Dutch Worry About Radical Muslims in the Military

The Dutch secret services AIVD (state intelligence) and MIVD (military intelligence) are investigating an unknown number of Muslims within the Dutch army. Last Saturday, the Dutch newspaper Het Parool reported that a growing number of Dutch soldiers sympathizes with radical Islamists. The paper refers to the annual report of the MIVD, which states that it conducted a number of investigations into “alleged radicalisation of military personnel” as “there are signs that indicate a possible radicalisation of Muslim individuals or groups within the armed forces.”

During the past years the Dutch army, in order to contradict allegations of discrimination, has applied a policy of preferential recruitment among immigrant youths. The MIVD warns, however, that youths between 17 and 25 are more easily influenced by radical Islam, while the experience of Dutch troops in Afghanistan and Iraq can also lead to an enhanced radicalisation.

At least ten to twenty groups of Muslim terrorists are said to be active in the Netherlands, planning assassinations of politicians and the bombing of the AIVD headquarters.

General Bert Dedden, the retiring MIVD chief, said today in the newspaper De Stem that the Ministry of Defense has started procedures to oust a radical Islamist from the army. According to Dedden about ten Dutch soldiers are known to adhere to Salafism, Wahabism or other forms of extremist Islam. These people can be a danger to Dutch national security, the general explained, because they can persuade others to become disloyal to the army or because they have access to protected buildings or grounds. “We try to prevent the disappearance of sensitive information, weapons or other material,” General Dedden said.

Other European countries also have growing numbers of Muslims soldiers. Last March three conscripts of the Austrian army refused to salute the Austrian flag because they said this was incompatible with their Islamic religion. It is said that one of the reasons why the French authorities did not employ the army during the November 2005 riots, despite calls to do so, was because 15% of the French armed forces are made up of Muslims. Last month a Swiss website reported that some are concerned about the rising number of Muslim soldiers in the Swiss army. The number of Muslim citizens in Switzerland has grown from 16,000 to 310,000 during the past four decades.

Muslims should participate in the Army

We all agree that a people have the right to defend themselves, and this is the primary purpose of an army. To be more to the point: Muslims in the West benefit from the security provided by the government, and the army is a branch of it. Therefore Muslims, as any citizen, should participate in the defense and security of that same nation.

When one participates in a military, there is an allegiance necessary to the commanders of that army, irrespective of the religion of the commanders. Otherwise, how could an army function?

It has been said that if one accepts the hospitality of a host, one is obligated to defend the host.

Dutch Army

Forgive me if I cannot get too alarmed about the Dutch Army as I do not think it is effective and in reality is little more than an alibi along the lines of every state needs a flag and an army - just like the Irish Republic or Belgium.

Having said that the British Army used to have a problem with Northern Irish militiamen joining up to learn about explosives and then subsequently buying themselves out to enter private practice.

The British Army did run a huge operation in India called The Raj with lots of Hindu and Muslim troops, and although they caused a real problem in 1857-58 over the new cartridges for the rifles and it took Generals Havelock and Campbell to restore order especially at Lucknow.

Apart from such misunderstandings the British Empire had thousands of Muslim troops who fought in many theatres against their common enemies; so rather as many Southern Irishmen signed up to fight for Britain in both world wars (and were never recognised by their own country) so we can take it for granted that many Muslims will be good soldiers - which ones is the key question.

RE: Dutch Army

The problem is that in most of Europe the governments have a monopoly in firearms ownership.

The Colonial troops were in their native land, or in other colonies of the British Empire. They were not in Great Britain.

All of Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom during the First World War.

Consider All Options - Including Takeovers and Assassinations

When it comes to the military we have to consider all options - including attempted takeovers - highly unlikely, but assassinations of top figures - much more likely – if the military is compromised.

If Muslim recruits can not honor the country whose military they serve in - who then are they loyal to? And what will they do for this loyalty?

We are making a mistake of trying to hold the poor immigrants hand, to try to comfort them as we would do a child - using a kind of colonialist belief that we need to help these ‘poor’ deficient people.

The idea of separate Islamic troop - is crazy and dangerous. Particularly if these people are not loyal to the country or to Europe. The security of the country and its people are being put at stake to please of few Islamic people – many of whom believe that Europe needs to be destroyed and replaced with an Islamic State.

The Army / military serve the country - and it has to work as a unit. If they are not loyal to the country (i.e. will not honor the flag) or to the service then they should not be there.

This is a game too far!

French Army

Well now we know that 15 to 30 percent of the French Army will put up a fight.

Dutch Worry About Radical Muslims in the Military

What worries me the most is that if have a number of muslims in the military, or any where else; and if you had just a few terrorist in the group---you would have none of the other muslims to turn in any threat from one of their own. Even if they do not agree with a fellow muslims radical thoughts of or teachings, they would not turn him in. The dilemma is how would you find him or them with out profiling.

That I cannot explain.

That I cannot explain. Indeed it is the number of citizens, not of Muslims in the Swiss army.
It does state that not 15 but up to 30% in the French army are Muslims.

Swiss Army

"Last month a Swiss website reported that the number of Muslim soldiers in the Swiss army has grown from 16,000 to 310,000 during the past four decades."

The concerned website is talking about the number of Swiss citizens that are Muslims not the number of soldiers in the Swiss army.

To be fair to Mr. Belien, the website is in French and indeed uses this number to be concerned about the (future) impact on the army.

Thanks for the correction

@Omar: You are right about the number of Muslims in Switzerland. I corrected the mistake.
@Brigands: The Swiss website says that 30% of the French soldiers are Muslims. Others, such as Fjordman in an earlier article on The Brussels Journal, said 15% of the French soldiers are Muslims. I opted for the lowest figure.
@Omar. I did not say that the Dutch newspapers said there are "at least" ten to twenty groups of Muslims radicals (possible terrorists according to the context). The newspaper, referring to the report, mentions "ten to twenty," which, according to me means that there are at least ten to twenty.

This is really a frightening

This is really a frightening development about radical Islamists in the armed forces in Europe. I have thought of this possibility also in the UK.

It is so important not to have subversives in the armed forces.  Usually one has to take a vow upon joining the armed forces to defend the constitution (in the US) or Queen and country or something like that here in the UK. I would hope that membership in a radical Islamist organisation would be sufficient evidence to convict a subversive soldier of the crime of betraying the vow he took upon becoming a soldier.

That would at least increase the cost of betraying the armed forces.

We've really got to stop this nonsense sooner rather than later. It'll cost more later.


Let us try context:
This is the paragraph from the original article:
Het ’verhoogd risico’ voor Nederland heeft volgens Aon net als vorig jaar veel te maken met aanhoudende extremistische activiteiten onder de eigen islamitische bevolking. Na de veroordeling van leden van de Hofstadgroep loopt nog een proces tegen een tweede vermeend terrorismenetwerk, dat volgens justitie plannen had voor aanslagen op politici en het hoofdgebouw van geheime dienst AIVD. Nederland zou in totaal tussen de tien en twintig netwerken van radicale moslims tellen.

This is my translation of that paragraph:
The 'heightened risk' for The Netherlands, according to Aon just as in the previous year, has a lot to do with continued extremist activities within the own Islamic population. After the conviction of members of the Hofstadgroup there is still a trail running against a second presumed terroristnetwork, that according to justice had plans for attacks against politicians and the main buidling of the secret service AIVD. The Netherlands would in total count ten to twenty neworks of radical muslims.

The line is situated in a context of terrorist networks, which are also radical networks. Perhaps the term radical networks is used because they're not terrorist networks, yet? Or they feed terrorist networks? Or the journalist who wrote it misplaced that sentence as its linked to the paragraph mentioning terrorist networks. The 'at least' element is indeed mistaken.

Radical Muslim networks in the Netherlands

I followed the link in the following quotation:
"At least ten to twenty groups of Muslim terrorists are said to be active in the Netherlands, planning assassinations of politicians and the bombing of the AIVD headquarters."

The original sentence in a Dutch newspaper is not stating the word “at least”.

It also doesn’t say that these 10-20 groups are planning assassinations or bombings.

And more important, the sentence is not stating 10-20 groups of Muslim terrorist networks. Rather it talks about networks of radical Muslims.

Mr. Belien, I am sure, would agree that “radicals” are not necessary terrorists. Although one could argue that all terrorist are radicals.

Note that the same report is warning the Netherlands for threats of extreme-right and criminal gangs.

This is the Dutch sentence:
Nederland zou in totaal tussen de tien en twintig netwerken van radicale moslims tellen.