van de (orthodoxe) terrorisme studies. De NYPD's 'radicalisering model "is voortgekomen uit een studie veld dat is gekritiseerd in het verleden van ondeugdelijke sociaal-wetenschappelijke methoden, het overmatig gebruik van etiketten en stereotypen, en het produceren van anti-islamitische verhalen. Wat is vooral merkbaar over terrorisme studies zijn dat ze niet de effecten van de Staat (westerse regeringen) praktijken en het beleid over dergelijke belangrijke dingen, zoals rechten van de mens te berekenen. De gevolgen van de bestrijding van terrorisme beleid op het gebied van de mensenrechten van de kant van State beleid wordt nooit overwogen bij terrorisme studies.

De Nederlandse Staat (ook bekend als "Nederland") is niet onschuldig slachtoffer en Theo van Gogh moord lijkt te worden gebruikt als een excuus voor de Nederlandse Staat om de onderdrukking van moslims te omarmen, maar ook AIVD spionage, die waarschijnlijk een ontmoedigende uitwerking op moslim deelname aan het sociale en politieke leven van het land. Het gebruik van de "radicalisering" label als een korte-hand voor "gevaarlijke moslim" en biedt een vermoeden te onderzoeken, zonder een misdaad te hebben gepleegd (Center for Human Rights and Global Justice 2011, 43). Bij wijze van Pim Fortuyn, alle moslims zijn gevaarlijk en de islam is een "gewelddadige ideologie." Orthodoxe terrorisme studies ziet staten, zoals Nederland (de Nederlandse Staat), als een onschuldig slachtoffer van terrorisme (de moord op Theo van Gogh), dat moet "aangaan van de uitdagingen om zijn macht."

Er zijn een aantal waarnemers dat hun kritische beoordelingen hebben gemaakt tegen de (orthodoxe) terrorisme studies. Het gebied van terrorisme studies, die tot bloei na 11 september 2001, is ontdaan van het bijzonder onderzoek naar kaders en standaard sociaal-wetenschappelijke praktijken. Studies van het discours van de orthodoxe terrorisme veld weer te geven tonen ook aan dat het veld, naast het bekijken van staten als onschuldige slachtoffers uitgebreid, etikettering, anti-moslim verhalen en de opvatting dat de islam altijd gewelddadig is en er is een bedreiging overal zijn er islamitische immigranten. Het meest afsluiting beschuldiging is dat de orthodoxe terrorisme-experts worden vaak gebruikt door overheden, en conclusies van deze deskundigen niet te vertrouwen (Blakeley 2007, Jackson 2007, Weinberg en Eubank, 2008, Stampnitzky 2011).

"Islamitisch terrorisme" discours wordt eerst,, geladen met de belangrijkste begrippen, labels en veronderstellingen zijn zeer betwistbaar en het discours is gebaseerd op vereenvoudigingen en generalisaties. De domineren verhalen van "islamistisch terrorisme" in orthodoxe terrorisme en terrorismebestrijding onderzoek is van een politieke en betwistbaar de natuur. De wijze waarop "islamitisch terrorisme" wordt geïnterpreteerd en sociaal geconstrueerd zijn een "existentiële bedreiging" dient te rechtvaardigen diverse politieke en sociaal beleid in de sociale orde in een staat (Jackson 2007, 412, 425), net als de Nederlandse Staat.

In zijn studie van 300 werken van "islamitisch terrorisme" Richard Jackson (2007) vonden dat er een uitgebreid gebruik van verschillende labels, waaronder, maar niet beperkt tot: "islamistische", "jihadistische", "politieke islam", "het Westen , "" salafisten "," radicalisme "," wereldwijde jihadistische beweging. "Het gebruik van deze termen is vaak vaag omschreven, indien gedefinieerd helemaal niet, en was zeer flexibel in inzet en categorieën. Deze labels zijn ingedeeld in dualistische, oppositioneel paren, zoals "het Westen ten opzichte van de islamitische wereld" en "democratische versus totalitaire" (400). Jackson vindt dat het discours van de onderliggende veronderstelling is dat geweld, contrast tot het christendom, is inherent aan de islam als de islam markeert geen verschil tussen Kerk en Staat. De veronderstelling bevat ook de notie dat het bestuur van de islamitische landen staat de regulering van de publieke en prive-leven van moslims en de verbinding tussen de politieke islam en geweld bevat. Van deze aannames tussen de islam en geweld veren in de veronderstelling dat het terrorisme direct gekoppeld is aan, en geïnspireerd op, extremistische en fundamentalistische vormen van islam. Veel werken lijken een automatische koppeling van de "islamistische", "wahabitische" en "salafistische" direct naar het terrorisme en politiek geweld te nemen. Deze werkt vaak trok op culturele stereotypen en langlopende vijandigheid tegenover de islam en moslims in de mainstream media (403-404, 401).

Het gek, gek, gek, gek zoeken naar een "radicalisering model." Tegelijkertijd, terrorisme studies is in een gekke, gekke zoektocht naar een 'radicalisering model ", dat lijkt gelovige moslims, in het bijzonder gelovige moslims te demoniseren met verschillende politieke opvattingen en wereldbeelden. Om de NYPD's 'radicalisering model, "dat een moslim al markeert de moslim als een afwijkend en een crimineel. Als gevolg van deze waanzinnige zoektocht naar een 'radicalisering model "door een veld met defecte wetenschappelijke methoden, wordt dit veld aanpassing van de NYPD's' radicalisering model" - en dit is de reden waarom we hebben iedereen die "moslim" wordt onderzocht door de politie intelligentie zonder een kern van het bewijs van de "moslim" is daadwerkelijk betrokken bij criminele activiteiten. Radicalisering modellen bestaan​​, en ze niet demoniseren enige religieuze geloof of politiek oogpunt, maar alleen vasthouden aan gewelddadig crimineel gedrag.

Anthony Richards (2010) is zijn studie van de Britse "Voorkomen" programma gevonden dat de term "radicalisering", die dreiging inhoudt, kan worden gebruikt om het gedrag en de overtuigingen die niets te maken met geweld en terrorisme te beschrijven. Richards twijfelt aan het nut van "radicalisering" als een focus van de reacties op terrorisme, zoals vaststelling van wat de term betekent zijn geworden verward en ingewikkeld, en geen echte duidelijkheid bestaat om de betekenis van "radicalisering" (144). Richards vraagt ​​dan: Wie zijn dan de 'geradicaliseerde? Zijn ze gewoon mensen die zich bezighouden met geweld - of mensen die begrijpen waarom sommigen willen gewelddadige acties? Richards nota genomen van een enquête die werd gegeven door het Britse Office of Veiligheid en terrorismebestrijding dat de focusgroepen en interviews met de Britse Pakistani, Bangladeshi en Somalische de personen die en vond dat, terwijl zij verwierpen de middelen die door de terroristen gedragen, ze sympathiseerde met de oorzaken van onrecht en onderdrukking van moslims als gesteund door terroristen en het gevoel dat ze legitieme grieven hadden.

Zijn deze mensen "geradicaliseerd?" Zijn de mensen die geloven dat de islam onverenigbaar is met democratie te radicaliseren? Of mensen die geloven dat de sharia zou goed zijn voor het Verenigd Koninkrijk, zijn ze geradicaliseerd? Richards vragen de focus van de term 'geradicaliseerde' op wat mensen denken en geloven, en niet op gedrag, vooral gewelddadig gedrag (144-145). Terwijl Richards van mening dat de onderliggende oorzaken van het terrorisme moet worden verstaan​​, de focus op brede en ondoorzichtige begrippen "radicalisering" leent voor verwarde en ingewikkelde reacties (146).

Het woord "radicalisering" en zijn anti-islamitische definities worden ook veroorzaakt problemen in de VS. De Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (2011) beschrijft hoe het gebruik van de NYPD's 'radicalisering model "is geworden" populair "en onschuldig, wettelijk beschermde activiteiten, zoals" het kweken van een baard, het dragen van islamitische kleding' als "zelf identificatie," samen met culturele praktijken en politieke overtuigingen als "radicalisering." Van deze discriminerende definitie, de overheid kan en wordt maatregelen te nemen tegen individuen, zonder enig bewijs van criminele activiteiten (42). We weten ook dat, in combinatie met het gebruik van partijdige en anti-moslim materialen die worden gebruikt in de rechtshandhaving opleiding, orthodoxe terrorisme studies en zijn gek, gek, gek, gek, zoek een "radicalisering model" achter de gerichtheid van onschuldige moslims voor niets meer dan moslim. Dit is het misbruik bevoegdheden van staten en hun beschermheren in de orthodoxe studies veld.
De overheid is gericht op de moslimgemeenschap in rechtshandhavingsoperaties ook impliceert het recht op vrijheid van mening en meningsuiting wanneer individuen worden blootgesteld aan meer toezicht vanwege de bijzondere politieke meningen die ze uiten. Anti-radicalisering het beleid en de daaruit voortvloeiende rechtshandhaving praktijken-in combinatie met het algemene klimaat van islamofobie ze stoken-ook een indirect chilling effect hebben op de vrijheid van meningsuiting en godsdienst hebben in de islamitische gemeenschap in bredere zin (Center for Human Rights and Global Justice 2011, 43 - 44).

De Orthodoxe terrorisme studies veld geeft weinig over de mensenrechten, godsdienstvrijheid en vrije meningsuiting in liberale democratieën, en dergelijke praktijken in liberale democratieën zijn misschien wel contraproductief en in de weg van "het vinden van jihadisten." Om de orthodoxe terrorisme studies veld, het is zo als we allemaal leven in staten waar vrijheden, zoals vrijheid van godsdienst, niet bestaan. Aangezien "het vinden van jihadisten" (als die al bestaan​​) is de enige waardige doel van de staat, hebben we de aanvaarding van de NYPD's 'radicalisering model "door leden van dit gebied. De staat (vooral westerse regeringen) moet komen naar de plaats van het instellen van de rechten en vrijheden buiten de bescherming alleen maar om misschien een weinig of geen vinden "gevaarlijke jihadisten?" Ja, de NYPD heeft precies gedaan, dat met zijn enorme spion programma. Dit is geen vrijheid en vrijheid - het is tirannie - en de NYPD is een anti-Amerikaanse politie-organisatie die openlijk pronken met Amerikaanse waarden. De gevolgen van te brengen anti-moslim terrorisme studies in het beleid en de zoektocht naar een 'radicalisering model "dat alleen moslims past is nu manifesteerde zich in spionage programma van de NYPD.

Wat wel en wat niet het terrorisme in orthodoxe terrorisme studies. De Staat, net als de Nederlandse staat, moet plaatsen moslims buiten de bescherming van de mensenrechten en vrije meningsuiting die worden verdedigd voor andere groepen, zoals de PVVers en Volkskrant. Hate speech en "bedreiging speech" zijn krachtig vervolgd in Nederland wanneer de luidsprekers zijn moslims of linksen. Tegelijkertijd wordt Geert Wilders vrijgesproken van zijn kosten voor het misbruik van zijn bekendheid en media de toegang tot mythen over moslims te verspreiden en het creëren van maatschappelijke vijandigheid door het gebruik van de oorlog praten, dat kan een rol hebben gespeeld bij de terreur aanslagen in Noorwegen afgelopen juli.

Net zoals Hofstadgroep nog nooit is geweest studies als een straatbende en gebrandmerkt een "terroristische organisatie," we kunnen leren wat een staat als de Nederlandse Staat met betrekking tot "het terrorisme." We kunnen er ook rekening mee dat de ergste terroristische-type evenement op Nederlandse bodem sinds de aanslagen van 11 september op de VS was niet de moord op Theo van Gogh - maar de Koninginnedag 2009 aanslag in Apeldoorn door Karst Tates (een vermoeden van rechts radicale) tegen een bus met de koninklijke familie. Deze aanval is nergens op het radarscherm van het terrorisme studies Dus "experts en onderzoekers." - Wat is "terrorisme", zoals "radicalisering", is beperkt tot moslims - en deze visie is bevooroordeeld en discriminerend, en heeft geen plaats in de veiligheid en rechtshandhaving in liberale democratieën. Er mag geen aanpassing van de NYPD model in door de politie en veiligheidstroepen van liberale democratieën die vrijheid van godsdienst en van meningsuiting voor al haar leden te verdedigen zijn - en het gebruik van de NYPD model door een democratische samenleving moet worden verboden.

Etnische registratie voor Nederland met andere middelen. Een waarschuwing voor de Nederlanders: We zien nu dat het Nederlandse ministerie van Justitie Ivo Opstelten de NYPD-model voor Nederland wil. Dit zou kunnen betekenen alleen maar politie-organisatie, maar het kan het zijn "Demografische Unit." We moeten niet vergeten dat Geert Wilders (de Puppet Master in de Nederlandse staat) wilde en etnische registratie programma. Hier is het citaat van de ambassade Nederland naar de VS:
Terwijl in New York City, zal de minister aan NYPD commissaris Raymond Kelly en de New York Port Authority zich te richten op de politie technieken en het tegengaan van gewelddadig extremisme. De organisatie van de NYPD is ook van belang voor de minister. In Nederland is de politie nu georganiseerd door de regio. Onder minister Opstelten, zal de politie uitgegroeid tot een geïntegreerde nationale politie melden om een ​​commissaris van politie, een constructie die vergelijkbaar zijn met de NYPD model.

Het lijkt erop dat Geert Wilders zal zijn etnische registratie te krijgen op een andere manier ... en ik, voor een, ben dat een stilstaand oog op de Nederlandse Staat en de misbruiken.



Blakeley, Ruth. 2007. Bringing the State back into Terrorism Studies. European Consortium for Political Research. 6(3), 228-253.

Burke, Anthony . 2008. The end of terrorism studies. Critical Studies on Terrorism. Vol. 1, No. 1, (April), 37–49.

Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. 2011. Targeted and Entrapped: Manufacturing the ‘Homegrown Threat’ in the United States. New York: NYU School of Law. Located at accessed on March 9, 2012.

Franks, Jason. Rethinking the Roots of Terrorism: Orthodox Terrorism Theory and Beyond. October 10, 2005.

Jackson, Richard. 2007. Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse. Government and Opposition, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 394–426.

Jackson, Richard. 2008. The Ghosts of State Terror: Knowledge, Politics and Terrorism Studies.

Jackson, Richard, Eamon Murphy and Scott Poynting, eds. 2008. Contemporary state terrorism: Theory and practices. Routledge: New York, NY.

Richards, Anthony. 2010. The problem with ‘radicalization’: the remit of ‘Prevent’ and the need to refocus on terrorism in the UK. International Affairs 87:1, 143–152.

Stampnitzky, Lisa. 2011. Disciplining an Unruly Field: Terrorism Experts and Theories of Scientific/Intellectual Production. Qual Sociol. 34:1–19.

Weinberg, Leonard  and William Eubank. 2008. Problems with the critical studies approach to the study of terrorism. Critical Studies on Terrorism. Vol. 1, No. 2, (August), 185–195.

Zie ook:

Nederlandse en Amerikaanse gebruik van de islamitische "Radicalisering"