Peculiarities SocioSite Subject Areas Society Search About us Contact

Jihadists running Wild(ers)   Dutch Version

—I saw this film a long time ago—

dr. Albert Benschop
University of Amsterdam

translation: Connie Menting

Geert Wilders’ film
Fuss about Fitna
Foreign protests: bring us Wilders’ throat
United Nations: islamic halving of human rights
Domestic disturbances
Turn in the
Premiere – a sigh of relief and boredom
Protest from abroad
Nomadic thoughts
    Information resources
Related articles
rode_knop Chronicle of a Political Murder Foretold — Jihad in the Netherlands

Geert Wilders’ film

There were terrorist attacks on the American Twin Towers, metro bombs in Madrid and London, and there was the horrifying murder of Theo van Gogh. And people were killed, just like in all the other attacks committed by jihadists, by terrorists inspired by the islam. What makes these acts of violence extra shocking was that they weren’t committed by muslim fighters from far-away countries, but by – on the face of it – integrated and often well-educated young western muslims and converts. The publication of the Danish cartoons, in which the jihadists were ridiculed, led to a world-wide uproar, in which people were killed as well. Now it turns out that even a not yet broadcast film can lead to violent national and international uproar. Vicious fights, spiteful remarks and threats about a film nobody knew. How could this happen?

Click to enlarge
Can Geert Wilders take a joke?
Geert Wilders’ film is called Fitna, meaning ordeal or evil. Originally the concept literally meant heating gold and silver in fire, to test their authenticity. But in the Koran this word is used to specify the danger that muslims return to polytheism or heathenism. Someone who sows fitna is, in the eyes of muslims, a greater evil than a murderer. The damage seems to have been done even before Wilders brought it up in his little film.

Muslims from home and abroad stumbled over each other’s pens to condemn Wilders’ film. A multitude of critical revierers judged something that they had never even seen. If their indignation and threats hadn’t been so serious, one could have a good laugh. But perhaps we have to conclude in retrospect that we saw Wilders’ film a long time ago. Fitna is a compilation of visual material that we saw a lot earlier: videos of armed-to-the-teeth terrorists slaughtering helpless citizens.

It also goes without saying what the construction and focus of the film is because it is such an old and unfortunately effective recipe. Step 1: reduce the islam as a religion to the spiteful political ideology of the jihadists, who commit an attack while referring to the Koran. Step 2: generalise this jihadist image of the ‘true islam’ to such an extent that the Koran emerges as a merely hatred sowing and violence inciting book. Step 3: subsequently, conclude that the threatening ‘islamisation’ of society should, amongst others, be combated by forbidding the Koran (also in the mosques and at home) and by stopping the building of mosques. With such a muscled generalisation all muslims are put in the same jihadist category. Each muslim harbours Mohammed Bouyeri’s poison.

Wilders’ doctrine is: “The islam is a political ideology, striving for world dominion and threatening the West. .... The supreme good of islamic ideology is to destroy what is most precious to us: our freedom. ... Fitna is the last warning for the West [Wilders, Volkskrant 22.3.08]. The believes it is even “highly dangerous’ to talk about the islam as a religion. Wilders says he is not getting at muslims, but at the islam. He who doesn’t understand the (hysterical) logic of it, can try to understand Bert Wagendorp’s summary of Wilders viewpoint: “I hate Ajax, but I have nothing against its players, football is no sport and Zomerhitte (Summer heat) is the last warning before all glaciers melt” [Volkskrant 25.3.08].

With good arguments one can fight the viewpoints of islamically inspired extremists. But to Geert Wilders this merely seems to be a means to reach something completely different: sowing fear of and cultivating hatred against a certain religion (and its worshippers). Wilders wants to make us believe that essentially each muslim is violent and dangerous. The overwhelming majority of the muslims in the Netherlands pursues the same basic values as all other citizens: living in peace, freedom and prosperity.

Index Fuss about Fitna

In August 2007 Wilders compares the Koran to Mein Kampf and advocates a ban on the holy book for muslims. On 28 November 2007 the news gets out, by means of a leaked out message in the newspaper de Telegraaf, that Wilders wants to make a film about the Koran. The film would have a ‘Submission-like’ style: scriptures from the Koran would be filmed in an expressive way.

On 30 November Wilders writes in his weblog that with this film he wants to show that the Koran is not a mouldy old book, but still is “the reason of and source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror.”

In an interview in the Telegraaf of 26 January 2008 Wilders gives a further explanation: his film is not only about the Koran, but also takes place in the Koran. “The edges of the book will be visible all the time, and inside pictures are shown of what is described in the Koran scriptures.” In the opening shot the cover of the Koran can be seen on the left side, with to its right the text: “warning: this book contains shocking pictures.” After this opening shot the book opens, and one can see in particular existing pictures of other sources.

One doesn’t need to be a prophet to predict that bloody shots will be presented of muslims committing violent acts with a plea of their belief: stoning in Iran, a decapitation in Iraq, a suicide attack in Afghanistan, the burning Twin Towers in New York, the mutilated body of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam. These are all shocking pictures. And Wilders anticipates this impact: “Those who find this shocking shouldn’t be angry with me, but with the people who have done these things. We take a ride along the various suras and verses and we look for an accompanying example.”

Wilders announces his film on the internet: Geert Wilders presents - Fitna - Coming Soon

This is how Geert Wilders announced his Koran film on the internet. On the left side a picture of the front of the Koran can be seen, showing the Arabic text Allahu Akhbar, meaning ‘God is the Greatest’.

“Why can a decapitation video of jihadists be published on the internet and does the American provider Network Solutions block the Fitna-site of Wilders even before he has been able to put it there?” [Hans Beerekamp, NRC 26.3.08].
However, on 22 March 2008 the provider takes the site off the air. The message of Network Solutions was concise. “This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site’s content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation.” The provider had received many hundreds of complaints about the site and was afraid of reputation damage. Besides, more than once Wilders had refused to inform the provider of the exact contents of the film. Network Solutions concluded that the contents would most probably be incompatible with their house regulations. Finally, Network Solutions was worried about the payment of the site. Not only the expected number of visitors, but also the number of cyber jihadists, ready to remove the Fitna site from the internet (or to block access to it), would lead to incredibly high costs. The provider received no certainty from Wilders that he would be willing to or could pay these enormous costs.

Network Solutions
Network Solutions (NS) sells domain names and supplies related services such as website hosting and e-mail services to consumers, companies and organisations. NS was established in 1979. The company has changed of ownership a number of times. After it had been acquired by VeriSign in 2000 it was sold to the investment company Pivotal Group for $ 100 million in 2003. Pivotal sold NS to General Atlantic, a private share company specialised in internet technological companies. They probably bought it for some $ 800 million.
By blocking the Fitna site Network Solutions (NS) was immediately severely criticised by angry clients, who ended their contract with the provider. Various well-known (and a lot of internet traffic generating) webloggers terminated their contract with NS. Besides, the provider was accused of applying double standards. For one thing refusing to host Wilders’ film, for another doing registration services to the domain Yet, NS took this last criticism to heart and removed this domain.

The offer of the Nederlandse Moslim Omroep (NMO - Dutch Broadcasting Corporation) to show Fitna on television was rejected by Wilders. The NMO wanted to show the film on TV and organise a discussion between proponents and opponents after it was broadcast. The NMO’s condition was that they could see the film in advance, to be sure that it contained no punishable statements. “No way, NMO”, Wilders said. Abdelmajid Khairoun, president of the Nederlandse Moslim Raad (Dutch Muslim Board, the licence-holder of the NMO) expressed that his invitation to broadcast the film should be seen as a sign that “in these difficult times” muslims are open to reconciliation and dialogue. According to him the taboo of the film should be broken. “Broadcasting by the NMO allows our target group to get used to it” [source: NRC - 23.3.08].

Index Foreign protests: bring us Wilders’ throat

Long before anyone has seen Wilders’ film the protests are raised. In the following chronicle we summarise the major protests from abroad.

Index United Nations: islamic halving of human rights

Islamic countries exert themselves to put criticism on the islam out of action and if possible to forbid it. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) counts 57 countries and is the largest electing block within the UN. The OIC has been conducting a campaign against freedom of speech since 1999, because they consider it to be “a cover of the West to justify utterances against the islam” (secretary-general of OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu).

“The OIC Group believes that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and does not provide a license to insult and hurt the sentiments and beliefs of others”
[OIC Statement on Islamophobia - 29.02.2008].
On 18 December 2007 a resolution was adopted in the Committee Human Rights of the UN, summoning governments to restrain freedom of speech. The resolution was proposed by Pakistan and accepted with a large majority. Of the voting countries the islamic and independent countries voted in favour of the resolution. All western countries voted against it. In the summary of the resolution against blasphemy we can read:

Although the resolution isn’t a binding guideline of the United Nations, it has meanwhile become a dominant line of thought. “Accepting the resolution is the last step in the direction of a more binding judgement of the United Nations General Assembly” [Peter Louter, Volkskrantblog - 21.01.08]. It is a macabre phenomenon: islamic countries that have never signed the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man (because it was supposed to contravene the islamic doctrine), are now trying to justify the restriction of freedom of speech ensuing from the islam.

Index Domestic disturbances

Hug Geert In the Netherlands itself the islamic community mainly reacted with appropriate indignation to the announced Wilders’ film. Some protests were even fairly frivolous. On 23 January 2008 and Academica Islamica organised a meeting with youngsters and at the end a symbolic cuddly bear was presented which was meant for Geert Wilders. “That man needs love and affection, which he lacked in his youth, so we want to compensate this” (Abdelhafid Bouzidi]. 3,000 People sent a hug to Geert Wilders on the website, especially created for this occation.

Most protests were more vicious and aimed at preventing the broadcasting of the Wilders’ film.

Index Turn in the

The most striking phenomenon is the change in the attitude of Dutch muslims. In the past the muslim community in the Netherlands showed great reticence to declare themselves openly against islamically inspired terrorism. Too many muslims thought they had nothing to do with it and so they wouldn’t be called to account. Meanwhile they have learned that the negative image of muslims and the islam are particularly the consequence of the actions of jihadists who slaughter innocent citizens with an appeal to the Koran and threaten to kill politicians and writers. They have also learned that political strategy of Wilders and Verdonk is aimed at maintaining and exploiting this negative image of muslims. But the time of ‘victimship’ (of the attacks on the islam or on the jihadist form of it) and of sheer ‘complaining’ (of the actions of Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Theo van Gogh, Geert Wilders en Rita Verdonk) lies meanwhile in the past for many muslims. This offers opportunities to approach the misery of the islam in a more self-confident and assertive way.

Of course there were still muslims who tried to ‘justify’ themselves and avert ‘calamity’ via criminal law. It was attempted in several ways to prohibit showing Fitna. More than 45 organisations and individuals reported stirring up hatred and insulting. But there is also another side to it. Many other muslim and migrant organisations have made every effort in the Fitna-row to prevent further escalation. They summoned the Dutch muslims not to be provoked by Wilders & co and not to thoughtlessly express all emotions involved. Besides, they exerted themselves to provide the political and religious authorities in islamic countries with a realistic picture of the freedom of speech in the Netherlands and in particular of the freedom of religion for muslims.

    Saying ‘sorry’ for Fitna
    Many Dutch citizens were irritated by the continuous provocations of Geert Wilders. They were tired of waiting and started making their own Fitna-films, in which they apologise for Wilders’ film.
      “It is sometimes to humiliating to be Dutch. I apologise for it. Therefore we are all going to make our own Fitna-film. ... We cannot stop Wilders. He has the right of freedom of speech and is clever enough to remain within the boundaries of the Dutch law. Actually we don’t want to block his film, because we value freedom of speech. Even dull-witted populist politicians have fundamental rights” [source].
    The plan of action is clear: we will make so many films that it will be difficult to find Wilders’ film without many other films in which apologies are offered for it. If everybody makes sufficient efforts nobody will find Wilders’ garbage between the noise we produce. This way we show the world (and ourselves) that we allow confused people to speak, but this doesn’t mean that we agree with what they say. We also have the right to show the world how we think about Wilders and his dangerous islamophobia.

    The ‘sorry for Fitna’-films put on YouTube are mostly of a surprising brevity, such as this one. But sometimes they are even very extensive statements, such as this fabulous speech by Ali.

Wilders is not the Netherlands
On the site thousands of people signed a statement, intending to show the world that Geert Wilders and his film Fitna do not reflect the ideas of all Dutch people. The petition was signed by more than 10,000 people (score 26 March). Over 7,000 people signed the petition ‘Wilders is not Holland’ on internet. Because the site is particularly intended to show foreign countries that many Dutch people do not share Wilders’viewpoints, it also has an English, French and Arabic version. Initiator and Llink-presenter Marcel van der Steen: “It isn’t an anti-Wilders site. Wilders has the right to his own opinion. If he wants to put it forward in a film, he should do this by all means” [source: Fok].

Index Premiere – a sigh of relief and boredom

LiveLeak removes Fitna
On Friday evening Fitna was removed from Liveleak. Due to serious threats received by LiveLeak’s personnel, they felt compelled to remove Fitna from their servers. But this didn’t mean that the film couldn’t be found on the internet anymore. On the contrary, immediately after the release of the film on internet many copies were distributed via other internet locations. This took place via the digital parking spaces (,,,,, via peer-to-peer systems (ThePirateBay, MiniNova), and via YouTube and VideoGoogle, and via private sites such as ‘vitu’, DeTrochsetters and libertes. But also YouTube took Fitna out of circulation after two days.
Then came the day of the true premiere of Fitna. This took place on Thursday 27 March 2008. It took place on LiveLeak. LiveLeak (formerly is a kind of YouTube, but with even more horrifying films (such as the one of Saddam Houssain’s execution). LiveLeak shows what YouTube and Google Video don’t show: uncensored, violent images.

With respect to content and as expected Fitna has hardly anything new to offer. It is a sequence of well-known images and a collection of newspaper clippings about terrorist attacks, mingled with suggestive images, drawn from other contexts, that have nothing to do with terrorism. Also the construction is no surprise. First the islam is reduced to the jihadist doctrine. Subsequently images are used to make a reasonable case for this jihadist doctrine as a source of inspiration for terrorists. And finally this distorted image of the islam is generalised to the whole muslim community in the Netherlands. A community that has nothing to do with the violence of foreign jihadists that is shown in the film. In this way the islam and Dutch muslims are identified with the most atrocious murder and maiming practices. The most provoking parts are the animated Mohammed caricature with a turban bomb with a slowly burning fuse, and the ‘tearing up’ scene, in which is emphatically expressed that no page out of the Koran is torn up, but out of the phonebook. Wilders leaves it up to the muslims themselves to tear hate-stirring verses out of the Koran.

Although the whole construction of Fitna is based on a deliberate deception, no statutory laws are broken. Fitna is a boring, little original product. All shocking images are well-known to everyone. After so many weeks of waiting many people breathed a sigh of relief. Even in GeenStijl the conclusion is drawn that it is a “Most disappointing product. Much ado about nothing.” In his ardour to paste existing films, pictures and newspaper clippings, Wilders made several big blunders and violated copyrights. One of the most remarkable blunder is the one in the part showing the murder of Theo van Gogh, in which a picture is shown representing Mohammed Bouyeri. However, Wilders doesn’t present a picture of Mohammed Bouyeri, but of the Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin. This might be worth a trial. Wilders still thinks that every Moroccan with a beard is a dangerous terrorist. “It shows that Wilders sees every muslim as a Mohammed B.” [Salah Edin] Wilders didn’t only choose a wrong picture; his whole idea of the islam is biased, distorted and false.

Fitna adds fuel to the fear of islam and of muslims. This is done by comparing the islam with committing horrifying deeds. From a moral and political viewpoint this irresponsible terrifying is the main objection against Wilders’ film. Stimulating and cultivating fear of muslims (=islamophobia) is the starting point of a slide that always ends in fear of muslims.

Prime Minister Balkenende explained that the film had no other goal but “hurting feelings”. This is not the same as “inciting hatred.” The first is not punishable in the Netherlands, the second is. Wilders may not directly incite to hatred of muslims. But he does put all Dutch muslims in the witness box, as long as they don’t tear up verses from the islam that Wilders doesn’t approve of. The overwhelming majority of the Dutch muslims abhors terror and have nothing to do with the preachers of hatred that summon a jihad against the disbelievers. By putting fuel on this fear it is those muslims that Wilders offends. And precisely these muslims are the main allies in the battle for a reconciliation of the islam with the values of the democratic state.

Ahmed Aboutaleb
Of course this doesn’t mean that muslims themselves have to think hard about the fear that many Dutch citizens have for the islam. State Secretary Ahmed Aboutaleb described it as follows: “Muslims have to think about the fear for their religion. The majority remains silent and that isn’t right. We have chosen for the Netherlands, especially because of the freedom here. This should be said openly. I miss the voice that disassociated from extremism” [Pauw & Witteman 27.3.08]. Earlier he wrote in the Volkskrant [14.3.08]: “The fact that there is so much hatred against muslims should make muslims think about it. Instead of regarding Wilders’ statements as reprehensible, we should ask ourselves which role we play in the image that has come into being. [...] Within their own community muslims can take steps to prevent radical elements from making themselves feel heroes. The present ethnic-religious solidarity

In a video statement, distributed byAl-Yaqeen , sheik Fawaz reacts to Wilders’ film. According to him Wilders suffered a defeat with his lousy film. Wilders has failed; he hasn’t succeeded in provoking muslims. He accuses Wilders of ignorance. Wilders takes verses out of their specific military context and distorts the meaning of these verses. “Wilders & co have become afraid of the strong influence of the islam, which is hidden in its conviction, civilization, politics and economy.” He is not capable of stopping this interest in the islam. Therefore he makes use of insults to provoke the muslims and to incite youngsters to commit irresponsible deeds and violence, to burn cars and display aggression towards innocent people. His strategy should by thwarted by keeping the quiet and by managing this kind of provocations according to islamic justice and code of behaviour. “Be patient,” don’t let yourself be provoked. Muslims “have the duty to control themselves and to show the grandeur of the islam [...] by their behaviour.” He thanks Prime Minister Balkenende for his “brave viewpoint concerning the rejection of the content of this film.” His daring viewpoint – in favour of justice, unity and mutual understanding – has seen to it that a “great trial” has failed to come.

Earlier the Syrian sheik Fawaz made a similar statement for Al-Jazeera. In this statement he summoned the muslims in the Netherlands and the rest of the world to keep their quiet and to leave the matter to the cultural organisations and the media to offer a reply based on criminal law. By keeping the quiet the defeat of this extreme member of parliament can be made complete. Fawaz phrases a viewpoint that is as simple as daring: the image people have of the islam depends on the counter actions of the muslilms. The motto that counts for all muslims is: do not resort to misdeed that enable Wilders even more to blacken the name of the islam.

In the eyes of many Dutch citizens sheik Fawaz had blackened the name of the islam before by claiming that it as islamically justified to treat homosexuals as criminals and to throw them from a block of flats. “Homosexuality and sexual abuse are not only forbidden in the islam. They are also forbidden by Christianity and Judaism. We preachers are only reproachful and are not here to undertake actions against people” [AD - 28.3.08].

Index Protest from abroad

Moderate and nearly comforting as the reactions in the Netherlands were, the reactions from abroad were fierce and sometimes exaggerated.

Index Nomadic thoughts

In the newspaper NRC Hans Beerekamp gave an impetus to an analysis of the relation between old and new media. In Wilders moet nu zijn film los durven laten (Wilders should let go of his film) he thematises internet as a viral medium, essentially distinguishing itself from mass media that communicate information vertically, from one single source to many receivers. “He who wants to convey an explosive message cannot do this under controlled circumstances.” The ‘old’ media operate under strictly controlled circumstances. It is the broadcasting licence-holder who takes the final decision about the transmission of a product. The maker or commissioner of this product doesn’t decide about the release of it. This is the reason why the Dutch broadcasting companies that were offered Fitna demanded a preview. When one is morally responsible and legally liable for what you expose to publicity, this is not done before knowing what you publish. This demand for a preview was consistently and pathetically denounced by Wilders – as if he had something to hide ......

Wilders had to let go of his film. “Only by letting the film lead a life of its own it can freely spread.” This can be done by making Fitna accessible by putting it on YouTube unannounced, by parking it on one of the many digital ‘drop zones’ for large files (such as megaupload or sendfile), or by sharing it with the millions of users of peer-to-peer systems of the internet (for example BitTorrent or Kazaa). Once digital files have been published on one or more strategic internet locations, they spread with speeds that are virtually higher than the reproductive speed of most potent viruses. That’s exactly why one cannot just say that the free traffic of information “can only be guaranteed as long as the message remains under the radar of the old media.” One can say “that an internet hype only really starts coming to life after television and the printing press have adopted it.” But it should also be said that themes originating on internet increasingly determine the agendas of the old media. The Fitna-fuss didn’t come into being after Nova and other television programmes selected and showed excerpts of it. There’s a good chance that they pluck these excerpts from the internet themselves, that the film has already been watched by millions of people in that case, and that they go on and on about it in news and current affairs programmes. The ‘radar of the old media’ remains important, but loses its steering power. The ‘radar of the new media’ (cyberradar) is an independent force, moderated by swarm intelligence, creating a completely new context of public nature for the ‘old’ media.

In the web forums of young migrants in the Netherlands (such as, and there were ample discussions about both Wilders’ film and the jihadist threat of terrorism. It is difficult to summarise these discussions in a few words, but the dominant tone was: the jihadists are the ones who ridicule the islam, and it is Geert Wilders who tries to cash in on it in a populist way. The muslim fundamentalists are “as mad as a hatter” and Wilders only needs to glue their dispersed videos in order to spread the image that the islam as such is an intolerate and hatred-inciting religion.

The overwhelming majority of the muslims in the Netherlands do not recognise the caricature of the islam that jihadists spread. They are additionally hurt by the caricature Wilders tries to make of the islam in general and by the prejudices he spreads about Dutch muslims.

Geert Wilders
Geert Wilders blows up the appropriate criticism of muslim fundamentalism and jihadism to an extremely muscular condemnation of the islam and a gross insult of its believers. And vice versa the appropriate criticism of Wilders’ delusion by jihadists and islamic governments is blown up to a condemnation of ‘the West’ and a blood-drenched martyr lyricism.

In the logic of confrontation and escalation both extremes blow themselves up, by mirroring each other and thus mutually confirming and reproducing each other. As long as this logic dominates the political theatre, there is little political latitude between the ‘fortress of blasphemy’ and the ‘fortress of the true muslims’ for citizens (whether or not believing in ‘something’) who are convinced that a religiously neutral – so secular or if desired religiously blind – state is the best guarantee for both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

In a democratic constitutional state one doesn’t have to respect for the religious or non-religious beliefs of people, but one does have to respect their right to hold and express different opinions – absurd as they may be. As long as these opinions are not contrary to the non-discrimination regulations. But in such a state no one can be denied the right to publicly criticise the belief, superstition or disbelief of others. Or – just to give an example – to draw a cartoon of this or make a critical film.

Index Information resources

  1. Haatgroepen
    A characterisation of hate groups on the internet.

  2. Hate Groups: Watch Them - Fight Them
    Information sources on hate groups on the internet.

  3. BBC - Why Democracy? Bloody Cartoons
    Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI
    Bloody Cartoons is a documentary showing how and why 12 cartoons in a Danish provincial newspaper can lead to a confrontation between a small country and muslims all over the world. The film was shot in Libanon, Iran, Syria, Quatar, Turkey and Denmark.

  4. Internet Haganah

  5. JihadWatch
    Informs about the role of theology and ideology of the jihad in the modern world. Corrects misconceptions of the role of the jihad and religion in current national and international conflicts.

  6. KB: Dossier Terrorisme

  7. Ministerie van Binnnenlandse zaken [2005]
    Vitale infrastructuur is redelijk goed beschermd (Vital infrastructure is fairly well protected)
    How well protected is the vital infrastructure in the Netherlands against a fall out due to breakdowns, disasters, sabotage or attacks? According to the Ministry of the Interior the vital structures in our country are reasonably well protected, although additional measures are necessary to protect the various services and facilities even better. This emerges from the first integral analysis of all vital sectors, which Minister Remkes (Ministry of the Interior and Relations of State) sent to the Lower House: Rapport Bescherming Vitale Infrastructuur (Report Protection Vital Infrastructure).

  8. NRC

  9. Openbaar Ministerie: Moslim-extremisme/terrorisme

  10. Site Intelligence Group
    Terrorist Publications

  11. Spits -
    Jihad-route lonkt voor Wilders (Jihad route has an eye on Wilders)

  12. Start - National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
    A centre of excellence of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security based at the University of Maryland.

  13. Terrorism Research Center

    Useful links to sources on terrorism.
Peculiarities SocioSite Subject Areas Society Search About us Contact

dr. Albert Benschop
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Sociology & Anthropology University of Amsterdam
Published: 10 Mein, 2008
Last modified: 20th September, 2013