Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

My message to the US Mission to the European Union: Stop the meddling, Restore the EU-Russia relationship, GET OUT OF EUROPE!


Well - first of all, Europe must be emancipated from American hegemony. European nations and the European Union must stop being vessel states to the US. the first thing European leaders need to do is to learn to say "no" to America and its narrow, selfish Atlanticist interests. The latest sabotaging of the nice relationship between Russia further indicate how much some European leaders are willing to undermine the own best interests to please America. The "cooperation" on the CIA renditions program is another awful example of European leaders trading good sense for American interests!

When you are driven out of the European Union, on your way to the airport in Brussels, please stop by the NATO HQ and close the doors behind you. This complex that houses the outdated and useless monster of American hegemony should be returned to something more useful, like the hospital that it once was...

Second, The EU-Russia relationship must be restored and steps taken to prevent American meddling from ever coming in between the EU and Russia ever again! We need to work with civil societies, NGOs and academics that continue to maintain working relationships with between the EU and Russia. It is through civil societies that the EU-Russia relationship must be restore and American meddling eliminated!

 I did my master's project on the EU -Russia relationship. As a holder of a Masters in National Security studies I intend to do everything in my power to speak up and work to restore the EU-Russia relationship. Sanctions, threats, belligerence, confrontation are simply not the European way of doing things with Russia. This is the American way, so it's easy to see that EU leaders are being pushed by Washington!

Third - EU leaders that are cooperating in these conter-productive sanctions and cooperating with US efforts against Russia and protecting the neo-Nazis now running the Ukrainian government need to be sacked from their positions! the first EU leaders who need to be fired is Catherine Ashton! Mrs. Ashton has no business as EU high rep. for foreign policy - NO Atlanticist should be allowed to be an EU high rep!

As an American citizen - I not only RENOUNCE what "my country" is doing in in the European Union and Ukraine - and fully intend to work against whenever and wherever possible! I RENOUNCE what America is doing in Ukraine and fully intend to oppose these dubious activities on whatever level I can oppose them!

Restore the EU-Russia relationship, NOW! Better together! 
 ---
I really mean this ... and it is only by first pointing out to Europeans that their countries and their "project" and just vassals to Washington can Europeans wake up and take steps to reduce American meddling and emancipate themselves from the American yoke!  

Saturday, October 13, 2012

The European Union wins the peace prize- finally!

Giving the European Union the Nobel Peace Prize is actually long overdue. The European Coal and Steel Community was, as I wrote in July 2009, first intended to put an end to centuries of power games and bloody wars between Europeans, especially between France and Germany. In Coal, Steel and Reconciliation: The Development of the European Community and Union - I demonstrate that the first purpose was establishment of lasting peace and that economic integration was the vehicle to achieve lasting peace. Economic integration also included political integration - and this lead to cooperation of common issues, including in foreign policy. What then followed was the "habit of working together" that also made wars between European nations unthinkable. Excerpts from the Schuman Declaration (emphasis mine) of Robert Schuman:
The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.

Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries.

It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.

The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.

This production will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising living standards and to promoting peaceful achievements. With increased resources Europe will be able to pursue the achievement of one of its essential tasks, namely, the development of the African continent. In this way, there will be realised simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions.

By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.

Read the rest - but it becomes apparent that economic integration and its instruments ("common market," "the euro," the Schengen Agreement) are actually intended to bring about the goal of lasting peace on the European Continent. Economic integration of Europe itself is not the main goal of the European community, know today as the European Union.




Most of the articles out there on the reaction to the EU's Nobel Peace Prize show this gross misunderstanding of the real purposes of the Union - and tend to emphasis the economic purpose. These articles focus on the economic crisis and are worded as if the authors believe that economic purposes of the Union were the only purposes of the Union. One such article is an editorial from the Boston Globe:
[M]ost Nobel Peace Prizes make an implicit statement about current affairs. Is this one saying that the EU’s stronger states, most notably Germany, should ease up on Greece and others to keep the union together? Or are the Norwegians, whose country conspicuously stayed out of the euro, telling the union’s weaker economies that they should feel grateful for the help they’re getting from Brussels? A prize to Greek protesters or German central bankers would have sent a clearer message. But amid anxieties across a continent whose major powers plunged the world into war twice in the last century, a vaguer, warmer message surely can’t hurt.

How ignorant... and ... what would Greek protestors or German bankers have to do with peace in Europe and elsewhere?!!! The Boston Globe editor needs a course on modern European history!

This article has no mention of how the purpose of the wedding between France and Germany through economic integration had to do with establishing a lasting peace - not "weak and strong economies."  The award of the Peace Prize to the European union is long overdue - and does make a statement about current affairs - just take a look at the Balkans, where the war and bloodshed are being solved through slow, but sure integration of Croatia, Serbia and other nations into the EU.  Peace and stability must be established first, aid is sometimes a part, but this comes before a trading relationship. The EU has a regime of operation, called Europeanization, which helps build stability and bring about lasting peace outside of Europe too.  The process of working with the European Union is always slow, but eventually works for the benefit of all parties in the relationship.

Nobel Peace Committee understands the REAL purpose of the EU! The statement from the Nobel Committee hits the proverbial nail right on the head when it comes to the rational for awarding the EU the Prize. This statement makes it clear that the Nobel Committee truly understands the real purposes of the Union, and its has nothing to do with economics [see EU wins Nobel Peace Prize, EuropeanVoice - European Union wins Nobel Peace Prize -Reuters - Nobel peace prize leads EU to question its raison d'être - The Guradian]. It is for this reason why the European Union must be preserved - and not allowed to "go under." Given this first goal of achieving peace - the European Union will not fail!

Nobel Committee statement (emphasis mine):
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European Union (EU). The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.

In the inter-war years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a seventy-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.

In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined the EU. The introduction of democracy was a condition for their membership. The fall of the Berlin Wall made EU membership possible for several Central and Eastern European countries, thereby opening a new era in European history. The division between East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end; democracy has been strengthened; many ethnically-based national conflicts have been settled.

The admission of Croatia as a member next year, the opening of membership negotiations with Montenegro, and the granting of candidate status to Serbia all strengthen the process of reconciliation in the Balkans. In the past decade, the possibility of EU membership for Turkey has also advanced democracy and human rights in that country.

The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU’s most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.

The work of the EU represents "fraternity between nations", and amounts to a form of the "peace congresses" to which Alfred Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will.

Oslo, 12 October 2012



Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Islamophobia as an international security problem

The West's religious and political extremists and radicals. While the focus is on the small number of Middle East religious radicals who are rioting in new Arab democracies,  the serious and growing threat from anti-Muslim radicals and Islamophobic extremists is multifaceted in nature. This threat ranges from free roaming violent radicals, like Anders Breivik and the English Defense League, to advances made by "political parties" in European nations, like Geert Wilders and the PVV.  All of this activity by Islamophobic radicals is well funded by wealthy, but equally radical Israeli interests, perhaps with the Likud Party.

We could have told you about the Islamophobic extremists and radical elements that are responsible for the creation of the "Innocence of Muslims" hate film - and it should be clear to the world now how dangerous these elements are.  What should be made clear to the world is how these Western extremists and radicals abuse their freedom of speech rights to provoke violence and international crisis.

Promotion of a  New World Order according to Samuel Huntington. There is going to have to be adjustments in foreign and security policies of national governments and in the policies of international organizations (like the European Union) to deal with this (not so new) anti-Muslim radical and Islamophobic extremist factor on the international community. The world community needs to anticipate that the element will abuse free speech rights to provoke trouble, just as Jyllands-Posten abused its free press rights when it published the "Danish cartoons" and when Geert Wilders and Theo van Gogh abused their free expression rights to make anti-Muslim hate films.

There are those people from largely the Anglo-American conservative right hope to stoke up another Cold War, this time between the West and the Islamic world. We can see their desired New World Order is along the lines of Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" thesis, or "Clash" thesis. Clash thesis is a world ordered along the "faultlines" between largely religiously based "civilizations."  We have the notion that Greece (and probably Serbia) are with "Orthodox civilization"  (watch for calls to throw Greece out of Europe - its the "Trojan horse" for Russia). We have the notion of "Confucian civilization" dominated by China. But - more importantly - we have "Islamic civilization" and "Western civilization."

The largely Anglo-American conservative ilk would like to maintain hostile relations with especially Muslim majority countries of "Islamic civilization." This level of hostile relations is supposed to replace the Soviet Union.  In the opening pages of his book Huntington argues that "enemies are essential to identity" and "hating what we are not is to love who we are."  America, according to Huntington, needs to look for monsters to slay in the Muslim world.

[youtube id="zl3YU5XcmVM" w="300" h="250"]

We have to realize that Islamophobia is present in Ray Kelly, the NYPD commissioner, as well as Geert Wilders, down to Robert Spencer.  Paul Ryan showed up at a "values summit" that was full of extremists, including Frank Gaffney.  So- Islamophobia is not just for the fringe, but has been allowed access to mainstream politics. Islamophobia is what much of Orthodox terrorism studies are based on, including the celebration of the discredited "NYPD radicalization model." We must deal with Islamophobia and those who wish to promote "Clash" thesis as some kind of New World Order. This world order divided by Islamophobia and "hate of others not like us" will be one that promotes constant conflict and crisis. We must work against it and favor a world system that strives to work on respect, mutual understanding and peace.

And - the promotion of Islamophobia and using it to sabotage America's relationships -- are un-American!

The "Muslim rage" was actually small.  We must first come to realize that only a small percentage of "Muslims" protested the "anti-Islam film." Some observers are of the opinion that the Western media needs to be more responsible when covering events in the Middle East -- and that the "Muslim rage" was exaggerated:

What is disheartening is that some of the media coverage of the protests embodies the worst form of sensational journalism. There were headlines and stories that made it seem as though millions of Muslims across the world had taken to the streets, with Muslim countries in riots and businesses closed.



In Indonesia, a nation of over 200 million, several hundred people took part in protests. Just a few months ago, 50,000 Indonesians bought tickets to see a Lady Gaga concert before it was canceled. So, what does this say about Muslims in Indonesia?

In Egypt, a nation of over 80 million, about 2,000 people protested on Friday. Of those protesters, a few hundred were arrested by the police.

In Lebanon, no protests occurred until Monday. Why? Because the pope had been visiting the country, and the leader of Hezbollah, which the U.S. has labeled as a terrorist group, didn't want to do anything to interfere with the pope's historic three-day visit.

A small number of protesters should not define the entire Muslim population of over a billion. The media should know this and report the truth accordingly.

The U.S. media -- and we're not just talking about Newsweek or Joe Scarborough -- need to act in a more responsible way. It appears that our media are more focused on ratings than facts and accuracy. While the media jump on the story and then quickly move on to another story, their impact in defining a people and a culture can be lasting. Let's hope the wave of #MuslimRage responses prompts the media to think twice before they react.


There are now those in acedemics who work with statistics and who are now assessing just how many took part in "Muslim rage" riots. The numbers are small - by the exaggerating of the size and scope of the protests shows how irresponsible the Western mass media can be, and future reports are forthcoming.  Given that these riots were - indeed - small, Islam had nothing to do with these small riots and Muslims are not collectively to blame for violence!

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption=""Muslim rage" riots were small. People are currently studying the size of them."][/caption]

The need now to calculate Islamophobia into foreign and security policies. In terms of security, there should be NO reaction of Western agencies to "Muslim rage," since the riots and protests were actually very small. But - we will see some call by Western security agencies (there might have already) to "look out for lone wolf jihadists upset over this video." What a load of poppycock!

In terms of security, it is the promotion of Islamophobia by various actors that needs to be calculated into the foreign and security policies nations and international actors. It should be clear to the world that Islamophobia is now a global problem, and has been for some time.  We must realize that those that promote Islamophobia and create Islamophobic media do so with the hope of sabotaging relationships between especially the US and the "Muslim world."  This film and its publication in Egypt may have served the purpose of dividing Egypt and the Middle East world from a growing relationship with the US and the Western world. The other purpose of giving this film publicity was to destabilize young and vulnerable Arab democracies.

So - the need here is to immunize the growing relationships between young Middle East countries and Western nations, the US and the European Union.

Islamophobia used as a dividing tool by radical right-wing political leaders, media pundits and fringe groups alike will have to be calculated into foreign and security policies of states and international organizations. Governments and political leaders should adapt the mentality of building positive relationships with the Arab and Muslim countries that are based on respect and mutual understanding - and this can only be done through a long-term relationship with Arab and Muslim countries based on respect and mutual understanding.  Western nations, the US and European Union, should continue to work with and support young Arab democracies and work to immunize the relationships against those who wish to use Islamophobia to sabotage relationships, just as al-Qaeda elements work to sabotage relationships.

We should also work to make Islamophobia in the media just as taboo in Western society as anti-semitism and racism.  This is happening, but slowly, and those who promote Islamophobia are well funded and sometimes well connected (Geert Wilders and Frank Gaffney). Governments should take courage to form public and private partnerships to combat Islamophobia -- and private groups should be made ready for action in the form of letter writing and boycotts of those who are are involved in the promotion of Islamophobic speech.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Islam is not to blame for Middle East violence; free speech also applies to Muslims

Islamophobic radicals and extremists provoke violence, they find it fun. Like the hate merchants that they are, this violence in Yemen,  Egypt and the murders in Libya are partly to be blamed on those Islamophobic radicals and extremists who produced this video in the first place.  These radicals know full well what they are doing - and what the results would be - and it is right that good people everywhere condemn them and their "free speech." These radicals get some kind of twisted pleasure out of provoking other radical and extremists in the Middle East - and who created this outrageous movie is also a mystery, but it's believed to be a person by the name of Sam Bacile,  a Coptic Christian.



Now - while they argue that these hate merchants have "freedom of speech and expression" - let us first talk about also those in the Western world, living among Western security and police forces, who do not have the same level of "free speech" as these video producers. As I have written here before, if you wear a beard, robes, become a devout Muslim and express so-celled "anti-Western views"  - all supposedly protected by the First Amendment and the ECHR - YOU will be branded as "radicalized" and place on watchlists, watched by police and intelligence services, which could also include tampering with your freedom of movement, especially in the use of passenger air travel. [Faulty and biased terrorism studies field behind NYPD’s radicalization model].

No religious Muslim expressing "anti-Western views" should be placed on a watchlist anymore than this film-maker should be placed on a watchlist.

The provocation of violence when it is known that violence will occur - is never allowed from either the political Left, as well as Muslim communities - yet these producers of this knowingly proactive film have caused riots. As of now, it should be suspected that at least al-Qeada elements wanted to attack our embassy in Libya on the anniversary of September 11th - and the upheavel over the "Innocence of Muslims" video may have been used as cover and a coincidence. There may be elements of Gadaffi's army that may have participated in this attack against our embassy. [ Libya pledges to help US catch American officials' killersEgypt's Mursi condemns embassy attack, protesters clash ] "Western partner" Turkey also condemned the violence:
"Turkey has consistently emphasised that terror has no religion or nationality, and is a crime against humanity. Turkey continues to believe that the effective combating of terrorism requires the unity and the solidarity of the international community."

We must understand that Islam is not responsible for these murders and Muslims are not collectively guilty.  The fact remains that the violence is a from a few people in the country - and not accepted by governments or the larger public.  The majority of Libyans are outraged by the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans. Hundreds of Libyans turned out to protest against terrorism in their countryMohamed Magariaf, the Libyan President, is involved in finding the perpetrators.

What Arab and Muslim countries can and must do - fight for human rights for Muslims. It would be a better project, as I have said before, for Arab and Muslims nations to engage in the first for human rights and religious freedoms for Muslims living in the Western world. This is actually a better alternative that taking away anybody's freedom of speech. What is also possible is for pressure to be placed on YouTube (a private entity) to remove this video and create posting policies the prevent the posting of this type of proactive videos that are bigoted, hateful and cause violence. Those of use who use Internet services like YouTube know that there are policies against bigotry, hate and violence - and perhaps thsi video should have been removed. We know that often these services are slow and non-responsive to users who violate Term of Use policies.

"Western partner" Turkey really needs to step up and speak out in the OSCE and CoE against the civil rights and human rights abuses against Muslims by Western security and law enforcement. It is actually a better fight to fight for equal speech, political and religious rights that allowed this film to be posted without ramifications against the film-makers. It is a better fight to fight back against biased TSA agents, biased law enforcement training materials, abolition of the NYPD "radicalization model." It is a better fight to fight for freedom for Muslims than fight to restrict the freedoms of others.

 

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.

See/zie:

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

 

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Geert Wilders is NO Dutch patriot!

[caption id="attachment_3572" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Dutch patriotic art in Alva's Tyranny."][/caption]

The phony "patriotism" of Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders is promoting a very curious brand of "patriotism" that has more of it origins in the American neoconservatives that fund and support him than in real Dutch patriotism grounded in Dutch history and traditions. The very fact that Geert Wilders hates and actively seeks to oppress a religion- Islam- is contrary to Dutch patriotism and Dutch traditions. The Dutch have, basically, always been religiously tolerant and permissive (even as there were setbacks) toward the practice of religions, from the time of William or Orange's pressure in 1572 to allow the practice of both Protestantism and Catholicism.  

The reality is that Geert Wilders - and Pim Fortuyn before him - actively sought to tear down Dutch traditions, and slander them as "linkse hobbies" (leftist hobbles) and threatening to Dutch society. A willing Dutch media followed and American conservatives, who hate Dutch tolerance and progressive identity - cheered on and have played an active part in the destruction of the Dutch national identity. Geert Wilders' active opposition to the Dutch tradition of religious tolerance is well known, but Wilders has now dragged the Dutch flag into his anti-Dutch antics against his own nation and its European Union membership. The Dutch tricolor flag has its roots in the House of Orange, of William of Orange, who, as stated above, allowed the practice of both Protestantism and Catholicism.

Religious liberty: What Dutch nationalism is and Dutch heritage in religious freedom. Dutch patriotic images are found in the art of the period,  and the character of Dutch nationalism is totally different from British or American nationalisms. The liberties that Wilders speaks of has nothing to do with being "free" of the European Union or the accusations against Muslims of the Islamisation myths (myths that have been disproven many times on this site).  Dutch nationalism and patriotism became synonymous with Calvinism in the late 1500s struggle against Spanish rule, including unhindered expression of religious conscience. Dutch nationalism rests in defense of religious liberty of all Dutchmen, not opposing religious freedom for anyone.

In fact - patriotic Dutchmen should rally against Geert Wilders and the PVV and in support of religious freedom for Dutchmen that practice Islam. Defending  freedom of worship and freedom of conscience of Dutch Muslims is a part (or should be a part) of the Dutch national tradition.

"Freedom of Dutchmen" (as Wilders seems to put it) was about freedom of worship and freedom of conscience, and forcing any Dutchman against his freedom of conscience was the main issue with the Spanish rulers. Benjamen J. Kaplan tells us that propagandist pamphlets from the Dutch Revolt took up the theme of Netherlanders' "as exceptional lovers and advocates of their liberty and enemies of all violence and oppression" along the lines of religious liberty (2002, 179 - emphasis mine):
It is the refusal - to a certain extent sacrilegious - to legislate in the religious domain, while everywhere else divine right was still called upon to impose limitations, which marked out the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the social arrangements and political procedures, to which religious diversity based on freedom of conscience gave rise, made the Dutch Republic a testing-ground for peaceful co-existence, then for toleration. In the more or less long term, according to which contemporaries we consult, it was established in Europe as a model to be followed.

We can see what Dutch nationalism is as described by Arend Lijphart in his classic book on Dutch politics, Politics of Accommodation (1976) and, although the Netherlands was divided by social and religious cleavages, the Dutch managed to build a successful democracy of peaceful co-existence.  Dutch nationalism, according to Lijphart, is toward ones own bloc (Catholic, Socialist, Liberal) as well as to the common nation, and this nationalist feeling is an important factor to the consensus to preserve the system and the nation from civil war (78-79):
Holland is also one of the most notable examples of a successful democracy. The social fragmentation of the Dutch people has not been an insurmountable obstacle to the development and firm persistence of a stable, effective, and legitimate parliamentary democracy which has served the people well and which has by and large enjoyed their active support or acquiescence (Lijphart, 1976, 2).

Lijphart tells us that for Catholics the Calvinist-based Dutch patriotism was a hard concept, with the House of Orange as a major actor in the expulsion of harsh Catholic rule. But - the Catholics have never revolted even as their own religious practices were banned - and have always worked within the Dutch nation to improve their position (80-81). Just as today, Dutch people that practice Islam have their loyalty to their nation questioned, just as Dutch Catholics once had their loyalty questioned. Likewise, today, some Muslims and Muslim groups are choosing non-violent means to fight for better position in Dutch society,  just as Catholics once did...

It is the duty of every Dutchman to stand up to Geert Wilders! The whole, main idea of the Dutch Revolt was to resist the forceful imposition of the Catholic Church on the Dutch people.  The Dutch should now resist any attempt by the likes of Geert Wilders and his PVV fascists to oppress a religious faith - Islam - as it is the heritage of the Dutch people to oppose religious bigotry, especially against Muslims! Likewise - the Dutch should oppose any attempts by Wilders and his PVV fascists to define Dutch patriotism as being anti-Muslim and anti-European Union.

Messing with anybody's religious freedom should make the majority of patriotic Dutchmen angry!

While Wilders accuses Dutch citizens that practice Islam of horrible crimes and conspiracies against their own nation that are hateful myths (with accusations the used to be directed against Catholics), he attempts to bring about a nationalism that is more like the American Tea Party. If Wilders ever got his wish to remove the Dutch nation from international and European structures, the economic price to Dutch businesses and national standing will be devastating and take a long time to fix. If anything - Geert Wilders and his PVV are traitors who are bringing treasonous policies to the Dutch nation, as well as undermining Dutch traditions and nationalism steeped in religious tolerance (permissiveness).

As Wilders drags the Dutch flag through the mud - it is a sickening site to see - along with his continued attacks on Dutch traditions and culture. Geert Wilders is as much of a Dutch patriot as Adolf Hitler was a German patriot! Both have and are leading their nations to ruins and misery.



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geert Wilders is GEEN Nederlandse patriot!

De"patriottisme" van Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders is het bevorderen van een zeer nieuwsgierig merk van "patriottisme" dat er meer van oorsprong in de Amerikaanse neoconservatieven dat fonds en steunen hem dan in het echte Nederlandse patriottisme geworteld in de Nederlandse geschiedenis en tradities heeft. Het feit dat Geert Wilders haat actief en probeert te onderdrukken tot een religie-de islam-in strijd is met Nederlandse patriottisme en Nederlandse tradities. De Nederlanders hebben altijd al religieus tolerant, liberaal (zelfs als er tegenvallers) in de richting van de praktijk van religies, vanaf het moment van druk Willem van Oranje in 1572 tot de praktijk van zowel het protestantisme en het katholicisme toe te staan.

De realiteit is dat Geert Wilders - en Pim Fortuyn voor hem - actief gezocht om af te breken Nederlandse tradities, en laster ze als Linkse hobby's en te dreigen met de Nederlandse natie. Een gewillige Nederlandse media gevolgd en Amerikaanse conservatieven, die een hekel Nederlandse tolerantie en permissiviteit - toegejuicht en hebben een actieve rol gespeeld in de vernietiging van de Nederlandse nationale identiteit. Geert Wilders 'actief verzet tegen de Nederlandse traditie van religieuze tolerantie is bekend, maar Wilders heeft nu sleepte de Nederlandse vlag in zijn anti-Nederlandse aanvallen tegen zijn eigen volk en zijn EU-lidmaatschap. De Nederlandse driekleur heeft zijn wortels in het Huis van Oranje, Willem van Oranje, die, zoals hierboven vermeld, kon de praktijk van zowel protestantisme en katholicisme.

Religieuze vrijheid: Wat Nederlandse nationalisme is en Nederlands erfgoed in de vrijheid van godsdienst. Nederlandse nationalisme bestaat, maar zijn karakter is totaal verschillend van Britse of Amerikaanse nationalisme. De vrijheden die Wilders spreekt van heeft niets te maken met te brengen vrij van de Europese Unie of de beschuldigingen tegen moslims van de islamisering mythen (mythen die zijn vele malen weerlegd op deze site). Nederlandse nationalisme en patriottisme synoniem geworden met het calvinisme in de late jaren 1500 strijd tegen het Spaanse gezag, en het calvinisme had een bevoorrechte positie in de Nederlandse samenleving in de 19e eeuw. Nederlandse nationalisme rust in de verdediging van de godsdienstvrijheid van alle Nederlanders, niet tegen de vrijheid van godsdienst voor iedereen.

Verdedigen van vrijheid van godsdienst en vrijheid van geweten van de Nederlandse moslims is een deel (of moet een onderdeel zijn) van de Nederlandse nationale traditie.

"Vrijheid van Nederlanders" (zoals Wilders lijkt te zeggen) ging over vrijheid van godsdienst en vrijheid van geweten, en het dwingen van een Nederlander tegen zijn vrijheid van geweten was het probleem met de Spaanse heersers. Benjamin J. Kaplan vertelt ons dat propagandistische pamfletten uit de Opstand nam het thema van de Nederlanders '"als uitzonderlijk liefhebbers en voorstanders van hun vrijheid en vijanden van alle geweld en onderdrukking" langs de lijnen van de godsdienstvrijheid" (2002, 179):
""Het is de weigering - tot op zekere hoogte heiligschennis - om wetgeving op het religieuze domein, terwijl overal elders goddelijk recht is nog steeds op de naam van de beperkingen, die gemarkeerd de Nederlandse Republiek in de zeventiende eeuw op te leggen. Gedurende de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw de sociale regelingen en politieke procedures, waarin religieuze diversiteit gebaseerd op vrijheid van geweten leidde, maakte de Nederlandse Republiek een proeftuin voor een vreedzame co-existentie, dan voor tolerantie. In de min of meer lange termijn, volgens welke tijdgenoten we te raadplegen, werd vastgesteld in Europa als model te volgen"" (Benjamin J. Kaplan, 2002, 179).

We kunnen zien wat de Nederlandse nationalisme zoals wordt beschreven door Arend Lijphart in zijn klassieke boek over de Nederlandse politiek, Politiek van Accommodatie (1976) en, hoewel Nederland werd gedeeld door sociale en religieuze breuklijnen, de Nederlanders in geslaagd om een ​​succesvolle democratie van vreedzame samenwerking op te bouwen bestaan. Nederlandse nationalisme, volgens Lijphart, is in de richting van de eigen blok (katholiek, socialistisch, liberaal) en aan de gemeenschappelijke natie, en dit nationalistische gevoel is een belangrijke factor om de consensus op het systeem en de natie van de burgeroorlog behouden (78 -79).
Nederland is ook een van de meest opvallende voorbeelden van een succesvolle democratie. De sociale fragmentatie van het Nederlandse volk is niet een onoverkomelijk obstakel voor de ontwikkeling en stevig persistentie van een stabiele, effectieve en legitieme parlementaire democratie die gediend heeft goed de mensen en die over het algemeen genoten van hun actieve steun of het gedogen (Lijphart 1976, 2 ).

Lijphart vertelt ons dat voor katholieken de calvinistische op basis van Nederlandse patriottisme was een harde concept, met het Huis van Oranje als een belangrijke speler in de uitzetting van harde katholieke overheersing. Maar - de katholieken nog nooit in opstand gekomen, zelfs als hun eigen religieuze praktijken werden verboden - en heb altijd gewerkt binnen het Nederlandse volk om hun positie (80-81) te verbeteren. Net als vandaag, Nederlandse mensen die de praktijk de islam hun loyaliteit aan hun land hebben ondervraagd, net als de Nederlandse katholieken hun loyaliteit vraag had. Ook vandaag, zijn sommige moslims en moslim-groepen kiezen voor niet-gewelddadige middelen om te vechten voor betere positie in de Nederlandse samenleving, net als de katholieken vroeger ...

Het is de plicht van iedere Nederlander op te staan ​​over Geert Wilders! Het geheel, belangrijkste idee van de Nederlandse Opstand was om de krachtige opleggen van de Katholieke Kerk verzetten op het Nederlandse volk. De Nederlandse moet nu verzetten tegen elke poging van de wil van Geert Wilders en zijn PVV fascisten naar een religieus geloof te onderdrukken - de islam - want het is de erfenis van het Nederlandse volk om religieuze onverdraagzaamheid tegen te gaan. Ook - de Nederlandse moeten verzetten tegen elke poging van Wilders en zijn PVV fascisten aan de Nederlandse patriottisme te definiëren als zijnde anti-moslim en anti-Europese Unie.

Terwijl Wilders beschuldigt de Nederlandse burgers dat de praktijk de islam van de gruwelijke misdaden en complotten tegen hun eigen volk (beschuldigingen van de gebruikte te zijn gericht tegen katholieken), dat zijn hatelijk mythen, probeert hij te komen tot een nationalisme dat is meer als de Amerikaanse Tea Party. Als Wilders ooit kreeg zijn wens om de Nederlandse natie te verwijderen uit internationale en Europese structuren, zal de economische prijs voor Nederlandse bedrijven en nationale positie zijn verwoestende en een lange tijd op te lossen. Als er iets - Geert Wilders en zijn PVV zijn verraders die verraderlijke beleid te brengen aan de Nederlandse natie, maar ook als een aantasting van Nederlandse tradities doordrenkt van religieuze tolerantie (permissiviteit).

Als Wilders sleept de Nederlandse vlag door de modder - het is een misselijkmakende site om te zien - samen met zijn voortdurende aanvallen op de Nederlandse tradities en cultuur. Geert Wilders is net zo goed van een Nederlandse patriot als Adolf Hitler was een Duitse patriot! Beiden hebben en leiden hun land tot een ruïne en ellende.

 

References

Kaplan, Benjamen J. 2002.`Dutch' religious tolerance: celebration and revision. In R. Po-Chia Hsia and Henk Van Nierop, eds. Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age . Kindle Edition.

Kooi, Christine 1995. Popish Impudence: The Perseverance of the Roman Catholic Faithful in Calvinist Holland,1572-1620. The Sixteenth Century Journalhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2541526 . Accessed: 25/03/2012

Lijphart, Arend. 1976. The Politics of Accommodation. Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. U. of California Press:Berkeley, CA.

Nierop, Henk van . 2007. Alva's Throne—making sense of the revolt of the Netherlands. In Graham Darby, ed. The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

Pettegree, Andrew . 2007. Religion and the Revolt. In Graham Darby,ed. The Origins and Development of the Dutch Revolt. Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

Also see/zie ook:

Sawyer, Andrew. The Tyranny of Alva: the creation and development of a Dutch patriotic image.

Ben Vermeulen. The Historical Development of Religious Freedom. Catholic University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Sophie C. van Bijsterveld. Freedom of Religion in the Netherlands.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Answering EUobserver's "unbiased view" on Serbia: Jeton Zulfaj's "EU must open its eyes to Balkan realities"

Article used here is from EUobserver, by Jeton Zulfaj, EU must open its eyes to Balkan realities.

It has been the view of this author that Serbia has gotten a very bad shake from the European Union, and that includes the 2008 "Kosovo independence" debacle, which was pushed by the United States. The truth is, as I discuss on pages 37-38 of  The EU’s Europeanization as a Security Policy , EU officials were against "Kosovo independence" from the start.  The US-pushed "Kosovo independence" not only almost cost time and efforts working with Serbia, it dramatically demonstrated how much the Americans maintain hegemony over European affairs and tamper with European affairs almost at will well over 2 decades after the fall of Soviet communism. One of the dubious (anti-Serb) excuses for "Kosovo independence" was "not wanting to be ruled by Belgrade anymore," as if Slobodan Milosevic was still President of Yugoslavia.

In the article above, written by a Kosovo Albanian grad student, Jeton Zulfaj,  contains a number of things that are biased and lack understanding of the EU's mode of Europeanization toward Serbia. The use of Europeanization is a stabilizing mode of relationships that the EU enters with various countries, and not just with those nations with a conflict history that are now looking for EU membership, like Serbia. (On pages 11-12 of my thesis paper I offer several definitions for Europeanization from several authors.)

First, we have Zulfaj's apparent thesis question: How realistic is the EU belief that Balkan countries are moving down the path to becoming stable, liberal democracies?

Be patient with Europe! The EU "does not seem to understand the urgency of the situation" because Europeanization is a process that is about relationships, relationships that take time and can have setbacks. The relationship with Russia has been one where Russia has been selective in the areas of cooperation and in the depth of cooperation with the European Union.  These relationships move at various speeds and need patience and persistence, and they DO work in time, as changing national identities can take a l-o-n-g time to accomplish. Even though Russia has stated that it has no intentions to join the EU, various relationships in various areas at various levels have improved, slowly, Russia's progress as a democratic society.  The long patient work of the EU can have setbacks - but it works in the long term - and the EU has received a lot of rewards for the efforts. The first misunderstanding of of the whole idea of "Europe" comes here :
On his death in 1898, Otto Von Bismarck is quoted to have said that "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans."

He was right. A decade or so after his death a silly thing in the Balkans was followed by World War I. Today, after a century of wars and conflicts, the Balkans are still far from political stability, but these days the instability is more likely to hurt the Balkan countries themselves than to provoke a wider conflict.

The EU does not seem to understand the urgency of the situation, even though it has hundreds of diplomats and officials posted to the region.

Zulfaj does not tell us why the situation is urgent and does not give us direct examples. The fact of EU membership and accession is that to "join the club" you have to play by the EU's rules - and only the EU's rules. If you are going to argue against EU membership for a candidate state, like Serbia, you should and must do it from the perspective of acquis communautaire, or not adapting it in full.

Also -- this type of notion feeds into the notion of victimization held by various Balkan peoples, especially the Serbs toward the Ottoman Empire, the Croat Ustashas and the NATO Alliance.  Zulfaj shows this victimization notion of his own through out his essay in the form of finger-pointing, a common mode of blame used by all Balkan peoples against each other, toward the Serbian people as a whole and their new president, Tomislav Nikoli.  The whole idea of the European Coal and Steel Community was to put conflicts behind and and work together, not just to decide what to do about the Saar region after WWII. Putting and end to the centuries of finger-pointing might take time to do in the Balkans, as is has for the rest of Europe.

The EU promised that Serbia's membership would not be tied to Kosovo's status! From the start of the US-forced "Kosovo independence"  in 2008, the EU has maintained that the status of Kosovo is not a part of Serbia's EU membership.  Among some of Zulfaj's recommendations, we have this highly counterproductive one:
... it should recognize Kosovo's independence and openly tell Serbia that unless it recognizes Kosovo it will not get into the Union.

NO - for the sake of peace - NO! EU officials promised that "Kosovo recognition" is NOT a condition for Serbia's membership and maintaining this promise is important to beat back the nationalists that Zulfaj is so concerned about. It would be absolutely counterproductive and open old wounds to force Serbia to recognize "Kosovo."   In fact, if the EU were to force "Kosovo recognition" on Serbia -- it would make the nationalists stronger and even more radical. Being a "liberal democracy" has nothing to do with the "status of Kosovo" and Zulfaj suggests that those other EU Member States that have not "recognized Kosovo" (Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain) be called out for it - but they are sovereign states too, and have the right to NOT recognize other "nations" as "states" in the international system.
In Serbia, the clear shift toward nationalism shown in Sunday's elections is a wake-up call that people still think borders can be redrawn on ethnic lines. It shows that the spirit of the "butcher of the Balkans" - the late Slobodan Milosevic - is alive and kicking and that Russian influence in the region is as strong as ever.

This is such a silly accusation! Allow me to remind the readers there has been a clear shift toward nationalisms, of one type or another, across Europe and Serbia is not an exception.  In fact, a finding of my thesis study was that EU neglect of Serbia causes a rise in nationalism. The EU has been dozing and not fully awake to the rise of the radical right across Europe, but time will only tell if Tomislav Nikoli's positions present a serious setback for Serbia as an EU Member State.  He probably will not be the new Milosevic.  As I have argued in past posts - the EU should have helped maintain the national identities of Member States, as well as candidate nations, that have pro-Europe orientations and helps avoid anti-democratic nationalisms.

Another thing that should also stop is connecting Serbia's relationship with its relationship to Russia. This is Cold War thinking and has no place in modern Europe. Serbia should not be put into the "the EU or Russia" dilemma,  but should have relations with Russia and the EU - and there is NO need for Serbia to chose, but engage in both relationships.

Now- I do realize that some at EUobserver, with its anti-Serb bias, are probably not happy with the idea of Serbia in the European Union, but Serbia has worked long and hard for EU membership and overcome some rather large and often unfair obstacles to get its accession treaty.  However, Zulfaj many have realized that "Kosovo independence" means that it will be quite a long time before Kosovo - especially as an "independent nation" - will see EU membership. Kosovo would have been better off remaining with Serbia, as it would now be a part of the European Union.  This is why "independence" for Kosovo was such a horrible idea in the first place and one the Kosovars will eventually regret.

In my world, Kosovo would be in the European Union as soon as Serbia's accession treaty enters into force.

-----

See media articles:

Serbia's EU membership should not be bound to Kosovo

"Kosovo not condition for EU accession talks date"

Tomislav Nikolic Sworn In As Serbia's President

--

Works from this Author:

Kosovo needs Serbia

Europeanization for the Common Man. How to see the EU in an International Crisis: “Much to do about a statement” -

Coal, Steel and Reconciliation: The Development of the European Community and Union

The EU’s Europeanization as a Security Policy - The author’s Master’s Capstone paper that is a study of the process of Europeanization with two nations the EU is associated with: Serbia and Russia. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this research is to discover and explain the security aspects of the European Union’s relationships in the post-Cold War world. This study uses variations of social constructivist-based theory to explain Europeanization. Europeanization is a socialization process connected to European Union membership and association. This study uses an applied method developed by Roy Ginsberg that measures the relationship of a target actor to the European Union during an international crisis. It has been found that close association and membership aspirations enhance security and stability in the European Union’s relationships with target actors thereby bringing about quick resolutions to international crisis. The European Union is an effective security actor and Europeanization is an effective security policy tool.

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.



See:

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

 

 

 

 

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Europol tegen Anonymous en de echte veiligheid van Europa

Directeur van Europol Robert Wainwright denkt dat hij een "veiligheid genie" is (LOL!). Robert Wainwright en zijn Europol praten een leuk gesprek over "cyber criminaliteit en criminelen", maar als dit niet begrepen: Anonymous hactivists en hun "overlast" Internet hacking, die niemand schaadt. Terwijl Europol acties tegen hen die zich 'Anonymous hactivists zijn momenteel beperkt tot degenen die persoonlijke informatie op internet publiceren - anderen kwaad te doen - het is niet echt een sprong naar Anonymous hactivists die schade niemand. Hoewel we hebben echte en ernstige bedreiging met geweld van radicale en gevaarlijke rechts van Europa - dat Europol negeert - niet-gewelddadige Anonymous leden zouden kunnen zijn toekomstige doelstellingen van Europol.

De benodigde terugslagkleppen functioneren van Anonymous hactivists. In democratische samenlevingen die we verondersteld worden vertegenwoordigers die luisteren naar de behoeften van de gewone burger, niet alleen de hebben "1% ers." We leven nu in een tijd waarin miljoenen mensen in Amerika en Europa worden beroofd van hun fundamentele behoeften en nuttig werk - terwijl zij die het beleid maken in de nationale regeringen en de Europese Unie geen aandacht besteden aan mensen die lijden aan werkloosheid en armoede. De beleving, echt of niet, is dat alleen de belangen van Wall Street, de Europese bank-elites en 1%ers materie - niet als de rest van ons hebben banen en onze fundamentele menselijke behoeften voldaan. In dit gebrek aan echte gouvernementele representatie die fundamentele menselijke behoeften van "kleine mensen" zijn er twee fundamentele paden adressen: pogingen om gehoord te worden op een andere manier ( hactivism) of door middel van revolutie en / of terrorisme.

The Anonymous hactivists hebben geen gewelddadige of bedreigende bedoelingen tegen de mensen die ze aanvallen, alleen hun servers en websites, en niemand werd gedood bij een aanval Anonymous!

Dat klopt - niemand is gedood of gewond geraakt bij een aanval door Anonymous hactivists, maar de mensen zijn gedood en gewond geraakt bij aanvallen van de radicale rechts (Noorwegen 22 juli 2011). Anonieme hactivists en hun niet-gewelddadige internetactiviteiten zorgen voor een misschien wel de broodnodige controle waarde die misschien wel voorkomt dat echte terrorisme en geweld. In deze tijd waarin van de overheid leiderschap niet luisteren naar de grieven van de reguliere, niet rijke mensen - is het beter te nemen met DDoS (Distributed Denial-of-Service) aanvallen dan bommen en geweld. We krijgen - mede dankzij Europol het negeren van de toenemende dreiging - genoeg van het geweld van de radicale recht dat nu is op zoek om hun potentieel voor haat en geweld in heel Europa uit te breiden. Naast het negeren van de rechts-radicale Europol is eigenlijk het creëren van nog een andere bedreiging van de veiligheid door het verwijderen van de cheque waarde die door Anonymous hactivists. Dus, om Europol "Thunder" in Spanje is een "grotere bedreiging" dan de uitbreiding van de EDL-stijl mobs in Europese steden, die een feitelijk fysiek gevaar voor de eigendom en de EU-burgers de veiligheid.

Dus, wat een zekerheid genie Robert Wainwright is! Ga na de Anonymous kind dat spuiten vieze woorden schildert aan de zijkant van het gebouw, maar niet de rechts-radicale gek dat wil opblazen van het gebouw en de schade die mensen binnen!

Europol gaat na Anonymous moet beperkt blijven tot de werkelijke schadelijke Internet inbreuken. Misschien Robert Wainwright wil Europol te krijgen na die spuiten op muren van het gebouw graffiti in Europese steden, niet de radicale recht dat daadwerkelijk wil opblazen gebouwen, dat is hoe we kunnen Wainwright en zijn Europol de inspanningen te beschrijven tegen Anonymous hactivists. De meeste hactivism Anonymous beperkt tot een geweldloze hinderlijke activiteit niemand schadelijk en veroorzaakt geen schade. Wij hier in Wisconsin Anonymous hactivists gezien als helden wanneer de gehackte in de Koch Brothers servers vorig jaar. Ik zal toegeven dat ik Anonymous hactivists gezien als helden (en nog steeds doen) - maar meer dan dat Anonymous kan omschreven worden als een noodzakelijke terugslagklep dat zelfs iemand die erg van heel radicalisering (gewelddadige radicalisering) en het instellen van een bom gefrustreerd iemand voorkomt deur.

Er is een goed bewijs te worden gemaakt dat wanneer iemand te beweren dat ze een Anonymous hactivist persoonlijke en gevoelige informatie van andere mensen over het open internet zet, net als de politie, dan is dit doet schade aan echte mensen. Luister naar deze: Het is verkeerd om andere mensen schaden als deze! (Het deel van de politie werken mensen met gezinnen - net als de rest van ons - en zetten hun leven op het spel om ons te beschermen!) Anonymous hactivists het algemeen politie zelf en zijn goed in de politie zelf - maar ze moeten hun frustraties in een manier die geen schade doet aan de privacy en het leven van andere mensen, zelfs als ze zelf niet de politie maar wilt.

Wat kan zich voordoen onder samenwerken druk van de rijke elite is voor Europol te gaan na Anonymous hactivists die zijn onschadelijk en slechts defacen websites en bezighouden met DDoS-aanvallen die niet schadelijk zijn voor mensen of servers. Europol is momenteel haar activiteiten beperken tot alleen die personen die de werkelijke schade toe te brengen - maar deze praktijk te gaan na Anonymous hactivists kon routine in Europol worden als een politie-organisatie en worden verschoven naar die anonieme hactivists die geen schade berokkenen aan mensen of servers. Pogingen door Europol aan nadat alle Anonymous hactivists naar de punt van een chilling effect zijn, op het einde, contra-productief voor de veiligheid en terrorismebestrijding. Het verwijderen van de controle waarde-effect van Anonymous 'niet-gewelddadige aanvallen zou kunnen betekenen dat echte en gewelddadige aanvallen die daadwerkelijk mensen doden en break dingen worden een mogelijkheid.

Robert Wainwright nodig heeft om een leven en Europol dient te leren dat er meer veiligheid bedreigingen dan Anonymous - voordat iemand wordt gedood! Als men echt gelooft dat de arrestatie elke hactivists uit dat er een plaag en niets meer veroorzaakt - zij hebben een ander ding komen. Het beste voor de veiligheid van Europa is met rust te laten deze hactivists, zijn ze niet een bedreiging van de veiligheid, en er zijn meer bedreigingen van de veiligheid die er zijn die niet willen mensen fysieke veiligheid schaden. Het meest voor de hand liggende is de poging van degenen die gelijkgestemd met de Nationaal Socialistische Ondergrond van Duitsland, het English Defense League en Anders Behring Breivik aan een Europese vereniging van haat-handelaren, racisten en gewelddadige radicalen met het potentieel om een bedreiging van de veiligheid te vormen Europa, dat is gewoon niet gesteld van andere Anonymous hactivist!

Misschien - Robert Wainwright en zijn Europol zou liever zien dat mensen gaan uit en in plaats daarvan op te bouwen bommen. Waarom - we hebben de "linkse terrorisme" van de Koude Oorlog dag weer?  Wat leuk! Is Robert Wainwright een  beveiliging genie?! Wat de heer Wainwright eigenlijk heeft op het gebied van opleiding en achtergrond is niet in het echte politie-en beveiligingstaak-nope - maar de economie. Dit is de reden waarom de heer Wainwright gewoon niet weet wat echte cyber-crimineel en bedreigingen van de veiligheid werkelijk zijn ... of de terugslagklep functie van Anonymous hactivists.

De verwachting is voor Europol om na echte cybercriminelen die hack gaan in persoonlijke informatie te stelen van andere mensen identiteit, waardoor deze slachtoffers reële schade. Maar - we moeten de lijn te trekken in het zand met Europol dat de politie zich beperken tot schadelijk gedrag en niet te worden uitgebreid tot Anonymous hactivists dat er geen schade doen aan iedereen. We moeten bereid zijn om op te komen voor het grootste deel van Anonymous hactivists die opkwam voor die van ons hier uit zonder een stem van protest tegen het beleid elite die ons beroven van de werkgelegenheid, basisbehoeften en een fatsoenlijk leven. We moeten bereid zijn om op te staan ​​aan Europol - en ik ben degene die zal - en ik heb een post-graduate onderwijs in de politie-en veiligheidsdiensten veld en kon zelfs de kanteling van het speelveld ... je weet wel ... de balans van de macht.

We zouden veel liever opgemaakt met kinderen, anoniem en de rechts-radicale, dat sommige kick te halen uit spuiten vieze woorden op de zijkant van een gebouw, of beschadigen van een website. 





















[caption id="attachment_3307" align="aligncenter" width="280" caption="Anonymous - Dank U voor uw stem! "][/caption]



















In het sluiten dat degenen die willen echte terrorisme te ondernemen tegen moskeeën en moslims - misschien doden echte mensen - nog moeten worden gestopt dit te doen door Europol!

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Europol against Anonymous and the real security of Europe

Europol Director Robert Wainwright thinks he’s a “security genius” (LOL!). Robert Wainwright and his Europol talk a nice talk about “cyber crime and criminals,” but if this does not includes Anonymous hactivists and their "nuisance" Internet hacking, which harms nobody. While Europol’s actions against those claiming to be Anonymous hactivists are currently confined to those who publish personal information to the Internet – harming others – it is not much of a leap to Anonymous hactivists that harm nobody. While we have real and serious threats of violence from Europe’s radical and dangerous rightwhich Europol ignores – non-violent Anonymous members could be future targets of Europol.

The needed check valves function of Anonymous hactivists. In democratic societies we are supposed to have representatives that are to listen to the needs of the ordinary citizen, not just the “1%ers.”  We now live in an age where millions of people in America and Europe are being deprived of their basic needs and useful employment – while those who make the policies in national governments and the European Union pay no attention to those who are suffering from unemployment and deprivation.  The perception, real or not, is that only the interests of Wall Street, European banking elites and 1%ers matter – not if the rest of us have jobs and our basic human needs met.  In this absence of real governmental representation that addresses basic human needs of “little people” there are two basic paths: attempts to be heard through other means (ex. hactivism) or through revolution and/or terrorism.

The  Anonymous hactivists do not have violent or threatening intentions against the people they attack, only their servers and websites, and nobody has been killed in an Anonymous attack!

That's right - nobody has been killed or injured in an attack by Anonymous hactivists, but people have been killed and injured in attacks by the radical right (Norway July 22, 2011). Anonymous hactivists and their non-violent Internet activities provide a perhaps much needed check value that perhaps prevents real terrorism and violence. In this age when out government leadership do not listen to the grievances of regular, not wealthy people – it is better to put up with DDoS (Distributed Denial-of-Service) attacks than bombs and violence. We will get – thanks partly to Europol ignoring the growing threat – enough of violence from the radical right that is now seeking to expand their potential for hate and violence across Europe.  Besides ignoring the radical right Europol is actually creating yet another security threat by removing the check value provided by Anonymous hactivists.  So, to Europol “Thunder” in Spain is a “greater threat” than the expansion of EDL-style mobs roaming European cities, posing an actual physical danger to property and EU citizens’ safety.

So, what a security genius Robert Wainwright is! Go after the Anonymous kid that spray paints dirty words on the side of the building, but not the radical right crazy that wants to blow up the building and harm people inside!

























[caption id="attachment_3290" align="alignright" width="225" caption="Mr. Wainwright thinks Anonymous is dangerous to Europe. Nope, they provide with a needed voice!(Wikipedia)"][/caption]























Europol’s going after Anonymous must be limited to actual harmful Internet breaches ONLY. Maybe Robert Wainwright would like to get Europol after those who spray graffiti on walls of building in European cities, not the radical right that actually wants to blow up buildings, which is how we can describe Wainwright and his Europol’s efforts against Anonymous hactivists.  Most of Anonymous’ hactivism is limited to a non-violent nuisance activity that harms nobody and causes no damage. We here in Wisconsin viewed Anonymous hactivists as heroes when the hacked into the Koch Brothers servers last year. I will admit that I viewed Anonymous hactivists as heroes (and still do) – but more than that  Anonymous can be described as a needed check valve that prevents even someone who is very frustrated from really radicalizing (violent radicalization) and setting a bomb at someone’s doorstep.

There is a good argument to be made that when someone claiming to be an Anonymous hactivist puts private and sensitive information of other people over the open Internet, like police officers, then this is doing harm to real people. Listen to this: It is wrong to harm other people like this! (The majority of police officers are working people with families – like the rest of us - and put their lives at risk to protect us!) Anonymous hactivists generally police themselves and are good at policing themselves – but they must take their frustrations out in a way that does no harm to privacy and the lives of other people, even if they personally don’t like police officers.

What could occur under cooperate pressure from the wealthy elite is for Europol to go after Anonymous hactivists that are harmless and just deface websites and engage in DDoS attacks that do not harm people or servers. Europol is currently confining its activities to just those individuals that do actual harm – but this practice of going after Anonymous hactivists could become routine in Europol as a police organization and be shifted to those Anonymous hactivists who are doing no harm to people or servers.  Attempts by Europol to go after all Anonymous hactivists to the point of a chilling effect are, in the end, counter-productive for security and counter-terrorism.  Removing the check value effect of Anonymous’ non-violent attacks could mean that real and violent attacks that actually kill people and break things become a possibility.

Robert Wainwright needs to get a life and Europol needs to learn that there are greater security threats than Anonymous before somebody gets killed! If one actually believes that arresting every hactivists out there that causes a nuisance and nothing more – they have another thing coming. The best thing for the security of Europe is to leave these hactivists alone, they are not a security threat, and there are greater security threats out there that do want to harm people’s physical safety. The most obvious is the attempt by those who are likeminded with Germany’s National Socialist Underground, the English Defense League and Anders Behring Breivik to form a Europe-wide association of hate-mongers, racists and violent radicals with the potential to be a security threat to Europe that is simply not posed by any Anonymous hactivist!

Maybe – Robert Wainwright and his Europol would prefer that people go off and build bombs instead. Why – we could have the “Leftist terrorism” of the Cold War days again, how fun?!  Isn’t Robert Wainwright a freaking security genius?!  What Mr. Wainwright actually has in terms of education and background is not in real policing and security –nope - but economics. This is why Mr. Wainwright simply does not know what real cyber criminal and security threats really are…or the check valve function of Anonymous hactivists.

It’s expected for Europol to go after real cyber criminals that hack into personal information and steal other people’s identity, causing these victims real harm. However – we need to draw the line in the sand with Europol that its policing activities are limited to harmful behavior and not to be extended to Anonymous hactivists that do no harm to anyone. We need to be willing to stand up for the majority of Anonymous hactivists who have stood up for those of us out here without a voice of protest against elite policies that deprive us of jobs, basic needs and a decent life. We must be ready to stand up to Europol – and I am one who will – and I have a post-graduate education in the police and security field and could even the tilt of the playing field…you know…the balance of power.

We should much prefer to put up with kids, Anonymous and the radical right, that get some kick out of spray painting dirty words on the side of a building, or defacing a website. After all, we should think spray paint is better than bombs any day!

NOTE in closing that those who want to take real terrorism against mosques and Muslims – perhaps kill real people - have yet to be stopped from doing so by Europol!

[youtube id="aCW3AGJZ-oU" w="250" h="250"]

Cyber Resilience?! I say Europol Resilience! In the video, Mr. Wainwright talks about real cyber criminals – good go after those -  but this should NOT include Anonymous hactivists!



Also - thanks to Anonymous from me personally for the support and "help" for our poor State of Wisconsin last year against Koch Brothers' tyranny. This has not been forgotten-at least by me!

See: Hactivists arrested in Spain