terrorist plotted to blow up Amsterdam's red light district

[Irvine511]

Pizza courier 'targeted' Amsterdam sex zone
10 December 2004

AMSTERDAM — Justice authorities arrested a Moroccan man last month after receiving a tip-off that Islamic extremists were allegedly planning an attack on the Red Light District in Amsterdam, it was reported on Friday.

The pizza-delivery courier allegedly conducted reconnaissance of the capital's prostitution zone while riding through the area during work hours on his scooter. He was arrested on 5 November. Newspaper De Telegraaf described him as a "radical Moroccan pizza courier".

The National Detectives Unit was alerted to the supposed attack plan by three anonymous emails, the first of which was received on 14 September. Emails dated 27 September and 11 October gave further details of the suspects and addresses.

The emails warned that "terrorists in Amsterdam East" were plotting an attack on the Wallen area in Amsterdam, De Telegraaf reported. Muslim extremists, the paper said, were allegedly furious at the lack of morals in the prostitution zone.

Justice authorities took the tips very seriously and arrested the pizza deliverer at the Nasr mosque in the Celebesstraat in Amsterdam East. The man has been identified as a 20-year-old Amsterdam resident of Moroccan descent, Bilal L., alias Abu Qataadah.

L. was allegedly in contact with Syrian Redouan al-Issa, the fugitive leader of the terror network Hofstadgroep (Main City Group). The Syrian was an illegal immigrant in the Netherlands and gave Koran lessons in the home of Mohammed B., the suspected murderer of filmmaker Theo van Gogh. B. is also a member of the Main City Group.

The emails claimed the Syrian was involved in the plans to attack the Red Light District, while another target was the Dutch Parliament in The Hague.  L. is alleged to have bought equipment needed to carry out the attack.

It is possible that L. was in contact with Jason W., one of the two suspects arrested in a stand-off with police in The Hague on 10 November. The detective unit involved in the investigation claims the group around L. regularly met at the Aboe Bakr mosque in Almere.

L. is also reportedly being held for threatening right-wing independent MP Geert Wilders. The MP's life has been repeatedly threatened because of his trenchant critisism of Islam.

The Main City Group — which mainly consists of Muslims of North African descent — has been kept under surveillance by the Dutch intelligence service AIVD since the summer of 2002.

Samir A. — who is being held on suspicion he was planning an attack against Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, the Dutch Parliament and the Defence Ministry — is also a member of the group. He is believed to be in contact with the suspected killer of Van Gogh.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site...e=Pizza+courier+'targeted'+Amsterdam+sex+zone

 

[Irvine511]

the question this raises, is, the following: the Dutch are famously tolerant, being a haven for immigrants and refugees from all over the world for centuries. it is also this spirit of tolerance that has created one of the most liberal, open societies in the world where prostitution is legal and regulated, so are soft drugs, and it seems to work very well for the Dutch. it is also this social expectation of tolerance that allows extreme interpretations of Islam to be practiced in the Netherlands. however, such interpretations preach the destruction of precisely those elements in Dutch society -- tolerance. the Dutch are now tolerating intolerance towards their own tolerance. where does it end? what do we make of this? are we going to see a backlash? are we going to see an end to the tolerance of intolerance?

discuss.

 

[blueyedpoet]

when i was there about a year ago i spoke with several people around my age. they are tolerant of anything that does not infringe on anyone else's rights....of course these few 20-year olds don't speak for their entire country, but that seems like a plausible attitude of the dutch

 

[verte76]

Good grief. You're right, the Dutch have been known for their extraordinary tolerance for a long time. They gave the Jews shelter before many other people were willing to. It's a shame this is being tested now as a result of this madness on the part of shameless killers. I just think this is really sad.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Am I allowed to criticize loose immigration/integration policies without being labelled a racist? I think that there are only going to be victims from both the initial violence and ultimately from the reprisals, if countries sought balance then the risk of both would go down and all people would be a lot safer.

 

[verte76]

Am I allowed to criticize loose immigration/integration policies without being labelled a racist? I think that there are only going to be victims from both the initial violence and ultimately from the reprisals, if countries sought balance then the risk of both would go down and all people would be a lot safer.

I think so, yes. Maybe there is such a thing as immigration policies that are too loose. It's painful to think about it, but when you've got people that are going to other countries just to blow some stuff up it's got to be investigated and hopefully stopped by preventing Nut X from getting into a country.

 

[Dutch Partygirl]

We (the Dutch that is) ourselves brought loads and loads of Marrocan/Turkish/Spanish people into our country in the sixties when we didn't have enough people to do all the work because of the booming economy. Now, the third generation is growing up in our country and I've got the feeling that they don't really know where they belong. A lot of the Dutch don't see them as Dutch people and in their own country they're seen as not part of the culture. I think it's one of the reasons they're attracted to extremistic views.

It's very sad what's happening in our country right now and I don't really like the changes this country is going through. Yes, we were very tolerant and maybe we were too tolerant. That's probably part of the problem. But you can't change the past. The immigration laws have become a lot stricter through the past years, but I think the problems come from the people that have been here for years and years. And I don't see a solution to it if I'm honest.

And the murder of Theo van Gogh just blew up the whole tolerance-thing towards mainly muslims if you ask me.

O, and by the way: if they had blown up the red light district, I would've been dead. No, I don't work there I'm living around the corner from the busiest street in the red light district. Glad they didn't blow it up!

 

[Popmartijn]

Yes, it is true that the Dutch have been labeled tolerant for quite some time now. Much of this has to do with geography and history. The Netherlands is just a small country (~400 km North to South and ~200 km East to West, or to put it in another perspective, I've read somewhere that in the USA, only the state of Rhode Island is smaller than the Netherlands). So we welcomed many people and ideas to enable prosperity and growth.
Nowadays, with 16 million people, tolerance is also necessary to be able to live together. Everything is small in the Netherlands, including living space (because we are one of the most crowded countries in the world, with 360+ people living per square kilometer). You need to tolerate different ideas and styles of living, because you can barely escape from it here.
So, for a while, there was a blind eye to tolerating intolerance.

Because, no A_Wanderer, you won't be labeled a racist immediately. But some sides do like to name it like that quite easily here. Part of it still has to do with WWII, I think. While the Netherlands did give shelter to Jews long before many other countries did, many Jews were also deported from the Netherlands during WWII. Part of it has to do with geography (in a flat country with no mountains or large forests it's very difficult to hide people for a long time), part with a well-oiled bureacratic system and maybe also part with an unwillingness to take the risk and try to hide Jews from the Germans (in whatever could have been possible in your house). So they may be some guilt over past behaviour and thus an extra drive to welcome everyone from all over the world.

Immigration was too loose for a while. Too little attention was given to integrating the immigrants in the Dutch society. Now, after the rise and the assasination of politician Pim Fortuyn (and the 11 September terrorist attack) and the murder of Theo van Gogh is there a lot more pressure to stricten immigration laws. Still, the racist label is used too loosely (IMO).

What will happen to the Netherlands? Will it become a fortress for immigrants? How will the different cultures from other peoples be respected? I think that, eventually, the new laws/attitude in the Netherlands will be a bit too harsh. Not that I have expert knowledge on these issues, but I see it as a swing move to find a balance. First, laws were too loose, next they'll probably be too harsh, after which they're loosened a bit, etc. until a good balance is found. On these levels I believe politics never have it right the first time. It will turn out OK in the end, but until then there will be pressures while finding balance.

C ya!

Marty

 

[sharky]

Well, you also have to take into account WHY they would've attacked the red light district -- try the fact that it is against their religion to be hanging with prostitutes etc. I wouldn't worry so much about the rest of Amsterdam or the Netherlands. Every country has a spot that would be considered a place to attack.

 

[A_Wanderer]

This is not a morality crusade, to these groups it is about bringing the weak west to it's knees against the obvious superiority of Islam (or more specifically their despotic political system built around their religion) - it would be supremely ignorant to assume and project upon such actions.

 

[U2democrat]

hey A

 

[A_Wanderer]

Hey

I wasn't here over the weekend, out running a 300 player lan - uhhh so much cabling to check.

 

[verte76]

Yeah, it's obvious why they targeted the red light district. It's part of their jihadist political campaign.

 

[DrTeeth]

I can't believe nobody's made a blowjob joke yet.

 

[U2democrat]

thats hilarious!

 

[Irvine511]

Well, you also have to take into account WHY they would've attacked the red light district -- try the fact that it is against their religion to be hanging with prostitutes etc. I wouldn't worry so much about the rest of Amsterdam or the Netherlands. Every country has a spot that would be considered a place to attack.

right -- this gets to the heart of the issue. it's the Dutch tolerance (some out of liberalism, some out of sheer pragamatism) that has allowed the co-existence of both conservative Muslims and state regulated prostitutes. now, one wants to destroy the other, though one wouldn't exist without the other.

also, how much of a right do immigrants have to change and alter the societies to which they immigrate? i think we can say that some of this is natural -- i live in a hugely latino area, love being able to get empanadas at 3 am. however, as AW has pointed out, the European birthrate is shrinking while the Muslim birthrate is exploding. at some point -- what will Europe look like? will it still be Europe? is there an essential European character? is European identity non-exclusive enough (like American identity, we're all immigrants to begin with, so it's probably easier for us to absorb new people ... we've also go the space ... and to constantly deal with newness; crazy as things are, we're the essence of dynamism) to be able to absorb very different cultures without too much of a shock to the old?

what is Europe going to do over the next 100 years?

 

[Pearl]

I'm not surprised that they targeted the Red Light district. Like Sharky said, they'd find that area highly offensive because of their religion. I would imagine a lot of Muslims in Europe feel torn between two almost polar opposite cultures. They're born and raised in a conservative, strict families and communities in liberal, anything-goes countries. They're taught one thing from their families about women's rights, separation of religion and state, and sexuality, and so on, and then they step out of the house and its an entirely different world. Its got to be confusing and frustrating.

originally posted by Dutch Partygirl
Now, the third generation is growing up in our country and I've got the feeling that they don't really know where they belong. A lot of the Dutch don't see them as Dutch people and in their own country they're seen as not part of the culture. I think it's one of the reasons they're attracted to extremistic views.

Also, when they visit their parents' home countries they feel they don't belong there either because the people in those countries see them as Europeans, and not Middle Eastern or South Asian. So they don't seem to fit in anywhere. I also read that some of the children of immigrants are disappointed and even angry at their parents for kind of giving up their religion by migrating to a liberal society that doesn't share the same views. And they rebel by joining extremist groups.

I don't think the Netherlands and the rest of Europe should put up with all the extremism though. It is a danger to their society. More and more young Muslims are joining extremist groups, and its scary. They obviously got a lot of hate and anger, which is understandable, but who knows what they might do. These countries need to somehow balance preventing extremism from spreading and also somehow try to make the two groups - the immigrants and the Europeans - accept each other's culture, if that's possible.

 

[Pearl]

originally posted by Irvine511
what will Europe look like? will it still be Europe? is there an essential European character? is European identity non-exclusive enough (like American identity, we're all immigrants to begin with, so it's probably easier for us to absorb new people ... we've also go the space ... and to constantly deal with newness; crazy as things are, we're the essence of dynamism) to be able to absorb very different cultures without too much of a shock to the old?

what is Europe going to do over the next 100 years?

Well, the difference between American and European reaction to immigration is that, like you said, all Americans are descendants of immigrants; we are not indigenous here. Europeans, on the other hand, are. Their people have been there for thousands for years, and when they read their history books, they read about their ancestors, not someone else's.

What would become of Europe probably depends on how Muslims handle extremism. They say the majority of Muslims do not agree with it, but it doesn't look like too much action is done. And extremists want to set up Taliban-like states all over Europe. If most Muslims don't want that, they should do something about it.

Another thing to point about why so many young Muslims are joining extremist groups might be because a lot of immigrants are unemployed and live in poor neighborhoods. So, you got a people brought up with values drastically different from the country they were born into, they've been rejected from their country for not belonging, they're living in poverty...it all adds up.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Somehow try to make the two groups - the immigrants and the Europeans - accept each other's culture, if that's possible.

See now here is the crux of the issue. Should the native Europeans and their governments be forced to accomidate the practices of immigrants. It seems to me that this is suicidal state enforced multiculturalism where pure acceptance of foreign practices that should have no place in European society become tollerated. I do not think that acceptance of hardline Islamism in Europe is wise and could well be it's own undoing. As it stands these individuals live in Europe therefore they must abide by European laws, failure to do so should be met with arrests and deportations. Seeing the intoduction of trial Sharia courts, allowing the broadcasting Hezbolla propaganda and just allowing ghettos to have formed are examples of this - nobody will admit that there is a problem and it just compounds; this isn't just bad for Europeans it is bad for the genuine innocent people who come there to make a new life only to have the shit their running away from catch up with them. Having waves of immigration can build great societies but only if each group gives leeway and these issues are ironed out - such discussions are no longer taboo but there is a very long way to go before the problems can be adressed in a composed and open manner without cries of racism and Islamophobia.

If the present demographic trends continue Europe in 100 years will be Eurabia, if something big happens in between then that demographic time bomb will be defused and Europe will be a very caucasian continent indeed and if in the near future people start to wake up the the problems within certain circles and the European birthrate rebounds then a stable Europe will continue to exist in peace and prosperity. I am really hoping for number 3 because both 1 and 2 would be catalysts for furthur violence and/or expansion of radical violent activist millitant Islam.

I do not think that poverty is the critical factor in this extremism, I think that conditioning through religious belief is what drives it and I think that that is bad. There will be a big drop in terror when it isn't fostered by some sections of the religious leadership. I think that you could probably nab a few individuals from the Finsbury mosque with religious vilification laws considering the way that they describe Jews in their sermons (check the website). I am not saying that Islam equals terrorism but I am saying that there are some that abuse their positions as religious leaders, as holy men, to incite violence and justify terror and that this problem cannot just be swept under the carpet as a minor contributing factor or excused because its a religious practice or justified because there are Christians out there that want to get rid of Islam.

And for the record for anybody who just read that and does not know me may assume things before writing a response, to clarify;
> I am not religious
> I believe that people have the freedom to worship (or not to worship) whatever way they want as long it does not hurt others or infringe on their rights.
> I do not think that Islam is a religion of peace, nor do I consider Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism or any religion to be any more deserving of that title.
> Maintaining free and secular government is an important function of government - I consider that any action that brings religion into government to be a bad thing.
> I believe in freedom of speech and that inciting violence against others is criminal.

 

[Dutch Partygirl]

I do agree with a lot of the views stated here. I think the key to this issue is, like Popmartijn said, is finding a balance. But that's a difficult thing that could take years. Years in which the hatred will grow (from both sides if you ask me).

It's even difficult to find a balance in freedom of speech. If an Imam here says that homosexuals are the lowest of the low the whole country is shocked and the media is all over it shouting that stuff like that can't be said. If Theo van Gogh says that muslims are goatf*cking idiots than everybody thinks that he should be able to say that. Where do you draw the line? (by the way, I don't agree with both views and to me it's unthinkable that somebody is killed for saying stuff like that).

If you think freedom of speech is the most important thing in a democracy, should you let for instance the extremist right wing have their say?

Sorry, it's a bit of an off topic rant, but it's something that I've been thinking about ever since the murder of Theo van Gogh...

 

[A_Wanderer]

What about calling Mohammed a paedophile? Now this is an interesting situation because he did marry Aisha at age 6 and consumate their relationship age 9 so using evidence this is a fact, it may well be unsavoury but I think that having to be silent about the facts in the name of political correctness can be a bad thing.

Now some may well say that Muslims are goatfuckers and some may also say that homosexuals are lower than low, but it is when they start talking about violence upon others that it becomes an issue.

 

[verte76]

In those days marriage took place at a much earlier age for both sexes. I do think marriage ages can be explained by "cultural" differences. All over, marriages were arranged by the parents. There were often political or economic considerations involved. The men had to develop a skill to support a family. Until the twentieth century few, if any, thought that a woman needed this skill. Thus the older marriage age for the man. The age thing is still a major deal in Arab culture, they still want the man to be older and the girl to be really young.

 

[Irvine511]

i'm still really interested in Europe -- and i'd love to hear some European voices on this question.

Does Europe have to be white and Christian to remain European? Does Europe have an "essential" character, and is this character necessarily defined by difference to the Muslim World (as well as Asia, the US, etc. all countries and continents define themselves, in part, against those to whom they are different)?

 

[Dutch Partygirl]

I don't think Europe has got an essential character, I think all the different countries in Europe have all got their own essential character.

I do think there are a lot of differences between the Muslim world and the 'European' countries. That's the reason for all the problems that are surfacing right now. And to be honest, I don't mind Muslims living here, but I do think that we should be able to contain our own identity.

 

[Irvine511]

this is true -- when i compare the US to Europe, the US is a much more fluid place. we have no myth of origin, we have no official language, official religion, we have no roots in the soil itself (those that did were killed off, sadly). in 200 years, the US could be Spanish speaking, and it would still be the US. Europe, because of its much longer, deeper, and more violent history where ethnic conflict regularly arose, is much more defined. we can say that someone looks German, or looks Dutch, or looks Italian. much harder to say that someone looks American -- we can say they "dress" american, or that they're "fat like an american," but there are no real racial characteristics.

so we've got a clear idea of what a Dutchman looks like. i think this is changing, since, for example, i wouldn't bat an eyelash at an African or Pakistani (used to denote ethnicity, not citizenship) speaking with a South London accent. but what does this mean for everyone else? what does this mean when you've got a group of immigrants who refuse -- often to violent extremes -- to adapt to, and adopt, the culture to which they are immigrating?

is this going to cause an equal reacton on the part of the European? a resurgance of nationalism?

i've no idea --- but, gosh, am i curious.

 

[klappie]

At first I thought I wouldn't mingle in the discussion, it was all a bit 'too close to home' to step out of it and see the trends that are being set after the recent killing.
But Irvine511 and the rest pose some serious and thoughtful discussions on the issue.

In theory we would be ready for a coup d'etat now here in The Netherlands...
First off, there's a massive disappointment amongst large groups of people about hwo recent events are being handled. We have big issues that seem unsolvable with a chance of them to explode in something disastrous, we have weak -very weak- leadership, and there are some very shady characters waiting in the sideline to step in and 'offer the people hope and salvation'...

Of course I'm only exagerating, but just a little - look at these premises and they could apply for almost any 2nd or 3rd world country that recently dealt with a coup d'etat.

In all seriousness, not much will change in the next few years. The idea was that everything would be different after 9/11, then after the killing of Fortuyn - truth is nothing really happened in way of change etc after those events.
This time around the same people will say they can no longer tolerate it etc. Only diference is, is that opinions will be a bit more harsh and rough than last time as this action was founded, for the first time, in political AND religous hatred.
But it will not change that dramatically, not now and not in 2/3 years time when elections are due.
And perhaps that isn't too bad. Yes we've been tolerant and I hope we will remain tolerant and a safe haven for those that need us in their run for peace, as well as remein tolerant in our bid to legalizing drugs (hard and soft - but don't get me started on that ) and prostitution etc. It's how we live as a society it's what makes us tick and progress. I just hope that people now see that it is OK -and certainly not racist- to question certain groups of people (e.g. fundamentalists and those that will not judge them - be it muslim or christian), especially those people that oppose that progression and see it as their duty to make us want to believe otherwise through acts and not through words...

from amsterdam, with lots of love to ALL

 

[Irvine511]

and lots of love back to Amsterdam -- one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, with one of the world's great art museums. and to paint all of you with a broad brush, most Dutch people i have met are models of decency and manners. and lovely English-speaking skills. and attractive, too.

i think the important thing that was mentioned is the ability to talk about race and ethnicity, and differences, without being racist or ethnocentrist and without calling someone who disagrees with you racist or ethnocentrist. is it racist to burn down a mosque in protest? absolutely. is it racist to question the teachings of a mosque and how those teachings may not be able to function in this particular society? absolutely not.

nuance. it's a good thing!

 

[klappie]

thanks! well, your Hershhorn Museum is pretty nice as well ...I must say I don't remember the DC women that well though...

But you're right. It's something that is only possible since the last couple of weeks, before that it was very black or white to discuss these sort of issues. Though It's not that the whole country just made a swing to the right. It's indeed the continous search for nuance.
And that makes the debate going on here very interesting. Despite recent events, these are some very exciting times to live here and see a society re-inventing their structures.

 

[Dutch Partygirl]

Klappie and Irvine: You are both so right! Couldn't have said it better...