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

Monday, January 12, 2015

TV Counter-Terrorism Expert tell us how smart he is on Fox News

 I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham.
I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake. - Steve Emerson's apology for saying that Birmingham UK is 100% Muslim and sharia law dominates.

It comes as no surprise to this Author that a TV counter-terrorism expert has been caught engaging in the same "sharia law neighborhood" nonsense that Geert Wilders wallowed in back in May 2012, when he accused a neighborhood in The Hague of being a Shariadriehoek (Sharia Triangle) neighborhood. According to the Trouw article, which instigated the whole accusation, residents were being badgered about the clothing they wore on the streets by a pack of Orthodox Muslim "sharia police."  This accusation turned out to be false according to the police and the residents of this "sharia triangle" neighborhood.

I have long warned about "counter-terrorism experts" that one sees on news networks. There is really no qualification for what a "terrorism expert" is and the majority we see on TV news have worked in governemnt (which makes them biased in favor of government views- a view shared by Glen Greenwald). Some are "terrorism experts" because they were company commanders in Iraq or Afghanistan, and THAT makes them "experts." The tendency of these "experts" is to promote Islamophobia among viewers, as well as to demonize Muslim communities and the typical accusation is that "jihad fighters are everywhere and the residents are sympathetic to them."  Where there's Muslims, there's also "radicalization," "extremism," "terrorism,"and "imposition of sharia laws" will surely follow. Like Geert Wilders did against The Hague neighborhood, the City of Birmingham is being accused of being a "small caliphate."   The mentality among "counter-terrorism experts" is that where there are Muslims, "there's the danger and threat," every bit as much as what Geert Wilders and Jean LePen believe.


The City of Birmingham is a diverse city with 46.1% Christian, 19.3% no religion and 21.8% Muslim. White Brits make up the racial majority at 53.1%. Wow! It's a Muslim takeover, just like the 5.5% of Muslims are now taking over the Netherlands

Steve Emerson's accusations against the City of Birmingham, that it is 100% Muslim and there are "Muslim police in the streets" falls into the counter-terrorism discourses of  "menacing Muslims" and "Islamisation" myths of the far right. Like Geert Wilders, the City of Birmingham is being accused of being a "small caliphate."  Emerson was called an 'idiot" be David Cameron, and this is the most intelligent thing Cameron has said in a long time. It also big news that an Islamophobic idiot like Cameron is calling another Islamophobic idiot an idiot.


Relying on real sources and demographic data would show you that, in every case where Muslims are alleged to dominate -- and there is a "sharia law takeover" -- the accusations turn out to be false, lies and myths. We all not only need to be careful about counter-terrorism experts, but we need to understand that there are perhaps millions of people in Germany, the Netherlands and the rest of Europe seriously believe these "Islamsation" myths -- and actually base their election choices on these myths and end up voting for far right parties. People need to realize how serious the belief in these myths are, and also understand that the European press and European leaders have done little to challenge these hateful and dangerous myths. Idiots believe in Islamisation myths, but these idiots also have the right to vote.


Here's another Fox News terrorism expert who believes the "final solution" will help solve our "terrorism problems" and he too has the right to vote - unless he's been adjudicated mentally ill, that is...



Thursday, March 22, 2012

Schietpartijen in Frankrijk te worden natuurlijk "terrorisme?" - Alleen moslims plegen "terrorisme!"

Zo zeker als de zon opkomt in het oosten, zal de moorden op kinderen in een joodse school veranderd worden in "daden van terrorisme" door de Franse autoriteiten. Omdat de dader Mohammed Merah, kunnen we verwachten dat de Franse regering om nu beweren dat deze eenzame gek is "verbonden met al-Qaeda terrorisme", net als Mohammed B. is "gekoppeld aan het internationale terrorisme", toen hij vermoord Theo van Gogh. Merk op dat alleen de Nederlandse Staat de naam Mohammed B. een "terrorist" en alleen de Nederlandse Staat heeft de naam Hofstadgroep een "internationale terroristische groepering." Er is eigenlijk geen bewijs buiten de Nederlandse Staat dat de moord op Theo van Gogh was "een daad van Al -Qaeda terrorisme "en Mohammed Bouyeri waarschijnlijk handelde alleen voor zijn eigen verdraaide redenen. Ook deze moordenaar waarschijnlijk handelde alleen voor zijn eigen verdraaide redenen, net als de Amerikaanse soldaat 16 burgers, 9 van hen kinderen die in een door Afghanistan dorp of wanneer Gianluca casser handelde alleen toen hij neergeschoten Senegalese straatverkopers in Italië in december vorig jaar. De bovenstaande handelingen niet "terrorisme" en geen van beide werd het Alphen aan den Rijn een jaar geleden aan te vallen door een native Nederlander met een liefde voor wapens.

Wat wel en wat niet "terrorisme" op basis van religieuze achtergrond van moord verdachten. Net als in een vorige post, de Orthodoxe terrorisme veld sterk verstrengeld met overheden en uitzicht deze regeringen als "onschuldige slachtoffers." De Orthodoxe terrorisme veld gebruikt slordige wetenschappelijke methoden en orthodoxe terrorisme studies ontbreekt studie kaders en over-zich overgeeft aan aanvechtbaar labels en categorieën, vaak verpakt in anti-moslim verhalen. Een van de orthodoxe terrorisme onderzoeken gebied is dat het niet is aangekomen bij een definitie van "terrorisme", dus niemand die in de orthodoxe terrorisme studies gebied, vooral als ze zijn aangesloten op de Franse Staat, heeft elk bedrijf noemen dit "het terrorisme. "

We kunnen ook zien hoe "het terrorisme" is geoperationaliseerd om te zien dat "terrorisme" geldt alleen voor geweld door moslims. Ik heb veel op gewezen dat de meest afschuwelijke terroristische aanslag in Nederland was in 2009, Koninginnedag Parade aanslag in Apeldoorn door Karst Tates tegen de Nederlandse koninklijke familie (direct de aanval op het Nederlandse volk) waarin 8 mensen omgekomen en 10 raakten gewond.

[caption id="attachment_2105" align="alignleft" width="203" caption="Tristan van der Vlies was een shooter als Mohammed Merah - maar niet van een "terrorist" omdat hij geen moslim!"][/caption]

Zowat een jaar geleden, een andere jonge man met een interesse in wapens, Tristan van der Vlies, ging op een schietpartij in een winkelcentrum Alphen aan den Rijn, een stad gelegen tussen Leiden en Utrecht. Naast het doden van zichzelf: "Tristan" doodde zes mensen en injuried 16 anderen. "Tristan" werd gezegd dat het een PVV-kiezer te zijn en had een geschiedenis van psychische problemen.

We weten ook over de dodelijke schietpartij aanval in Florence, Italië in december, door een rechts-radicale extremistische, Gianluca casser, gericht op Senegalese straatverkopers. Ook dit is niet beschreven als "terrorisme" door de Italiaanse regering of de orthodoxe terrorisme studies veld - maar deze schieten in Frankrijk zijn "terrorisme?"

So-een lange kijken naar wat is "terrorisme" en je zult zien dat verschrikkelijke crimineel geweld is "terrorisme" omdat de verdachte afkomstig is van een moslim achtergrond. Deze schietpartijen in Frankrijk als "terrorisme" betekent dat de operationalisering van het "terrorisme"-label is gebaseerd op de religieuze achtergrond van de verdachte - wat betekent dat de bestrijding van terrorisme de praktijk is partijdig en discriminerend tegen moslims.

De schietpartijen in Frankrijk zijn "jihad terrorisme" omdat "een moslim het deed." Dit zijn verschrikkelijke moorden, criminele handelingen, (geen terrorisme) en een individueel moord pleegt strafbare feiten als individu waarvoor het individu gestraft voor. Maar - u kunt wedden dat deze "daad van jihad terrorisme" zal worden, zoals in Nederland, de motivering bij het religieuze geloof en de politieke opvattingen van de moslimgemeenschap te criminaliseren. De Franse moslimgemeenschap niet heeft begaan deze aanval op een joodse school, maar Mohammed Merah alleen verantwoordelijk is. Ook - etiketteren van dit (ten onrechte) als "terrorisme" zal dan rechtvaardigt het opstellen van een profiel van dit individu en probeert te pinnen op anderen - die misschien helemaal niet zijn na te denken over moord. De meeste van allemaal, zullen deze gruwelijke moorden worden gebruikt om de voortdurende vooruitgang van de 'clash van de beschaving "als een buitenlands en binnenlands bestuur paradigma, dat zal leiden tot meer geweld en oorlogen, meer verlies van vrijheid en sociale cohesie te rechtvaardigen.

We moeten werken om dit en eisen dat de "jihad terrorist" label niet worden gevestigd op alle gewelddadige crimineel met een moslim achtergrond weerstaan. We moeten werken tegen de gekke neiging om niet alleen deze moorden te bestempelen als "terrorisme", maar de neiging om deze daad wegwaaien in geen verhouding tot andere soortgelijke handelingen of slechter werkt gepleegd door niet-moslims.

Regeringen, vooral westerse regeringen, hebben veel te winnen door "met daden van Al-Qaeda gelinkte terrorisme" op hun grondgebied, en ze kunnen winstgevend zijn. Voor de Nederlandse Staat, de moord op Theo van Gogh als 'terrorisme' gerechtvaardigd is de criminalisering van het religieuze geloof en politieke overtuiging tot een systeem van "moslim control" in Nederland. Het heeft ook geleid tot een geheel "jihad in Nederland 'genre van boeken en papieren - die allemaal een echokamer voor claims van de Nederlandse Staat dat Mohammed Bouyeri was een" Al-Qeada terroristen "en Hofstadgroep een' al-Qaida terroristische cel . "de Nederlandse Staat van de betrekkingen met de Verenigde Staten en andere landen zijn nu gedefinieerd op" het voorkomen van radicalisering "uitsluitend gericht op religieuze radicalisering van moslims.

De moord op Theo van Gogh is nu het visitekaartje voor de Nederlandse staat en zijn onechte "veiligheidsbelangen" op het internationale toneel. Yep - het doden van "Theo" is de aflossing voor de Nederlandse Staat.

Dit is geen "terrorisme", maar een enkele, misschien wel zeer verstoord, mensen die graag Karst Tates, Tristan van der Vlies, Gianluca casser - Staff Sgt. Robert Bales-- behoefte hebben aan een aantal ingrijpen voordat je op een Schietpartijen. Deze interventie moet ook niet gericht zijn tegen religieuze geloof of poilitical meningen. Een killing spree heeft echte slachtoffers, ongeacht whet de motivaties van de moordenaars zijn - maar voor de behandeling van het doden van sprees door verdachten op basis van de religieuze achtergrond van de verdachte is discriminerend en worden gebruikt om dan te rechtvaardigen collectieve straffen en schendingen van de mensenrechten van hele gemeenschappen.

Dus - zien we "terrorisme" geoperationaliseerd als "iets wat alleen moslims doen." Dit is de reden waarom de ergste terroristische-type aanslag in Nederland, de 2009 Koninginnedag aanslag in Apeldoorn tegen de koninklijke familie (8 doden, 10 gewonden), noch de Alphen aan den Rijn winkelcentrum aanval vorig jaar. Omdat noch de aanvallers waren moslims - dit zijn geen terreur aanslagen - en dit geeft ons een goed idee van hoe 'terrorisme' wordt geoperationaliseerd in Nederland.

Om nu te labelen deze afschuwelijke moorden 'terrorisme' zal bouwen steeds meer aanwijzingen dat "terrorisme" is iets dat "alleen moslims doen." Dit betekent dat westerse regeringen (Frankrijk, Nederland, het Verenigd Koninkrijk, de Verenigde Staten) op het etiket "terrorisme" te gebruiken wanneer een persoon doodt voor zijn eigen persoonlijke redenen is een moslim. Dit betekent dat de westerse regeringen bezighouden met discriminerende praktijken in de strijd tegen het terrorisme - en dat schendt de verschillende internationale en Europese mensenrechtenverdragen en conventies.

We moeten werken tegen de demonisering en criminalisering van religieus geloof en politieke standpunten. We moeten een soort van pushback tegen het discriminerend gebruik van het "terrorisme"-label lijkt alleen worden toegepast om gewelddadige handelingen door mensen met een moslim achtergrond. Deze zaak uit Frankrijk zullen worden behandeld als "terrorisme" als andere soortgelijke misdrijven door niet-moslims zijn geen "terrorisme" en worden steeds meer bewijs dat de westerse strijd tegen het terrorisme studies en de praktijk een vooringenomen tegen moslims hebben - en we moeten werken tegen deze anti -moslim, terrorismebestrijding bias.

 

 Zie:

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.

---

References

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 http://www.chrgj.org/publications/targetedentrappedtranslations.html accessed on March 9, 2012.

Franks, Jason. Rethinking the Roots of Terrorism: Orthodox Terrorism Theory and Beyond. October 10, 2005. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/media/Franks_rethinking_roots_terrorism.pdf

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. http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/ISA_theghostsofstateterror.pdf

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"