Netherlands: Police Kills Dutchman in Islamic Rotterdam

Gates of Vienna

Not for the first time either: in March 2007 a Dutchman was killed by a Muslim police woman who intervened when Muslim youths harassed a pregnant native Dutch woman. The incident resulted in Paris style riots.

Our expatriate Dutch correspondent H. Numan files a brief report on la crise du jour in the Netherlands:

We have a major political crisis in development:

Shooting at Hoek van HollandLast weekend a big free dance festival was organized in Hook of Holland (a beach area that is part of Rotterdam). Suddenly a few men drew guns and opened fire. One person got hit and died. Others were injured.

The stinker? It was the police who opened fire!

Plainclothes officers felt threatened by hooligans who recognized them. That was the kick-off.

The mayor of Rotterdam, Mr. Ahmed Aboutaleb (the nice guy with two passports) immediately forbade this kind of public event in his town. Forever.

As panem et circenses are rather important for a socialist party, that doesn’t fly very well, to say the least.

The police commissioner added some gasoline to the fire by stating they didn’t have enough in the budget for a greater police presence. The police union stated they were not allowed to be present with the riot police due to… no budget.

The minister of the interior (our beloved alcoholic dentist with a phobia for white men) Mrs. Guusje ter Horst more or less admitted that 4000 police jobs will disappear very soon. Despite the solemn promise that more police jobs would be created.

Mr. Aboutaleb’s first gaffe was to visit Morocco despite being personally ordered not to do so by the foreign minister.

He won’t get fired in a hurry, but things are heating up politically.

— H. Numan

16 thoughts on “Netherlands: Police Kills Dutchman in Islamic Rotterdam”

  1. * The mayor of Rotterdam, Mr. Ahmed Aboutaleb (the nice guy with two passports) immediately forbade this kind of public event in his town. Forever.

    Ahmed might find that Dutch youth love techno music more than dhimmitude.

  2. Ahmed is basically a thug. He will be shown the door soon. The shooting of the teenagers is very typical of islamists – and to ban techno music, if that is what ahmed has done, verges on the ridiculous. Is there any information on what happened to the “cow” that murdered the unarmed Dutchman in 2007.

  3. OK – The identity of of the police officer that shot Rinnie Mulder in 2007 is still being protected. Indications are that it was actually a muslim female. Several eyewitness report that Mulder removed a knife from the possession of a muslim thug and held it up in the air to demonstrate that it has been retrieved. He was then murdered by the police officer. As a priority muslims should NOT be allowed into European police forces – they have a long way to travel before they can be trusted with this responsibility. We have seen at least three cases where muslim police have not followed the law correctly in Europe and in the UK. I had not heard of the Rinnie Mulder case but this has disturbed me sufficiently to invest some time into tracking down the culpits – the police officer who murdered Mr. Mulder, the police officials who have been attempting to cover up their actions, the media who have whitewashed this with the usual PC speak, and the politicians who have turned their heads to the wishes of the Dutch people. I will have more to say on this issue in some months. And G_D help any PC twat that gets in my way.

  4. Kaw,

    “Indications are that it was actually a muslim female. Several eyewitness report that Mulder removed a knife from the possession of a muslim thug and held it up in the air to demonstrate that it has been retrieved. He was then murdered by the police officer. As a priority muslims should NOT be allowed into European police forces – they have a long way to travel before they can be trusted with this responsibility”

    Three issues here, first you said “indications are” so you have no confirmation nor certainty but yet you are breaking our own standards and presuming here.

    Then it was “he was murdered by the police officer” which is also not know, or proven. The inquiry continues but the first case results was that the group of police officers were being attacked and feared for their lives and then a knife was weilded and that person was fired at. Still that is their version, but a verbatum accussation of murder is again like above, presumptive and wrong to do.

    The third statement is in fact a blatant bigotry. Muslims should not be police officers. So what. Someone could be a third generation Dutch national and cannot be a police officer? No, that was a bigotted and rather pathetic statement that simply does not make sense at all.

  5. Solkhar

    Muslims should not be officers in the police and in the military system.

    We can´t trust the muslims – that´s that .

    And You KNOW it !

  6. With all respect Solkar, until muslims actually take an open stand against the islamists I would not allow them into positions of power. Yes, it is a hard call, but I prefer to opt for the side of safety. The London bombers murdered 50+ and were not first generation – there was a mix of second and third generations. So being a second/third generation muslim is not sufficient justification to be ignored as a potential risk. There is more than sufficient evidence which suggests that a significant number of young muslims in the UK and in Europe have no intention of accepting the culture of the land. And no – I am NOT breaking any standards. While several people specifically state that the Dutchman killed in 2007 was not acting violently, the authorities have said little – and we are now two years past his murder! The immediate evidence supports the claim that the man was murdered. Keep that in mind!! When the authorities produces evidence to the contrary then consider that as well, but there is nothing available and so the evidence does condemn the police. Again the police officer who actually shot at the man needs to be identified – and several people state that it was actually a muslim female, which should normally be neither here nor there. Normally there would be an official inquiry completed with an open report – this does not seem to have happened. It seems likely that murder has been committed and if a muslim is being protected in order to practise some form of positive discrimination then the public needs to be informed. This is of concern because positive discrimination for minority groups, particularly muslims, is alive and well in Europe and it needs to be stopped. Since you know Rottendam then you are almost certainly aware of the problems that are being caused by the unwillingness of local law enforcement to ensure that all groups of society behave according to the law of the land – without exception. Not only public safety, but also education levels (etc) as well as the level of achievement of the minority groups in question are adversely affected by this PC malaise. Note here that the people who are at fault are the politicians who are giving these instructions – and NOT the majority of muslims. This is exactly why these events need to be examined in depth. What happened at the festival on the weekend is unclear – and this event was not the topic of my email – rather an event that seems to have been glossed over in 2007. When more becomes known about what happened at the music festival I will comment. Not every anti-muslim comment is “bigotted” – you may not like them and they may be ugly but many are justified. I live in a German university town – and now for the first time we are starting to see gangs of muslim youth causing problems. However, the authorities are turning their heads and, because of this, the potential for a violent clash at some time in the near future is significantly enhanced. We need to find solutions – recrimination are of little help.

  7. Kaw,

    I look at this in two areas, the first is that no matter how it is said or whatever context you put it into, the identification of one particular race or religion and collectively placing a restriction upon them is bigotry and to do so then is defeating the morals, ideals and values set upon by the society. IE defeating evil with evil never works.

    The second point is this, The Netherlands has already an integrated Muslims population, some being there for a very long time others arriving only recently. You do not see or know about them because of the fact that they are integrated. You have them also a part of the Dutch community in all areas from Ministers and parliamentarians to public servants to business leaders and members of the armed forces and law enforcement. They have done nothing but support and put maximum effort in doing their jobs and responsibilities as any other Nederlander. They are not in the newspapers, you only see the problems in the media.

    Thus for me your statement is simply wrong, I was 17 when I became a Muslim, the other Muslims that I grew up with were not the radicals but were the integrated but yet still faithfull Muslims. I became a diplomat and was involved in anti-terrorism activities before 9/11 and thus a part of national security, do you consider me a risque? My best longes and bes friend is a now a Crown Prosecutor and will become a judge soon enough, he was born Muslim of immigrant parents, he is not Arab origin and only speaks Dutch plus the typical Surah-recital Arabic. I can think of three more of my close circle of friends whom are public servents, one who was once a Captain of a Patriot Missile Battery and is now the head of a bureau in the Defence Ministry.

    It still comes down to how the government controls immigration, sets standards and then lives up to them.

  8. Solkhar,
    I agree that evil cannot be defeated by evil – perhaps it can never be defeated and another battle will always loom in the future. Is close observation of a particular group because statistically speaking they produce more terrorists then any other group bigotry? Perhaps it is – perhaps it is also common sense to do so. If American law enforcement officials had been allowed to follow their suspicions the attacks on NYC would not have happened. Atta and colleagues would have been arrested some months previously to the date when 3000+ were murdered. There is a fine line between a blind obedience to higher morals and stupidity – and none of us have quite figured out how to resolve that issue. I have no problems identifying with non-radical muslims – and most muslims are good people who work hard, contribute and are never heard of (as are most non-muslims) – however how does one tell the radicals from the non-radicals. This is a terrible position for the moderates to be in – dammed if they do nothing, damned if they make a statement against the excesses committed in the name of islam. The fact that many of the perpetrators in the attacks against NYC and other places have been well educated middle class muslims make the puzzle even more difficult to solve – it may well be vulnerable youth are easily swayed by questionable preachers abusing the quran as you understand it – but perhaps that is not how they understand it. It would help if the quran allowed more flexibility in interpretation – a point that appears to be under vigorous debate and which parallels the development of the catholic faith some few hundred years ago. But the moderate majority has to make a choice – this cannot be avoided and it cannot be delayed for much longer – and I think islam is now at a cross-roads. Your friends have contributed to the countries they moved to – but other muslims have not – and until a clearer divide between the two groups occurs one would be brave to accept all with open arms and no suspicion. This is of course exactly what the radicals want, to weaken the influence of the moderates using the psychology of the west – however until
    the moderates openly reject the extremists this situation cannot change. I also agree totally with your last sentence – and it is the job of the voting public to change that situation – on this however I am less than optimistic. A somewhat depressing, but probably accurate, point of view is that people get the government they deserve.

  9. Common guys!

    One of you (Non Muslim) talks about goverment that is at fault, doing nothing to protect native Dutchmen from Muslims and he wonders why that should be and talks about equal rights for everyone.
    The other one (Muslim) plainly states that he and the likes of him are part of that goverment – major,police, diplomat,judge to be etc…

    What is so difficult to understand? Can’t you put two and two together?

    Stop talking -start doing something to prevent islamization of your countries! http://www.citizenwarrior.com can help you with this

  10. Ozzman,

    there are two very ineresting candidates in Rotterdam that would be perfect, both have great administrative services, one was a war veteren the other a long-term lawyer, both friends and both native born and indigenous Nederlanders like myself. Oh, both are Muslim converts one about the same time as me in the early 1980’s the other about ten or so years before that. The lawyer has received a public service medal from Queen Beatrix.

  11. Solkhar,
    There are also non-muslim alternatives. Well, let the people choose, but I think that the current incumbent should be asked to resign politely.

  12. Solkhar wrote:
    I look at this in two areas, the first is that no matter how it is said or whatever context you put it into, the identification of one particular race or religion and collectively placing a restriction upon them is bigotry and to do so then is defeating the morals, ideals and values set upon by the society.

    Really, Solkhar? Isn’t this how muslim nations such as Morocco operate, with restrictions on people of certain religions, and snitches
    to dob them in, while whinging about “bigotry” and all the rest of “allah’s” grievance theatre.

    Stick to being a food critic.

Comments are closed.