The Netherlands: Nothing Here, Move Along

[Annie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4341784.stm

Dutch police make terror arrests
Police in the Netherlands have made seven anti-terror arrests over an alleged plot against the intelligence service and politicians.

Security forces cordoned off government offices in The Hague as six men and a woman were detained in raids there, in Amsterdam and in nearby Almere.

The suspects included one man recently acquitted of planning terror attacks.

Interior Minister Johan Remkes said the investigation was probing an Islamic militant network, the Hofstad group.

Militants had been plotting to attack the intelligence service's headquarter in The Hague and members of parliament, Mr Remkes said.

The arrests come a day after renewed death threats against conservative members of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders - both outspoken critics of radical Islam - the BBC's Geraldine Coughlan reports.

Rearrested

Early on Friday, riot police moved in to boost security at the Binnenhof castle in The Hague, where Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende and others have offices.

The police have declined to comment on reports of gunfire during the operation, and no other details about the raids were released.

Among those held was Samir Azzouz, a Dutch teenager of Moroccan origin who had been acquitted in April of plotting attacks on Amsterdam airport, government buildings and a nuclear reactor.

"He is suspected of preparing attacks, together with other persons, on several politicians and government buildings," the prosecutor's office said on Friday.

No details of the other six suspects, said to be aged between 18 and 30, were immediately given.

Several alleged members of the Hofstad group are to stand trial later this year, charged with planning attacks against government buildings.

The Netherlands has been on a terror alert since the London bombings in July.

Police were injured by a hand grenade in The Hague last year when they arrested two terror suspects following the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

 

[Harmageddon]

Moving along

 

[Annie]

Moving along

Oh, I wish you would...

 

[Said1]

Oh, I wish you would...

Oh, that's rich. No analysis of what the Dutch could be doing to bring it oin? Dam, I was sooooooo bored too.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Kathianne:
Oh, I wish you would...

I love you too

 

[Annie]

I love you too

Of course, backatcha. Now, as Said1 pointed out, you have zippo to say on the point...

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Kathianne:
Of course, backatcha. Now, as Said1 pointed out, you have zippo to say on the point...

Cheers.
But I do have a lot to say on this point, we've had our fair share of muslim extremists already (though it did not escalate into a major terror attack).
Thanks for a large part to our secret service, the BVD, for preventing such attacks from happening. But also thanks to a lot of moderate muslims and clearheaded dutchmen for keeping open the debate.

Imams that preach hate are now required by law to be put on a plane back to whatever country they came from, and at the same time there are moderate Imams that have created, together with our government, a dutch course in Islamic theology - we will soon have our very own dutch Imams, that have been trained not only in teaching Islam to muslims, but also to respect and abide by the dutch secular law.

This is in my view the way forward.

Although we still have to be weary and keep an eye on those extremists, you will always have some nutcases running around in your country that may decide to blow people up. That's very sad, but that's the way it is.
We just have to keep it to a minimum and prevent an escalation by singling out a small group of scapegoats for the wrongs in the world.

 

[Annie]

Cheers.
But I do have a lot to say on this point, we've had our fair share of muslim extremists already (though it did not escalate into a major terror attack).
Thanks for a large part to our secret service, the BVD, for preventing such attacks from happening. But also thanks to a lot of moderate muslims and clearheaded dutchmen for keeping open the debate.

Imams that preach hate are now required by law to be put on a plane back to whatever country they came from, and at the same time there are moderate Imams that have created, together with our government, a dutch course in Islamic theology - we will soon have our very own dutch Imams, that have been trained not only in teaching Islam to muslims, but also to respect and abide by the dutch secular law.

This is in my view the way forward.

Although we still have to be weary and keep an eye on those extremists, you will always have some nutcases running around in your country that may decide to blow people up. That's very sad, but that's the way it is.
We just have to keep it to a minimum and prevent an escalation by singling out a small group of scapegoats for the wrongs in the world.

That is so cool. You should make your voice heard, in the Netherlands. I hope Von Gough is smiling upon you or Allah or whomever.

As for me, I want my government to do what it can to protect me or rather my children-by birth or national legacy.

 

[Said1]

Cheers.
But I do have a lot to say on this point, we've had our fair share of muslim extremists already (though it did not escalate into a major terror attack).
Thanks for a large part to our secret service, the BVD, for preventing such attacks from happening. But also thanks to a lot of moderate muslims and clearheaded dutchmen for keeping open the debate.

Imams that preach hate are now required by law to be put on a plane back to whatever country they came from, and at the same time there are moderate Imams that have created, together with our government, a dutch course in Islamic theology - we will soon have our very own dutch Imams, that have been trained not only in teaching Islam to muslims, but also to respect and abide by the dutch secular law.

This is in my view the way forward.

Although we still have to be weary and keep an eye on those extremists, you will always have some nutcases running around in your country that may decide to blow people up. That's very sad, but that's the way it is.
We just have to keep it to a minimum and prevent an escalation by singling out a small group of scapegoats for the wrongs in the world.

But how can you prevent anything if you don't acknowledge where the problem is actually stemming from. Based on the above examples you provided, your government clearly doesn't agree with you. Unless they are jailing and deporting all those who preach hate, they are targetting a specific group because they are a significant risk your safety. Or is this just a response to exagerated American pressure?

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Kathianne:
That is so cool. You should make your voice heard, in the Netherlands. I hope Von Gough is smiling upon you or Allah or whomever.

As for me, I want my government to do what it can to protect me or rather my children-by birth or national legacy.

Thank you for the compliment.
And I agree a government should protect its people, not its assets.

Originally posted by Said1:
But how can you prevent anything if you don't acknowledge where the problem is actually stemming from. Based on the above examples you provided, your government clearly doesn't agree with you. Unless they are jailing and deporting all those who preach hate, they are targetting a specific group because they are a significant risk your safety. Or is this just a response to exagerated American pressure?

First of all, American pressure has near nothing to do with this whole affair, we can take care of our own country’s potential terrorists. I say near nothing, for American pressure has resulted in the Netherlands’ downgrading the order of 85 JSFs to only 40.

American intervention politics demanded that the Netherlands should hand over one of the captured presumed terrorists so that he could be tried in America instead of in the Netherlands. That demand was overturned by a Dutch judge, for the reason that he feared “the human rights of this particular individual would be jeopardized under American law”. America then backed up its demand by threatening with economic sanctions, to which my government responded by downgrading the order of the JSFs. That is a clear example of how far one gets with threats.

I do have quite a lot of disagreements with my own government, but that is quite usual for me.

As for the ousting of hate-preaching Imams, I think that is a necessary and just measure. They are mostly quite new to the country, do not speak Dutch and have no clue as to what makes our country what it is and show no intent to learn any of it, but instead choose to attack our country through their followers.

Imams, being religious leaders, command a high level of respect and authority amongst muslims. When they turn into hate preachers, they can easily inspire young and angry muslim men, that have not yet adopted a crystallized view of Islam, to get involved in terrorist acts. Thus, we have taken these Imams out of the equation.

We have chosen to acknowledge the problem stems from the war on terror. Since then, young muslims have been easily swayed by these hate preaching Imams to get involved in a counterattack on the west. Because to some of these radical guys, there is a war being fought against Islam. America is not the only one that sees this war in epic proportions.

To prevent an escalation within our own borders, we’ve chosen to oust these Imams.

 

[CSM]

Thank you for the compliment.
And I agree a government should protect its people, not its assets.



First of all, American pressure has near nothing to do with this whole affair, we can take care of our own country’s potential terrorists. I say near nothing, for American pressure has resulted in the Netherlands’ downgrading the order of 85 JSFs to only 40.

American intervention politics demanded that the Netherlands should hand over one of the captured presumed terrorists so that he could be tried in America instead of in the Netherlands. That demand was overturned by a Dutch judge, for the reason that he feared “the human rights of this particular individual would be jeopardized under American law”. America then backed up its demand by threatening with economic sanctions, to which my government responded by downgrading the order of the JSFs. That is a clear example of how far one gets with threats.

What the heck would the Netherlands do with 85 JSFs anyway? What the heck are they going to do with 40? Sure am glad the Netherlands won that one! (sarcasm)

I do have quite a lot of disagreements with my own government, but that is quite usual for me.

As for the ousting of hate-preaching Imams, I think that is a necessary and just measure. They are mostly quite new to the country, do not speak Dutch and have no clue as to what makes our country what it is and show no intent to learn any of it, but instead choose to attack our country through their followers.

Boy does that sound familiar! Why haven't you made an effort to understand these people? Why can't you try to see their point of view? (More sarcasm)

Imams, being religious leaders, command a high level of respect and authority amongst muslims. When they turn into hate preachers, they can easily inspire young and angry muslim men, that have not yet adopted a crystallized view of Islam, to get involved in terrorist acts. Thus, we have taken these Imams out of the equation.

You haven't taken them out of the equation...you have moved them to another country! There is a big, big difference. Or do you sincerely believe that ousting them from your country will prevent them from spreading hate and discontent???

We have chosen to acknowledge the problem stems from the war on terror. Since then, young muslims have been easily swayed by these hate preaching Imams to get involved in a counterattack on the west. Because to some of these radical guys, there is a war being fought against Islam. America is not the only one that sees this war in epic proportions.

How strange that you believe "the problem stems from the war on terror". I dont suppose it has occured to you that the war on terror stems from the problem? You almost want us to believe that there was no terrorism before the US went into Iraq or Afghanistan. These guys have been preaching this stuff for centuries....literally!


To prevent an escalation within our own borders, we’ve chosen to oust these Imams.

That seems rather pre-emptive...you have convicted these guys before they committed any crimes.... (even more sarcasm)

Interesting POV your country has.

 

[Harmageddon]

Thanks for the enjoyable read, humour always works well to put serious matters in perspecive.

Now, on to the answers:

Originally posted by CSM:
What the heck would the Netherlands do with 85 JSFs anyway? What the heck are they going to do with 40? Sure am glad the Netherlands won that one! (sarcasm)

To be honest, I don’t have a clue as to why we would need a sh*tload of JSFs, although a more active role in NATO missions is possibly the ground for that.
When a judge takes such a stance on the issue of possible terrorists, that is a clear sign of the times – America has greatly reduced the amount of respect it once commanded amongst it’s allies.

Originally posted by CSM:
Boy does that sound familiar! Why haven't you made an effort to understand these people? Why can't you try to see their point of view? (More sarcasm)

If these guys wish to preach hate in their country of origin, that is not our concern. We trust to see other nations taking care of their own hate preachers. Whenever these guys preach hate in the Netherlands however, it is our concern, and we respond accordingly. In this case, by ousting them.

Originally posted by CSM:
You haven't taken them out of the equation...you have moved them to another country! There is a big, big difference. Or do you sincerely believe that ousting them from your country will prevent them from spreading hate and discontent???

I agree there is a big difference.
However, I was referring to the Dutch point of view on our country, not the world.
The European stance on these issues in general and that of the Netherlands specifically has been to engage in dialogue with the governmental officials of these countries.
We have a long history of instead taking over the place and installing our own regimes. However, we’ve grown kind of weary of that approach, since it seemed to have resulted eventually in a massive popular uprising against us wherever we have tried this approach. History taught us it’s not going to work.

Originally posted by CSM:
How strange that you believe "the problem stems from the war on terror". I dont suppose it has occured to you that the war on terror stems from the problem? You almost want us to believe that there was no terrorism before the US went into Iraq or Afghanistan. These guys have been preaching this stuff for centuries....literally!

The recent terror attacks do stem from the war on terror: the Madrid bombing, the Bali bombings, the London underground bombing, the murder of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands. All of these were carried out by indigenous young muslim extremist men, that had been taught a poisoned version of Islam by hate preaching Imams. All of these were carried out with the idea that Islam itself is under attack by the west. Which is rubbish. Hopefully.

Of course there has been terror, for nearly as long as humanity exists.
But these terrorists throughout history follow a very strict behavioural pattern.

Now, as much as I don’t agree with the solution of blowing innocent civilians to smithereens by employing suicide bombers, there still is a certain logic that can explain why these people have come to these drastic measures.

Take the IRA (norhern Ireland) or the ETA (Spain) for example, both were fighting for independence from what was in their eyes an oppressive regime. Both were fighting because they felt they were not being treated fairly and equally by these regimes.
Both have through bombings of markets or other public places eventually gained their place at the bargaining table as equals instead of the suppressed.

I’m saying that Osama has not targeted America for the reason that he hates your liberty and freedoms. He has attacked American interests because he hates the fact that Muslims do not have an equal amount of liberty and freedom because the west has suppressed these people for so long. He disagrees with the fact that the Saudi government that is guardian of holy Muslim ground has allied itself with America and has allowed American military bases to be built on Saudi soil.

He is basically fighting for an equal position at the bargaining table.

But this cannot be, because then Shell and Mobil and whatnot, all these western corporations, would have to throw their assets overboard and hand them over to these other countries. Their profits would drastically fall and as a result they will have no choice but to move even more factories to cheap labour countries – leaving the western countries with so much less economic wealth, that there is sure to be an uprising in the commoners. This is why the western governments are afraid to speak up.

Originally posted by CSM:
That seems rather pre-emptive...you have convicted these guys before they committed any crimes.... (even more sarcasm)

Yeah it does in a sense seem like a pre-emptive measure.
But these guys as you said have been preaching hate for centuries (well, the living ones for years at least) – there’s no sign they will stop their behaviour.
Thus it was decided that these guys are a potential danger, and we took them out of the equation as far as Dutch interests were concerned.

Originally posted by CSM:
Interesting POV your country has.

The sad fact is that most countries however refuse to acknowledge that other countries may have better laws or solutions to certain problems. Exchanging ideas with other countries on the matter should work refreshing, it may show certain perspectives one has not thought of yet.

But we’ve all got to try and make the best of the current situation.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Now, as much as I don’t agree with the solution of blowing innocent civilians to smithereens by employing suicide bombers, there still is a certain logic that can explain why these people have come to these drastic measures.

Take the IRA (norhern Ireland) or the ETA (Spain) for example, both were fighting for independence from what was in their eyes an oppressive regime. Both were fighting because they felt they were not being treated fairly and equally by these regimes.
Both have through bombings of markets or other public places eventually gained their place at the bargaining table as equals instead of the suppressed.

So you can understand blowing up innocent people, and whoever happens to be there when the bomb goes off, it doesn't matter because, hey, they just want a seat at the bargaining table. That statement makes you a terrorist apologist, and that said it all for me. We already have the impression that much of Europe are apologists running scared, and you greatly have reinforced that impression.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Abbey Normal:
So you can understand blowing up innocent people, and whoever happens to be there when the bomb goes off, it doesn't matter because, hey, they just want a seat at the bargaining table. That statement makes you a terrorist apologist, and that said it all for me. We already have the impression that much of Europe are apologists running scared, and you greatly have reinforced that impression.

No Abbey, that is not the case.
If you read more accurately you would see I hold these terrorist attacks in utter contempt. It is NEVER EVER right to sacrifice the innocent for whatever goal you have, be it a seat at the bargaining table or regime change or whatever.

But there is always a logical explanation for the fact that these people get to the point of committing such atrocities. Always they create some twisted logic in their minds that make it all excusable to make innocents pay with their lives for whatever goal.

Pointing out the logic behind the act does not make the act itself any more excusable, or any less despicable.

Where there are two fighting, there's always shared guilt.
That's the truth of it.
And if one side refuses to acknowledge it's guilt, the conflict will continue forever.

 

[theHawk]

yes we're guilty of being a bunch of infidel white boys on their precious holy land.

 

[no1tovote4]

yes we're guilty of being a bunch of infidel white boys on their precious holy land.

The funny thing is, according to the Koran, Christians and Jews would not be considered infidels and are "people of the Book". There is a place in Paradise for those who follow those religions.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
yes we're guilty of being a bunch of infidel white boys on their precious holy land.

Yes, amongst bribing their governments and installing oppressive regimes throughout the region, we are. Read your history, the British have created Iraq and Iran and Syria and Lebanon's borders, by drawing some lines on a map. The British have already promised freedom and democracy to the Iraqi's after the first world war. When the Iraqi's found out the British were lying and were merely there for the control of the oil, they rose up in protest. Thus the British levelled Fallujah in 1920. Sounds familiar?

Originally posted by no1tovote4:
The funny thing is, according to the Koran, Christians and Jews would not be considered infidels and are "people of the Book". There is a place in Paradise for those who follow those religions.

Funny thing is: the bible says: thou shalt not kill.
At least in the part revolving around Jesus, which is the New Testament.
It doesn't say:
thou shalt taketh the Oil-ah! from the lands of the Iraqi people-ah!
Thou shalt fight the war on terror for the minions of Satannn are on the march-ah! Thou shalt teach-ah! the sand ******* the power of the Lord-ah!

But here we are, humanity is still fighting wars on behalf of their Gods, to teach the other God's followers a lesson.

If God exists, He would be ashamed.

Amen.

 

[theHawk]

Yes, amongst bribing their governments and installing oppressive regimes throughout the region, we are. Read your history, the British have created Iraq and Iran and Syria and Lebanon's borders, by drawing some lines on a map. The British have already promised freedom and democracy to the Iraqi's after the first world war. When the Iraqi's found out the British were lying and were merely there for the control of the oil, they rose up in protest. Thus the British levelled Fallujah in 1920. Sounds familiar?

I'm aware of the history already thanks.
I guess there is justification for racism.

Funny thing is: the bible says: thou shalt not kill.
At least in the part revolving around Jesus, which is the New Testament.
It doesn't say:
thou shalt taketh the Oil-ah! from the lands of the Iraqi people-ah!
Thou shalt fight the war on terror for the minions of Satannn are on the march-ah! Thou shalt teach-ah! the sand ******* the power of the Lord-ah!

But here we are, humanity is still fighting wars on behalf of their Gods, to teach the other God's followers a lesson.

If God exists, He would be ashamed.

Amen.

I don't even know how to respond to that nonesense.

 

[no1tovote4]

Funny thing is: the bible says: thou shalt not kill.
At least in the part revolving around Jesus, which is the New Testament.
It doesn't say:
thou shalt taketh the Oil-ah! from the lands of the Iraqi people-ah!
Thou shalt fight the war on terror for the minions of Satannn are on the march-ah! Thou shalt teach-ah! the sand ******* the power of the Lord-ah!

But here we are, humanity is still fighting wars on behalf of their Gods, to teach the other God's followers a lesson.

If God exists, He would be ashamed.

Amen.

That is Thou Shalt not Murder. There is a big difference in meaning..

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...d=exodus+20&section=0&version=nas&language=en

12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. "You shall not murder."You shall not commit adultery. 15 "You shall not steal. 16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

There is a difference.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by theHawk:
I'm aware of the history already thanks.
I guess there is justification for racism.

Ok, well it seems to me you like to bury facts and paint a bleaker picture of Arabs than they deserve. The first casualty in war is truth.
Obviously we are the greatest, being caucasian and all. Ubermenschen, geht!

Originally posted by theHawk:
I don't even know how to respond to that nonesense.

No worries, I didn't expect you to.

Originally posted by no1tovote4:
That is Thou Shalt not Murder. There is a big difference in meaning..
There is a difference.

Fair enough, there is a big difference in meaning. But that difference only points to the reason for the killing: when the reason can be justified, it is called a kill, and when it is not, it's called murder.

International institutions have however condemned the invasion of Iraq.
They have deemed it illegal, or in other words, unjustified.