NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that Geert has been voted "the most popular politician in Holland".

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W6twYw4E8w&feature=related

In September 2004, Wilders left the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD in Dutch), having been a member since 1989, to form his own political party, Groep Wilders, later renamed Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV or Party for Freedom).[2] He left the liberal party, over a dispute within the VVD in late August 2004 about, among other things, his refusal to endorse the party's position that EU-accession negotiations must be started with Turkey. Geert Wilders has been in the Tweede Kamer since 1998.

His party program states that Wilders' party is committed to "freedom of the individual"; Wilders believes that the Netherlands has been held hostage by elitist (mostly social democrat and left-wing liberal) politicians for decades. He claims to want to give it "back to the people", and in this respect he has been labeled a populist by the establishment.

His political views (and so the ones of the PVV as well) often overlap those of the murdered Rotterdam politician Pim Fortuyn and his List Pim Fortuyn. There are strong resemblances, certainly on socio-economic issues, to libertarianism. Wilders wants to lower taxes, cut most welfare programs, raise highway speed limits and minimize state regulations by making it mandatory to scrap two legal rules for every new one to be instated. On the crime issue, he has supported a U.S.-style three strikes law with mandatory life sentences after three separate acts of violent crime.[citation needed]

In polls released following the assassination of Theo van Gogh, it was estimated that Wilders' party could win as many as 29 (out of 150) seats in the Dutch parliament (Tweede Kamer). With the uproar over the killing of Van Gogh subsiding, this number declined to a low of one in October 2005. In February 2006, after the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, it rose again to three seats.

A few weeks after the assassination, Geert Wilders stayed away from regular meetings in parliament for several weeks. Even though a member's presence is not mandatory, it is uncommon not to show up for weeks on end. Wilders claims that he did this out of concern for his personal security. Having been assigned a new seating position in the parliamentary meeting hall (one further away from the public observation area), he has once again started to attend meetings.

Wilders is under constant security protection because of frequent threats to his life.[citation needed] On 10 November 2004, two suspected terrorists were captured after an hour-long siege of a building in The Hague. They had three grenades and have been accused of planning to murder Geert Wilders as well as then fellow MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The men in question were presumed members of what the Dutch intelligence agency, the AIVD, has termed the Hofstadgroep. In September 2007, a Dutch woman was sentenced a 1-year prison term for sending out more than 100 threatening emails to Wilders.[3]

In recent interviews, Geert Wilders more than once indicated that the Dutch constitution and European Convention on Human Rights should be amended or temporarily suspended to protect citizens from "Islamic extremism". He is in favor of stripping criminals with dual nationality of their Dutch citizenship and deporting them to their country of origin. This has led to considerable criticism.[citation needed]

In response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy Wilders posted the inflammatory cartoons on his website (1 February 2006), purportedly in support of the Danish cartoonists and freedom of speech. Following his publication, Wilders stated he had received more than 40 death threats in just two days.

In November 2006, PVV won, in its first parliamentary election, 9 of the 150 open seats.

The Dutch newspaper Telegraaf reported in May 2007 that Geert Wilders had been shadowed by the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service for years, when he was foreign affairs spokesman for the VVD. During that time, Wilders had been regularly meeting officials at the Israeli Embassy in The Hague.[4] Sources in the security service said that the agency was surveilling conversations between Wilders and Israeli personnel.[5] The security services denied the allegations, insisting it had never shadowed or eavesdropped on Wilders.[6]

On 15 December 2007, Wilders was declared politician of the year by NOS-radio, a mainstream Dutch radio station. The parliamentary press praised his ability to dominate political discussion and to attract the debate and to get into publicity with his well-timed one-liners.[7] The editors eventually gave the title to Wilders because he was the only one who scored high both among the press as well as the general public.[8][9]

In response to Wilders' outspoken statements, a countermovement was organized in December 2007 with the stated aim to stop evil.[10]
Positions on Islam

Referring to the increased population of Muslims in the Netherlands, Wilders has said:

"Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"[11]

Later, Wilders suggested that Muslims should 'tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands' because it contained 'terrible things' and that Muhammad would 'in these days be hunted down as a terrorist'. These statements caused strong reactions in Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.[12][13]

On 8 August 2007, Wilders opined in a letter[14] to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant that the Koran, which he called a "fascist book", should be outlawed in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.[15] He stated that: "The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order."[16]

On 15 August 2007, a representative of the Prosecutors' Office in Amsterdam declared that "dozens of reports" against Wilders had been filed, and that they were all being considered.[17] Due to this position on Islam, the rapper Appa said he did not care if Wilders would be shot in the head. Wilders then charged him with threatening with death. The rapper Appa denied actual threatening, repeating that he simply wouldn't care (if it happened), also accusing Wilders of having the same attitude towards Muslims.

Positions on Israel

In the past twenty five years Geert Wilders has visited Israel about forty times, he says. According to his own sayings, he has met Ariel Sharon ("many times") and Ehud Olmert, among others, in Israel. Furthermore, he claims tight connections with the Mossad.[18]

Originally, Wilders wanted to move to the Jewish state because he thought one could in Israel, different than in the Netherlands, 'work for your own money'.[18] Wilders worked in bread factories and a moshav. With the money he earned, he traveled through Israel and some near countries. He started to love Israel, or as he states it in his own words in 2003: "The past years I have visited many interesting countries, from Tunisia to Turkey and from Cyprus to Iran, but nowhere I have that special feeling of solidarity that I always get if I set foot on the Israeli Goerion-airport." [18]

Wilders has, in the eight years he has served in the Dutch Parliament, always supported Israel and attacked countries he perceives as enemies of Israel.[18] More than a few members of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy suspect Wilders of taking guidance from the Israeli Embassy in the Netherlands (which is only a few meters away from the Dutch Parliament) in order to question Dutch ministers. Wilders has always denied this. [18]

Furthermore, Wilders has made some proposals in the Dutch Parliament inspired by Israel. For example, in 2005 Wilders proposed implementing Israel's administrative detention in the Netherlands, a practice heavily criticized by human rights group Amnesty International. Also, at the time Wilders was member of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, he had an employee who directly came from the Israeli Embassy. [18]

I really think that Geert has the right kind of view that a politician needs to have. If one watches the interview I linked then one can see how he thinks. I'd like to say we are both very close in our views.

Anyway, I posted this to encourage debate on not only his views, but whether or not you believe in this Islamization that his claims to defend against, and that so many Dutch people like him and/or are interested in him for.

Isn't this just copy/paste spam if it lacks anything from the Op?

Ironically, Geert Wilders was merely a pathetic Pim Fortuyn wannabe with odd hair that most people ignored.

But thanks to the groups of Muslims who could not stop themselves from giving him attention he is becoming a symbol of free speech.

Silly, silly protesting Muslims. Waving an airplane to squash a mosquito is seldom wise.

Now it's all nice and dandy that mister Wilders wants to outlaw the Koran for being fascist, but what about the Bible? There are quite a few violent and hateful segments in that holy book as well.

He's a real life troll afaik. People who don't agree with him should just stop feeding the troll.
I don't know many of his positions other than those in the OP but I have the feeling that I would disagree a lot with him.

Now it's all nice and dandy that mister Wilders wants to outlaw the Koran for being fascist, but what about the Bible? There are quite a few violent and hateful segments in that holy book as well.

Considering that he was ranting how there would be more mosques than churches, it's a bit telling no?

Now it's all nice and dandy that mister Wilders wants to outlaw the Koran for being fascist, but what about the Bible? There are quite a few violent and hateful segments in that holy book as well.

But that is violence and hate you can put in clogs, give a Dutch flag and make shout "Leve de Koningin". It is not "foreign".

Bluntly put, both books come from the same arid area. Hell, without the Bible the Koran wouldn't even have been possible!

Copy/paste spam much?

But that is violence and hate you can put in clogs, give a Dutch flag and make shout "Leve de Koningin". It is not "foreign".
Extra bonus points for including some tulips, possibly a miniature windmill in there too.

"Leve de Koningin en ik houd van windmolens, ook tulpen"

Or something a bit like that :p

It seems that Geert has been voted "the most popular politician in Holland".
By whom?

Extra bonus points for including some tulips, possibly a miniature windmill in there too.

"Leve de Koningin en ik houd van windmolens, ook tulpen"

Or something a bit like that :p

Wait, no mentioning about weed? Isn't that what the Netherlands are famous for in other countries?

Extra bonus points for including some tulips, possibly a miniature windmill in there too.

"Leve de Koningin en ik houd van windmolens, ook tulpen"

Or something a bit like that :p

But tulips are Turkish :p

Wait, no mentioning about weed? Isn't that what the Netherlands are famous for in other countries?
Not sure that prostitution (as everyone knows, all Dutch women sell themselves for sex) and weed (if you don't smoke weed in Holland, you can't vote, if I recall correctly) are really a part of the Holland that people like Pim Fortuyn and his lame cousins like Geert Wilders love :p

But tulips are Turkish :p
Turkey -

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/images/photos/photo_lg_istanbul.jpg

Holland -

http://www.qultures.com/upload/windmill_large.jpg


I see no tulips in Turkey :p

Not sure that prostitution (as everyone knows, all Dutch women sell themselves for sex) and weed (if you don't smoke weed in Holland, you can't vote, if I recall correctly) are really a part of the Holland that people like Pim Fortuyn and his lame cousins like Geert Wilders love :p

But aren't those the best parts? How can they hate that. :confused:

* votes "disagree about everything" in poll *

I see no tulips in Turkey :p

Apparently he was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulips#Origin_of_the_Name). :o

Apparently he was right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulips#Origin_of_the_Name). :o
Pfft!

Turkish propaganda - if they say it often enough, it becomes 'true'. This is just another attempt of Muslims to bring down Dutchness in their disgusting and cowardly way!
Yootopia, Fox News Network is not a good source of information if you want to learn more about the Netherlands. Come to think of it, Geert Wilders would probably be very popular in the States if he had a show on Fox News Network.
Learn to take a joke :p

Yootopia, Fox News Network is not a good source of information if you want to learn more about the Netherlands. Come to think of it, Geert Wilders would probably be very popular in the States if he had a show on Fox News Network.

I really think that Geert has the right kind of view that a politician needs to have. If one watches the interview I linked then one can see how he thinks. I'd like to say we are both very close in our views..

So you're a rabble rousing fear mongering borderline racist who thinks the semi-apartheid practices of Israel should be imposed on Europe?

I find it funny that a man who whines on about the evil nature of the Koran thinks its somehow ok to have mixed with Ariel Sharon.


Anyway, I posted this to encourage debate on not only his views, but whether or not you believe in this Islamization .

Its bollocks.

There may be hope for the Netherlands yet, and Western Europe in general.

The Netherlands are an essential part of Western civilization.

Western civilization is worth defending.

The West must previal.

"Stand, men of the West!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9x839j2CtA

Anyway, I posted this to encourage debate on not only his views, but whether or not you believe in this Islamization that his claims to defend against, and that so many Dutch people like him and/or are interested in him for.

The Koran does have some nasty stuff in it, but so does Greek Mythology; should we ban that too? And what about the Bible? I am against banning any books or religions, though I agree about how Mohamed would be treated today, that really does not make a difference. People's behavior is the only thing that matters; their beliefs are none of our business.

All-in-all, this fellow sounds like a bigoted fool.

Geert Wilders is odd, and is not deserving of the collective attentions of NSG unless he's done something really cool with a taco pressure hose.

The Koran does have some nasty stuff in it, but so does Greek Mythology; should we ban that too? And what about the Bible? I am against banning any books or religions, though I agree about how Mohamed would be treated today, that really does not make a difference. People's behavior is the only thing that matters; their beliefs are none of our business.

That last part is a bit tricky. Take religions that involve sacrificing virgins on a sun altar. Should we allow people to practice them or restrict their religious freedom ? Even if they truly believe that not sacrificing virgins is a repugnant sin ?

There may be hope for the Netherlands yet, and Western Europe in general.

The Netherlands are an essential part of Western civilization.

Western civilization is worth defending.

The West must previal.

"Stand, men of the West!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9x839j2CtA

"Stand, Homo sapiens!"
http://www.mulletman.org/images/xmenkelly1.jpg

That last part is a bit tricky. Take religions that involve sacrificing virgins on a sun altar. Should we allow people to practice them or restrict their religious freedom? Even if they truly believe that not sacrificing virgins is a repugnant sin ?

We should not ban books that tell them they have to do it. After all, the Old Testament says one has to sacrifice animals, and no Christians or Jews are doing that. If they wanted to do it I would look on them with suspicion. Only "consenting" virgins should be allowed to be put to death, and then only with extensive paperwork. Naturally, they cannot kidnap and murder people, but those are illegal actions, they are not merely beliefs.

Brown people bad, hur hur.

"Stand, men of the West!"


Is that from a 'Carry On' movie?

There may be hope for the Netherlands yet, and Western Europe in general.
...

Seeing as you're not from Europe, you might not understand this. There is no particular problem with "Islamisation", nor really with a clash of cultures, mostly because expat Arabs mainly left their countries because they didn't like the intolerance and repression there, so they're quite Western in outlook already, and because we Europeans, especially the British and Dutch, try to be polite at all times.

There is the odd bad apple in the Muslim community, just as there is in every community. But there we go.

There may be hope for the Netherlands yet, and Western Europe in general.

The Netherlands are an essential part of Western civilization.

Western civilization is worth defending.

The West must previal.

"Stand, men of the West!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9x839j2CtA

Aw, man! And I'd just gotten the deludometer fixed again... :mad:

...

Seeing as you're not from Europe, you might not understand this. There is no particular problem with "Islamisation", nor really with a clash of cultures, mostly because expat Arabs mainly left their countries because they didn't like the intolerance and repression there, so they're quite Western in outlook already, and because we Europeans, especially the British and Dutch, try to be polite at all times.

There is the odd bad apple in the Muslim community, just as there is in every community. But there we go.

Just so. Difference ≠ WAR!

...

Seeing as you're not from Europe, you might not understand this. There is no particular problem with "Islamisation", nor really with a clash of cultures, mostly because expat Arabs mainly left their countries because they didn't like the intolerance and repression there, so they're quite Western in outlook already, and because we Europeans, especially the British and Dutch, try to be polite at all times.

There is the odd bad apple in the Muslim community, just as there is in every community. But there we go.

So you mean I can't stand proudly, racially pure, and nipple-hard on the battlefield, giving an inspirational speech to my brave Western men as we prepare to fight the impurities of the Non-Western hordes?

Not even the dramatic music?

Well DAMN your facts and knowledge, I DEMAND to have my melodramatic moment in the sun. STAND, MEN OF THE WEST!

Yes, the Moderate Muslims flee to Europe.

But the Moderate Muslims are about as "Moderate" as your Fundamentalist Christians, so really now, does that help?

Yes, the Moderate Muslims flee to Europe.

But the Moderate Muslims are about as "Moderate" as your Fundamentalist Christians, so really now, does that help?
Nah, you're just wrong.

But the Moderate Muslims are about as "Moderate" as your Fundamentalist Christians, so really now, does that help?

Do you have any evidence for this or are you just bigoted?

Yes, the Moderate Muslims flee to Europe.

But the Moderate Muslims are about as "Moderate" as your Fundamentalist Christians, so really now, does that help?

Don't exaggerate.

Of course, any implication that we only get the "elite" muslims, who value freedom over oppression and so on, is simply wrong. Many of the muslims in the Netherlands are for instance from the Rif mountain area in Morocco - a region know to harbour extreme poverty and many criminals.

Yes, the Moderate Muslims flee to Europe.

But the Moderate Muslims are about as "Moderate" as your Fundamentalist Christians, so really now, does that help?

Nah, you're just wrong.

You're suppost to argue in NSG you know, not just make a bunch of contradicting statements.

Geert Wilders is odd, and is not deserving of the collective attentions of NSG unless he's done something really cool with a taco pressure hose.

Tell me more about this hose.

You're suppost to argue in NSG you know, not just make a bunch of contradicting statements.

Well, if Firstistan had provided some sort of source or support for his or her claim, we could have something to discuss, but for all we know, Firsty may have simply made this up. Firsty made a claim, and now (s)he's got to supply evidence for such a claim.

“Stand, men of the West!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9x839j2CtA
Nasty hobittses, coming over here and stealing our nice preciousssss!

Enforce restrictive immigration quotasss we will.... yessssss...

ALL RIGHT! FINALLY A NON AMERIO-CENTRIC THREAD! Btw who is this guy? I've never heard of him before. As American, if I dont know about anything, it just doesn't exist, so he doesnt exist, you all lie! Stereotype away!

Yet we seem to take this premise for granted.

Well, it was a little bit more nuanced than just saying even moderate muslims are fundamentalists.

But it's not like the following comment actually had any source or statistic to support this at all:



Yet we seem to take this premise for granted.Challenge it and ask Yootopia to provide sources for the statement instead of bickering on about how debating is done on NSG.

Well, if Firstistan had provided some sort of source or support for his or her claim, we could have something to discuss, but for all we know, Firsty may have simply made this up. Firsty made a claim, and now (s)he's got to supply evidence for such a claim.

But it's not like the following comment actually had any source or statistic to support this at all:

...

Seeing as you're not from Europe, you might not understand this. There is no particular problem with "Islamisation", nor really with a clash of cultures, mostly because expat Arabs mainly left their countries because they didn't like the intolerance and repression there, so they're quite Western in outlook already, and because we Europeans, especially the British and Dutch, try to be polite at all times.

There is the odd bad apple in the Muslim community, just as there is in every community. But there we go.

Yet we seem to take this premise for granted.

But it's not like the following comment actually had any source or statistic to support this at all:

Yet we seem to take this premise for granted.

True, but Yoo's premise does have logical support. In other words, it makes sense when you think about it. As Yootopia explains in his/her post.

Firsty just mad a claim that does not make sense when you think about it, nor does Firsty explain the logic or rationale behind it.

ALL RIGHT! FINALLY A NON AMERIO-CENTRIC THREAD! Btw who is this guy? I’ve never heard of him before. As American, if I dont know about anything, it just doesn’t exist, so he doesnt exist, you all lie! Stereotype away!
Oh, get over yourself.

Well DAMN your facts and knowledge, I DEMAND to have my melodramatic moment in the sun.

You could always pick up miniature wargaming as your favorite passtime. It's a nice hobby and there are quite a few moments of glory to be had. Stiff nipples are optional.

This guys a far right loon.

There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"[11]

Later, Wilders suggested that Muslims should 'tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands' because it contained 'terrible things' and that Muhammad would 'in these days be hunted down as a terrorist'. These statements caused strong reactions in Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.


Especially love that bit there. Christians should tear out half their book too, in fact, many of them wish they could, and try to pretend like half of it doesnt count anyway.


I would be interested for this guy to cite what parts of the Koran are so bad. Wonder if hes even read it? $20 that anything he objects to are A) Not even there, B)Out of context or C) Just as bad as a mirror image Bible passage.

But it's not like the following comment actually had any source or statistic to support this at all:
Yes, that's quite true, to be fair.

Let me rephrase that one -

Every Muslim I've ever met has been pretty enlightened, and their family basically left the Middle East or North Africa because they didn't like the way things were going on there.

The experiences of my friends in Scotland and the south of England have been pretty much the same (the Scot is not quite so happy with his own Muslim crowd).

Therefore, as far as I have seen and heard, Muslims are not the evil types who are destroying us with some kind of Islamisation lark. Some like to complain to the council about how swimming pools should have men / women's only days and such, but there we go, that's just their opinion on the matter, and they're usually declined such requests on the grounds that York doesn't have enough facility for swimming pools anyway, and having 2 days out a week is not going to happen any time soon.

That many young Muslims are starting to wear headscarves and such (although this is by no means universal) seems really to be caused by a kind of identity crisis. They're not seen by many foreign Muslims as "proper" Muslims, but nor are they seen by many Britons to be properly British. That they'd try to rally around some kind of symbol is not particularly surprising.

I would be interested for this guy to cite what parts of the Koran are so bad.

Unfortunately some silly muslimgroups, including Al Queda, want to prevent him from doing just that.

Really cutting their own throat with that...

If I do I'll immediately be labeled as a bigot.

:rolleyes:

I don't see how it just 'makes sense' if you think about it. He made some assertions, without using any form of logical persuasion, it was merely "this is how it is". It's a pretty bold statement to claim that Islam is no more problematic in society then any other community, and that there are just as many Muslim radicals as there are environmentalist radicals, or atheist radicals, or "any other community".

How does it make any less sense then yoo's comment? I don't see any difference at all. If he said that a 'moderate Muslim' is as exactly as moderate as a 'moderate Christian', it wouldn't make any more sense and would still be as just a large generalisation, it's not something you can merely think about, it would need some sort of statistical analysis for it to even make sense. I feel that the latter generalisation is being accepted only because it fits into your argument.

Because Yootopia's was actually a whole paragraph, with a claim, and then several sentences explaining why such a claim is logical, while Firsty simply made a single sentence with an unsupported claim, and had no sentences afterward to explain his or her claim.

Unfortunately some silly muslimgroups, including Al Queda, want to prevent him from doing just that.

Really cutting their own throat with that...


How are they preventing him? You pick up the damn thing at a local bookstore (In the "Religion" section labeled "Islam"), pay for it, open the damn thing up and read.


At least thats all it took for me, maybe I got lucky or bought it on my local Al Quada chapter's day off.

Challenge it and ask Yootopia to provide sources for the statement instead of bickering on about how debating is done on NSG.

If I do I'll immediately be labeled as a bigot.

True, but Yoo's premise does have logical support. In other words, it makes sense when you think about it. As Yootopia explains in his/her post.


I don't see how it just 'makes sense' if you think about it. He made some assertions, without using any form of logical persuasion, it was merely "this is how it is". It's a pretty bold statement to claim that Islam is no more problematic in society then any other community, and that there are just as many Muslim radicals as there are environmentalist radicals, or atheist radicals, or "any other community".


Firsty just mad a claim that does not make sense when you think about it, nor does Firsty explain the logic or rationale behind it.

How does it make any less sense then yoo's comment? I don't see any difference at all. If he said that a 'moderate Muslim' is as exactly as moderate as a 'moderate Christian', it wouldn't make any more sense and would still be as just a large generalisation, it's not something you can merely think about, it would need some sort of statistical analysis for it to even make sense. I feel that the latter generalisation is being accepted only because it fits into your argument.

If I do I'll immediately be labeled as a bigot.http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg

Mainly depends on how you phrase it, really. Going off on a whine-fest won't make things any better, though.

If I do I'll immediately be labeled as a bigot.




Only if you make bigoted statements.

Every Muslim I've ever met has been pretty enlightened, and their family basically left the Middle East or North Africa because they didn't like the way things were going on there.

Most muslims in the Netherlands however did not come there for such reasons. They originally came to aid the rebuilding effort after WW II (by request of the Dutch government), followed by having familymembers coming over and "marriage migration". As a result many do not have such a western outlook at all.

Still does not make them terrorist extremists though. Far from it.
But it is noticeable that you can see more Burkhas in Amsterdam than in Turkey. It seems some cling to the ways of the "motherland", to keep their own ways.

Oh, get over yourself.

How can I get over myself, when, as an American, i'm a ebil bigoted racist who hates freedom?

If I do I'll immediately be labeled as a bigot.
A fair point. People do seem to be extremely hostile to any criticism of Islam here. But go ahead, I'm not going to complain, even if Greater Trostia et al will.

Only if you make bigoted statements.That's not entirely true. "Bigot", "racist", and "Nazi" get tossed around rather carelessly on occasion. It's an easy way to derail an opinion counter to your own without having to argue anything. Unfortunately, the overuse detracts from the times when such actions have merit.

How are they preventing him? You pick up the damn thing at a local bookstore (In the "Religion" section labeled "Islam"), pay for it, open the damn thing up and read.

Wilders wants to say it on tape, in a selfmade movie. Without that movie even been released, Al Queda has pronounced a death sentence and a call to "bring his throat".

Wilders wants to say it on tape, in a selfmade movie. Without that movie even been released, Al Queda has pronounced a death sentence and a call to "bring his throat".

Oh ok.

How can I get over myself, when, as an American, i’m a ebil bigoted racist who hates freedom?
I rest my case, m’lud.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg


I guess that was warranted. I don't think anyone will yell BIGOT BIGOT if I were to challenge something like that, but I think that anyone arguing against me would have a supposed moral high ground which could easily be exploited.


Mainly depends on how you phrase it, really. Going off on a whine-fest won't make things any better, though.

Well most posts on NSG are simply "whining" by that logic.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg


I guess that was warranted. I don't think anyone will yell BIGOT BIGOT if I were to challenge something like that, but I think that anyone arguing against me would have a supposed moral high ground which could easily be exploited.


Mainly depends on how you phrase it, really. Going off on a whine-fest won't make things any better, though.

Well most posts on NSG are simply "whining" by that logic.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg


I guess that was warranted. I don't think anyone will yell BIGOT BIGOT if I were to challenge something like that, but I think that anyone arguing against me would have a supposed moral high ground which could easily be exploited.


Mainly depends on how you phrase it, really. Going off on a whine-fest won't make things any better, though.

Well most posts on NSG are simply "whining" by that logic.


(mods, sorry if I posted this many more times than once)

How can I get over myself, when, as an American, i'm a ebil bigoted racist who hates freedom?At least you have the decency to admit it.

How are they preventing him? You pick up the damn thing at a local bookstore (In the "Religion" section labeled "Islam"), pay for it, open the damn thing up and read.

Or just visit a library.

Hell, you can probably find it available online for free.

Edit: I bought one awhile back, but never opened it. Maybe I should give it a look.

Well most posts on NSG are simply "whining" by that logic.I mainly classify the ones that are variants of "Everybody hates me, nobody likes me, guess I'll go eat worms" as whining.

Or just visit a library.

Hell, you can probably find it available online for free.

But the problem, as posted, is with the opening your mouth and living part.

I rest my case, m’lud.

Yes, as you can see, i'm an ebil American who deserves to die. The atheist-muslim god-people (who can do and think no wrong) declare it! It is so!!!!

Yes, as you can see, i'm an ebil American who deserves to die. The atheist-muslim god-people (who can do and thin no wrong) declare it! It is so!!!!Didn't want to do this, but you leave me with no choice...
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg

Didn't want to do this, but you leave me with no choice...
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Drama20Queen.jpg

Said the guy who posted it.....

Yes, as you can see, i'm an ebil American who deserves to die. The atheist-muslim god-people (who can do and thin no wrong) declare it! It is so!!!!

Are you going to add anything to the debate?

On topic: One of the interesting things I've always noticed about people who claim that Islamic culture is incompatible with Dutch or some other western European culture, is that they are unable to define three things:


What Dutch culture is.
What Islamic culture is.
How they are incompatible.

Said the guy who posted it.....

Except that you whine about how you're constantly being declared an eb1l ameriken by the Vast Atheist-Muslim Conspiracy and refer to every single Muslim out there as The Brotherhood of Human Bombs. "Drama Queen" is rather a more polite description of you.

:rolleyes:

Are you going to add anything to the debate?

On topic: One of the interesting things I've always noticed about people who claim that Islamic culture is incompatible with Dutch or some other western European culture, is that they are unable to define three things:


What Dutch culture is.
What Islamic culture is.
How they are incompatible.


This is a debate? Hahaha! You just made my day! :p

Are you going to add anything to the debate?

On topic: One of the interesting things I've always noticed about people who claim that Islamic culture is incompatible with Dutch or some other western European culture, is that they are unable to define three things:


What Dutch culture is.
What Islamic culture is.
How they are incompatible.


They take it for granted that "Western Culture" is always based on some Judeo-Christian model, and always play up either instances of violence with Muslims involved or Muslims requesting some religiously based accomodation as proof that "dems trying to spread t3h calif8 again."

One of the interesting things I’ve always noticed about people who claim that Islamic culture is incompatible with Dutch or some other western European culture, is that they are unable to define three things:


What Dutch culture is.
What Islamic culture is.
How they are incompatible.

That’s because, I believe, (1) and (2) are impossible to define.

Culture has such blurred edges, so amorphous and so dependent on each individual, that it’s almost worth abandoning the term in its current form.

Yes, as you can see, i'm an ebil American who deserves to die. The atheist-muslim god-people (who can do and think no wrong) declare it! It is so!!!!

:confused:

Except that you whine about how you're constantly being declared an eb1l ameriken by the Vast Atheist-Muslim Conspiracy and refer to every single Muslim out there as The Brotherhood of Human Bombs. "Drama Queen" is rather a more polite description of you.

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry if I have offended you, I should be more sensitive of the feelings of muslims like yourself. I promise i'll smile when they cut off my head, just for you.

:confused:

Kontor is a Culture Warrior defending the West from all Muslims- whom he calls "The Brotherhood of Human Bombs" and all atheists- who are really Muslim sympathizers according to him.

Kontor is a Culture Warrior defending the West from all Muslims- whom he calls "The Brotherhood of Human Bombs" and all atheists- who are really Muslim sympathizers according to him.

I don't care if Islam takes over europe, in fact, I think it would be nice.



PS, the atheists on this forum DO sympathize with muslims! Quit being such a whiner.

Thread summary
Page 1=Geert Wilders copy/paste Spam and tulips
Page 2=Lord of the rings, rejection of the poll and deludometers
Page 3=War Muslims, contradictions and rationality
Page 4=Muslims, freedom and drama
Page 5= Library, obscure comments
Page 6= Dutch, Human bombs and culture (to be continued).

predicted direction.
Page 7= (prediction, tulips and suicide bombers)
Page 8= (prediction, Geert Wilders is helping terrorism)
Page 9= (prediction, doom of society in the west, oppression in general)

Conclusion, strap on your seatbelts and safety hats people, this may be a tricky discussion. yet interesting speculation of terrorism.

I'm sorry if I have offended you, I should be more sensitive of the feelings of muslims like yourself. I promise i'll smile whe they cut off my head, just for you.

Flaming and baseless stereotyping. Nice one.

Said the guy who posted it.....I have legit reasons not to. I just posted it in the thread and repeated posting can water it down. However, you did pull a "Everybody hates me because I'm American" whine twice in a row, so you certainly did deserve it.

On topic: One of the interesting things I've always noticed about people who claim that Islamic culture is incompatible with Dutch or some other western European culture, is that they are unable to define three things:


What Dutch culture is.
What Islamic culture is.
How they are incompatible.

Aye, aye.

1) Dutch culture? Whose Dutch culture? A Dutch middle-aged woman's version of Dutch culture can be quite different to a Dutch student's culture, no?

2) See 1.

3) See 1 and 2.

Aye, aye.

1) Dutch culture? Whose Dutch culture? A Dutch middle-aged woman's version of Dutch culture can be quite different to a Dutch student's culture, no?

2) See 1.

3) See 1 and 2.

Quoth John Major's reincarnated dachshund self: "There's no such thing as society. Wuf wuf!"

I have legit reasons not to. I just posted it in the thread and repeated posting can water it down. However, you did pull a "Everybody hates me because I'm American" whine twice in a row, so you certainly did deserve it.

That was sarcasm and stereotype playing, I thought you were intelligent enough to know that.

I don't care if Islam takes over europe, in fact, I think it would be nice.



PS, the atheists on this forum DO sympathize with muslims! Quit being such a whiner.

More baseless generalizations and projection on top of that to boot. Physician, Heal Thyself.

:rolleyes:

Quoth John Major's reincarnated dachshund self: "There's no such thing as society. Wuf wuf!"

I thought that was Thatcher... :confused:

PS, the atheists on this forum DO sympathize with muslims! Quit being such a whiner.Proof? Better yet, proof that will counter this counter proof (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13502785&postcount=14)?

More baseless generalizations and projection on top of that to boot. Physician, Heal Thyself.

:rolleyes:

Well, I assumed you, as a muslim, would look at threads related TO muslims. Atheists do defend muslims on this forum, almost all the time. It's not baseless.

Well, I assumed you, as a muslim, would look at threads related TO muslims. Atheists do defend muslims on this forum, almost all the time. It's not baseless.

Since when was Gauthier a Muslim? :confused:

That was sarcasm and stereotype playing, I thought you were intelligent enough to know that.The sarcasm didn't really impact the statement much. Your posts are still pretty good examples of false victim complexes.

Take a look at the muhammed vs jesus thread, almost every page I found atheists defending muslims.

Well, I assumed you, as a muslim, would look at threads related TO muslims. Atheists do defend muslims on this forum, almost all the time. It's not baseless.

There's that old saying about assumption which you probably never heard about. And it's funny you assume I'm a Muslim. But then again you assume all atheists are Muslim sympathizers too so go figure.

Since when was Gauthier a Muslim? :confused:

He's not? I assumed so because he ius on every islamic thread I see and defending them. If not, what is he then?

Quoth John Major's reincarnated dachshund self: "There's no such thing as society. Wuf wuf!"
Aye, but for him, it was more "and that's why we're not giving you better benefits", rather than "and that's why this kind of black-and-white argument is foolish" :p

I thought that was Thatcher... :confused:
I fear you may be right.

Another interesting irony in respect to people like Geert Wilders involves why they do what they do.

Geert Wilders is a politician, a demagogue, so it is in his best interests to stay in the public eye. One way of doing this is by taking a controversial stand, another is to rally the community against a common threat. Waving the image of the 'barbarian invader responsible for all our difficulties' and then identifying said invaders with a particular ethnic group accomplishes both these tasks.

Now here comes the irony: Cristoph Blocher and Mohammad Yaqoob Qureshi both spring to mind as politicians who have successfully used this tactic. One is virulently anti-Muslim, while the other is a fundamentalist Muslim.

Take a look at the muhammed vs jesus thread, almost every page I found atheists defending muslims.

No you didn't. You saw more focus on Jesus, but that is because Jesus is supposed to have been the son of God, who was resurrected - while Mohammed was only a man.

Hell, you can probably find it available online for free.


You can. I know this, because one day in my programming class, I decided to translate the whole thing into AOLer. Of course, as a side-effect of having the kind of mind that would produce and idea like that, I eventually gave up out of laziness.

Now I'm translating the Art of War, and it's coming along well. Soon every 12-year old on AOL will know how to fight a war.

Yes, as you can see, i'm an ebil American who deserves to die. The atheist-muslim god-people (who can do and think no wrong) declare it! It is so!!!!

I want you to explain this one.

Since when was Gauthier a Muslim? :confused:

Since he dissented with the almighty Kontor! The Vigilant One! Defender of our freedoms! Kind to small (W.A.S.P) children!

He's not? I assumed so because he ius on every islamic thread I see and defending them. If not, what is he then?

A human being that doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction to people who have different worldviews.

Since when was Gauthier a Muslim? :confused:

Apparently since Kontor decided that anyone who defends Islam, or Muslims, must be a Muslim themselves; and since he feels that Muslims are evil, that his accusation can work as a kind of denouncement. Sort of like how you used to be able to accuse people of being Communists in the 50's, or Jews in the 30's and 40's, as a way of denouncing anyone who dares oppose a viewpoint (such as Kontor's) based entirely on hateful, fearful generalizations and fallacies.

In other words, we're all Muslims here, except for Kontor and New Mitanni and anyone else with an equivalent amount of hate and fear.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I'll try to be honest.

I hope that the Netherlands dont admit too many muslims. I wanna make out with my bf in front of a scenic canal or something when I visit Amsterdam (I'm a guy too). I dont think I can do that in any muslim majority country.

There are many muslim countries in the world but the openness of dutch society is almost unique, I'd say. So good luck to the Dutch...

You're confusing the Netherlands with Taliban Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. There are no religious police roaming about there enforcing some assinine puritannical ideal based off a perversion of religious tenets. Then again any country that has a significant portion of religious zealots with enough influece will have such occurences. Look at Israel, where the ultraorthodoxy has managed to push for gender segregation in public transportation amongst other things.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I'll try to be honest.

I hope that the Netherlands doesnt admit too many muslims. I wanna make out with my bf in front of a scenic canal or something when I visit Amsterdam (I'm a guy too). I dont think I can do that in any muslim majority country.

There are many muslim countries in the world but the openness of dutch society is almost unique, I'd say. So good luck to the Dutch...

I note that the poster of OP hasn't returned. Under that name at least.....

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but I'll try to be honest.

I hope that the Netherlands doesnt admit too many muslims. I wanna make out with my bf in front of a scenic canal or something when I visit Amsterdam (I'm a guy too). I dont think I can do that in any muslim majority country.

There are many muslim countries in the world but the openness of dutch society is almost unique, I'd say. So good luck to the Dutch...Ever been to Amsterdam? I have, and making out in public is not likely to be something that'll get banned anytime soon. I'm sure anyone that's walked through Amsterdam will agree.

Look, there are laws and there are sociel pressures (and both). Will 70% muslim Amsterdam be open as it is today?A laughable scenario. The Netherlands are the most population dense countries in Europe. A 70% muslim majority is going to have to get past the Dutch first. In any event, in case you haven't noticed, Amsterdam has a quite famous Red Light District. If anything, you need to fear the "Christian repression" against PDA, and even that is silly considering that that currently consists of them waving red flags in front of the entrances.

You're confusing the Netherlands with Taliban Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. There are no religious police roaming about there enforcing some assinine puritannical ideal based off a perversion of religious tenets. Then again any country that has a significant portion of religious zealots with enough influece will have such occurences. Look at Israel, where the ultraorthodoxy has managed to push for gender segregation in public transportation amongst other things.

My response wasnt about religion. US, which is mostly christian, is also too conservative for my taste. I also wouldnt want millions of white christian fundies moving to the Netherlands.

It is a fact that muslim societies and communities tend to be much more conservative and "traditionalist" when it comes to homosexuality and rights of women. ALL majority muslim countries are more repressive than Western European and Canadian societies.

So as I said, I hope Netherlands doesnt import too many muslims.

There's that old saying about assumption which you probably never heard about. And it's funny you assume I'm a Muslim. But then again you assume all atheists are Muslim sympathizers too so go figure.

Hell, he probably also thinks I'm an Atheist.

Ever been to Amsterdam? I have, and making out in public is not likely to be something that'll get banned anytime soon. I'm sure anyone that's walked through Amsterdam will agree.

Look, there are laws and there are social pressures (and both). Will 70% muslim Amsterdam be open as it is today?

So as I said, I hope Netherlands doesnt import too many muslims.

Import? Are they some sort of commodity now?

A laughable scenario. The Netherlands are the most population dense countries in Europe. A 70% muslim majority is going to have to get past the Dutch first. In any event, in case you haven't noticed, Amsterdam has a quite famous Red Light District. If anything, you need to fear the "Christian repression" against PDA, and even that is silly considering that that currently consists of them waving red flags in front of the entrances.

Given high muslim immigration and birth rates, it is just a matter of mathematics under current trends.

But I also hope that it'd be laughable.

And the NL isnt the most densely populated country in Europe.

Given high muslim immigration and birth rates, it is just a matter of mathematics under current trends.One of my favorite quotes from ecology class:
"Let's forget about reality and do math."
Ecology (even human ecology) is never just a matter of mathematics. Most honest calculations will reflect that.
But I also hope that it'd be laughable.A 70% muslim majority is both laughable and fearmongering. A rise to lower levels will change the situation dramatically.
And the NL isnt the most densely populated country in Europe.I shall add a "non-mini or island state" for your convenience the next time. ;)

ALL RIGHT! FINALLY A NON AMERIO-CENTRIC THREAD! Btw who is this guy? I've never heard of him before. As American, if I dont know about anything, it just doesn't exist, so he doesnt exist, you all lie! Stereotype away!

How can I get over myself, when, as an American, i'm a ebil bigoted racist who hates freedom?

Yes, as you can see, i'm an ebil American who deserves to die. The atheist-muslim god-people (who can do and think no wrong) declare it! It is so!!!!

This is a debate? Hahaha! You just made my day! :p

I'm sorry if I have offended you, I should be more sensitive of the feelings of muslims like yourself. I promise i'll smile when they cut off my head, just for you.

I don't care if Islam takes over europe, in fact, I think it would be nice.



PS, the atheists on this forum DO sympathize with muslims! Quit being such a whiner.

That was sarcasm and stereotype playing, I thought you were intelligent enough to know that.

Well, I assumed you, as a muslim, would look at threads related TO muslims. Atheists do defend muslims on this forum, almost all the time. It's not baseless.

He's not? I assumed so because he ius on every islamic thread I see and defending them. If not, what is he then?
The label you are looking to apply to Gauthier is: Fair-minded.

Kontor, your "contribution" to this thread has been a string of insults, accusations, and flamebait. I suggest you take 1000mg of ChillPill NOW.

Such as your knee jerk reaction to the fact that I actually won't suck up the the muslims?

Nor will you respect them as equals, it would seem. Ironically, you paint "muslim sympathizer" on anyone who doesn't suck up to you.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the phrase, "atheist-muslim god-people" makes any sense whatsoever. Not that I'm holding my breath, mind you.

No you didn't. You saw more focus on Jesus, but that is because Jesus is supposed to have been the son of God, who was resurrected - while Mohammed was only a man.

Yes I did, it was jesus bashing to, but that's a diffent matter.

You can. I know this, because one day in my programming class, I decided to translate the whole thing into AOLer. Of course, as a side-effect of having the kind of mind that would produce and idea like that, I eventually gave up out of laziness.

Now I'm translating the Art of War, and it's coming along well. Soon every 12-year old on AOL will know how to fight a war.



I want you to explain this one.



Since he dissented with the almighty Kontor! The Vigilant One! Defender of our freedoms! Kind to small (W.A.S.P) children!



A human being that doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction to people who have different worldviews.

Such as your knee jerk reaction to the fact that I actually won't suck up the the muslims?

Apparently since Kontor decided that anyone who defends Islam, or Muslims, must be a Muslim themselves; and since he feels that Muslims are evil, that his accusation can work as a kind of denouncement. Sort of like how you used to be able to accuse people of being Communists in the 50's, or Jews in the 30's and 40's, as a way of denouncing anyone who dares oppose a viewpoint (such as Kontor's) based entirely on hateful, fearful generalizations and fallacies.

In other words, we're all Muslims here, except for Kontor and New Mitanni and anyone else with an equivalent amount of hate and fear.

Ahh, assumptions and straw-mans, how I missed thee.. I don't care if you want to live in headchop land, just leave me out of it.

Nor will you respect them as equals, it would seem. Ironically, you paint "muslim sympathizer" on anyone who doesn't suck up to you.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the phrase, "atheist-muslim god-people" makes any sense whatsoever. Not that I'm holding my breath, mind you.

I was bored so I just typed something that would get a rabid reaction from your type. It's remarkably easy to offend leftists, you just have to say some stupid non-sense phrase,

To get a good idea of what kind of politician Wilders is...

In last year's Christmas speech, the queen said that she hoped that in 2008 the Dutch people would show more understanding and tolerance for each other. In response to that the politician who is constantly hollering for the Muslims to grow thicker skins went completely off the handle, claiming that the queen had pretty much attacked him personally and that by making claims like that she was overstepping the limits of what she can and can't say as part of the Dutch political system.

Most of what Geert says seems to be over-inflated xenophobia, though there is a touch of truth behind it. A country does have a problem when a minority kills people because a cartoon depicted it in a less-than-stellar way.

Though I found it funny they labeled him a populist. He doesn't seem very populisty to me, at least from what I've heard of his economics policies.

Though I found it funny they labeled him a populist. He doesn't seem very populisty to me, at least from what I've heard of his economics policies.Populism is usually a one-issue platform.

Ahh, assumptions

Supported completely by the evidence of your own posts.

and straw-mans

Oh? How? In what way?

It's all good and well that you learned the phrase "strawman," but that in no way addresses my argument. (Nor does it indicate that you even bothered to read what I wrote.)

I don't care if you want to live in headchop land, just leave me out of it.

Now THAT is a strawman, as well as an ad hominem.

It's an ad hominem because you're essentially saying that my argument is wrong because I "want to live in headchop land." Even if I did, that wouldn't invalidate a thing I said.

It's a strawman because I have never once argued, nor could anything I said be taken to mean, that I in fact "want to live in headchop land" at all.

And, it's trolling because of the implication that anywhere that has Muslims is "headchop land." Of course that could simply be your own bigotry or racism or whatever.

Wilders wants to.....minimize state regulations by making it mandatory to scrap two legal rules for every new one to be instated.

Whatever this guys thinks about Muslims aside, he's clearly immeasurably stupid.

Kontor, even allowing for "weird time-warps", it's evident you haven't taken Katganistan's advice to take a chill pill. So you're on ice for the next two days.

I was bored so I just typed something that would get a rabid reaction from your type. It's remarkably easy to offend leftists, you just have to say some stupid non-sense phrase,

Oh, you misunderstand. I wasn't offended, I was just incredibly confused. And worried that you actually found a way to make sense of that. I'm pretty relieved now, actually. :)

GOED zo geert!
sorry had to say that
i am dutch and i was at first puting ? on his views but seeing the interview i agree with his every word in that interview it is OUR country OUR rules OUR laws and they have to adjust to it if they can't then head back the way you came if you can welcome to your new home. its not like i hate islam not at all but this is a democracy in holland and if those muslims can't life in a democracy then head back to iraq and thier other countries kick those damed americans out by telling them properly right in thier faces who DON'T want democracy and leave europe alone and europe should leave the middle easdt alone ofcourse those who can life acording to dutch laws should be allowed to life in holland and have an equal chance but those who can't should be denied acces to our country forever! i was and am still afraid that geert say things to hard but indeed they way he say's things calls out a reaction that just proves his point thus i can't say anything else then that he is right and anyone who say's otherwise just wants to see holland and possibly europe in flames! if he wasn't right then why would people need to kill him? or the few before him (theo van gogh & pim fortuyn to name 2 people) an why did they burn our flag! damaging not only wilders but the rest of holland who isn't making a anti koran movie as well! all this 100% proves that geert is right and with all respect to the muslims and great sadness for those of tham that ARE able to life in holland the way they should but i support him! i really do! you'l never hear me say that the islam isn't treu and that its all lies but i don't belief thier beliefs i just respect them as long as they leave me alone same goes for christianity and jewish i don't belief those beliefs but i do respect them as long as they leave me alone but the fact is i have never heared of a jew that blew himself up taking as many people with him as possible including possibly me but muslims on the other hand! they do not only threaten wilders but every non muslim just for not being muslim and that is unacceptable in europe besides i didn't even hate them in fact i would love to learn more about the islam so i can understand them better but not this way. i'l tell any muslim terrorist the following just kill me with your idiotic bombs i'd be honored to die for my country taking any of you with me to the aftherlive if that is what it takes to get rid of terrorists and i won't even have to kill them my enemy (muslim terrorists and extreamists NOT civillians)does that themselfs for me! tehy might think we can't stop them but the opposite is true they can't stop us certainly with people like wilders and its harsh but the time has come to take this battle to the next level and for that we need people like him! jet again i am sorry for all those muslims who can accept us as who accepted them once as i still accept them but we need to deal with this NOW. i will say no more i know i'm right and i know that harsh times require harsh methodes and i don't like it but more then losing my country's priden and becomming muslim against my will! wilders is not alone! and i can't do much JET! but once i can i will!

Whatever this guys thinks about Muslims aside, he's clearly immeasurably stupid.

What the hell? I have to agree with Ifreann here.

Bloody hell! Look, Earths Reformation actually fits in quite nicely with the other ranters on this forum, but he has a poor grasp of how to write properly. I don't think he attended class when his teacher spoke about the use of punctuation, capital letters and paragraphs. However, he is a good example, albeit relatively moderate in tone, of the average Dutch Wilders-supporter. They tend to produce large bodies of textual diarrhea like there's no tomorrow on many, many forums. And yes, they tend to horribly abuse the Dutch language as well, despite their socalled love for the culture of the Netherlands.

GOED zo geert!
sorry had to say (...)an i will!

I was unaware that there was any language spoken in Europe that was without the concept of the paragraph.

It seems that Geert has been voted "the most popular politician in Holland".No, he was voted 'politician of the year' (see secodn to last paragraph of your first quoted article). That's not an endorsement of popularity; no more than Time's voting Putin "person of the year" means anything other than that he was most influential. (Well, ok, technically, it may still be true that it seems like he was voted most popular; but things aren't always as they seem.)
Actually he was second in the press vote, and second in the people's vote; but since the number one in both cases was different that made him first overall.

Which isn't to say he might not win if there was an actual popularity vote for politicians, but if there was an unpopularity vote he'd have an even better chance to win that. He's a divider, not a uniter.

But the problem, as posted, is with the opening your mouth and living part.

We've had a bunch of supremacists and anti-Islamic crazies on NSG every now and again. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are dead yet.

And really, if this Wilder likes to play the role of soon to die martyr, why not go the full hog?

I was unaware that there was any language spoken in Europe that was without the concept of the paragraph.Or the comma...

We've had a bunch of supremacists and anti-Islamic crazies on NSG every now and again. To the best of my knowledge, none of them are dead yet.This may be influenced by the distinct lack of fundamentalist pro-Islamic crazies on NSG and lack of islamic anythings in the vicinity of most such anti-islamic posters.

What the hell? I have to agree with Ifreann here.
Wewt!
I was unaware that there was any language spoken in Europe that was without the concept of the paragraph.

Or the comma...

See, there's a little known subset of every language known as bad [language name]. Earths reformation is evidently fluent in bad English.

Or really anything but the exclamation point and a random question markNo, I did spot a period ending the first sentence.

Or the comma...

Or really anything but the exclamation point and a random question mark

Or really anything but the exclamation point and a random question mark

There was some blather therein whinging abut muslims, but it was nothing worth hacking through that badly formatted nonsense to answer.

To answer The Atlantian islands question:
Of course wilders has some support, else he would not have been elected. But even in the Netherlands there are people against him. I’m not 100% sure but I think there are a lot more people against him then with him.

He’s making his movie without even thinking about the consequences. He is right about some things but for the most part he is creating the problem and not solving it.

He’s making his movie without even thinking about the consequences. He is right about some things but for the most part he is creating the problem and not solving it.

My opinion of WIlders will depend largely on what type of film he makes.

If he makes something to insult muslims with - byebye.

If he makes something to criticise muslims with- applause. Even if that also will result in many unpleasant things, since for some groups of muslims there is no difference.

No, he was voted 'politician of the year' (see secodn to last paragraph of your first quoted article). That's not an endorsement of popularity; no more than Time's voting Putin "person of the year" means anything other than that he was most influential. (Well, ok, technically, it may still be true that it seems like he was voted most popular; but things aren't always as they seem.)
Actually he was second in the press vote, and second in the people's vote; but since the number one in both cases was different that made him first overall.

Which isn't to say he might not win if there was an actual popularity vote for politicians, but if there was an unpopularity vote he'd have an even better chance to win that. He's a divider, not a uniter.
Actually if you watch the interview you will see what I said. Hence I wrote "it seems".

Also, I love how when Earths reformation, a Dutch poster comes on and posts in favor of Geert, nobody replies to it just makes fun of his English.

And...though I was busy with some friends and not home for this weekend and I missed the thread, I love how it was high jacked by the usual left who ignored the OP and just attacked trolls like Kontor (who was no better in their highjacking of my thread)

Great guys.:rolleyes:

Also, I love how when Earths reformation, a Dutch poster comes on and posts in favor of Geert, nobody replies to it just makes fun of his English.

A lot of Dutch people commented actually.

Actually if you watch the interview you will see what I said. Hence I wrote "it seems".

Also, I love how when Earths reformation, a Dutch poster comes on and posts in favor of Geert, nobody replies to it just makes fun of his English.

And...though I was busy with some friends and not home for this weekend and I missed the thread, I love how it was high jacked by the usual left who ignored the OP and just attacked trolls like Kontor (who was no better in their highjacking of my thread)

Great guys.:rolleyes:

We don't respond to Earth reformation cause his wad of text is pretty illegible, at least, i stopped reading cause his lack of structure was giving me a headache. The lack of support on here for Geertje is basically caused because people posting on here are at least semi-intelligent, and that group has hardly any of Geertjes supporters, he goes for the stupid-demographic, their easier to influence after all.

Geert Wilders is an extremist right wing nutjob, whos sole political point is: Muslims are evil ! He only suggests draconian measures, never an actual solution (even if the problem only exists in his mind). He's also got a persecution complex, proven by his reaction to the queens new years speech.

Nevertheless, the reaction from some muslim groups to his movie is absolutely insane.
He claims the quran calls for violence, their response is:"No it doesn't , and if you continu claiming that, we'll kill you." Talk about hurting their own cause. This is further enhanced by countries calling in our ambassadors and telling them they'll cut trade etc. if we allow Fitna the movie to go on air.

This gives me the idea that islamic countries simply don't want to understand what *Freedom of speech* actually means in a legal sense.

And for the record: i'm dutch.

He claims the quran calls for violence, their response is:"No it doesn't , and if you continu claiming that, we'll kill you." Talk about hurting their own cause. This is further enhanced by countries calling in our ambassadors and telling them they'll cut trade etc. if we allow Fitna the movie to go on air.

Which also makes one wonder what on earth they are afraid Geert wil actually say in the movie.

Which also makes one wonder what on earth they are afraid Geert wil actually say in the movie.

Given the way religious extremists rant and rave, anything along the lines of:"Muhammed wasn't a very friendly person" would be enough to sign ones deathwarrant.

A lot of Dutch people commented actually.
On his awful grammar..but that's about it. However, it seems Hobabwe made a real post so I'll get to that.

We don't respond to Earth reformation cause his wad of text is pretty illegible, at least, i stopped reading cause his lack of structure was giving me a headache. The lack of support on here for Geertje is basically caused because people posting on here are at least semi-intelligent, and that group has hardly any of Geertjes supporters, he goes for the stupid-demographic, their easier to influence after all.
I actually don't think so....I think that Geert is tapping into that uneasy sentiment that is sitting in the Netherlands right now. That the country is sitting on a time bomb. Pim did it before....and Geert is doing it now. I think it's real and calling his supporters stupid will not help you fight against him.

Remember when Pim said:
"Islam: Het kan niet zo zijn, dat gasten het huis overnemen."
That's what Geert's message is and that's what he's trying to get out....and I think many people agree with it because it's such a basic simple message.
He's also got a persecution complex, proven by his reaction to the queens new years speech.
If you had to live under constant security because Muslims were trying to kill uoi(and had killed other like minded people) simply for exercising your right to freedom of opinion and speech, perhaps you'd have a persecution complex too?

Nevertheless, the reaction from some muslim groups to his movie is absolutely insane.
He claims the quran calls for violence, their response is:"No it doesn't , and if you continu claiming that, we'll kill you." Talk about hurting their own cause. This is further enhanced by countries calling in our ambassadors and telling them they'll cut trade etc. if we allow Fitna the movie to go on air.

This gives me the idea that islamic countries simply don't want to understand what *Freedom of speech* actually means in a legal sense.
And this is what Geert is testing/trying to show.
And for the record: i'm dutch.
Ik wil dat de volk aan de waarheid kummen kan.

Also, I love how when Earths reformation, a Dutch poster comes on and posts in favor of Geert, nobody replies to it just makes fun of his English.


Yes, a comment about how Jews have never blown themselves up is such a telling bolt from the fucking blue we were collectively stumped for an answer.

Actually if you watch the interview you will see what I said. Hence I wrote "it seems".

Also, I love how when Earths reformation, a Dutch poster comes on and posts in favor of Geert, nobody replies to it just makes fun of his English.Not everybody is willing to waste their time decyphering a long-winded argument.
And...though I was busy with some friends and not home for this weekend and I missed the thread, I love how it was high jacked by the usual left who ignored the OP and just attacked trolls like Kontor (who was no better in their highjacking of my thread)

Great guys.:rolleyes:It's funny how we were conversing with him as opposed to the people who weren't there, isn't it?

On his awful grammar..but that's about it.

No, I meant that a lot of Dutch people posted on the main topic itself.

Singling him out as "a Dutch person posted, but all you do is mock his spelling" is therefor a bit odd. As if him being Dutch is special or something when half the topicposters are also Dutch.

Ik wil dat de volk aan de waarheid kummen kan.If it's to be found anywhere, it'll most likely be in the Netherlands and not Florida.

That the country is sitting on a time bomb.

Typing " OMG TEH MUSILIMZ", while not original, at least saves us the trouble.


If you had to live under constant security because Muslims were trying to kill uoi(and had killed other like minded people) simply for exercising your right to freedom of opinion and speech, perhaps you'd have a persecution complex too?.

Not a problem unique to critics of muslims.
And as far as I know only one other has been killed....

Ik wil dat de volk aan de waarheid kummen kan.

De Pravda is algemeen verkrijgbaar.

Now it's all nice and dandy that mister Wilders wants to outlaw the Koran for being fascist, but what about the Bible? There are quite a few violent and hateful segments in that holy book as well.

Maybe it matters to him whether or not the book in question is being used to commit actual actions of a fascist nature.

Christians seem to have largely gotten over the ideas of stoning recalcitrant children to death at the city gates.

I actually don't think so....I think that Geert is tapping into that uneasy sentiment that is sitting in the Netherlands right now. That the country is sitting on a time bomb. Pim did it before....and Geert is doing it now. I think it's real and calling his supporters stupid will not help you fight against him.

Remember when Pim said:
"Islam: Het kan niet zo zijn, dat gasten het huis overnemen."
That's what Geert's message is and that's what he's trying to get out....and I think many people agree with it because it's such a basic simple message.

If you had to live under constant security because Muslims were trying to kill uoi(and had killed other like minded people) simply for exercising your right to freedom of opinion and speech, perhaps you'd have a persecution complex too?

Geert Wilders is really inviting attack, personally i think he loves how the extremists are threatening him, it adds credence to his viewpoints. Sometimes i think he'd even like being martyred. The whole time bomb thing is stupid, we have roughly 900k muslims in a country with 16,5million people, it's gonna be a long long time before they even get close to a majority.

And just a little fyi: Pim Fortuin was not killed by muslim extremists, he was killed by a left-wing radical, Volkert van der G., a man who was already known as a violent animal rights activist.

Theres a difference between being afraid, and calling a speech anti-PVV because it calls for increased tolerance, thats slipping into the realm of paranoia. The speech didn't specify who shuold by more tolerant, so the queen most likely meant everybody.


Ik wil dat de volk aan de waarheid kummen kan.
I'm dutch, and this sentence isn't :))

I'm dutch, and this sentence isn't :))I was wondering why I could read it...

And just a little fyi: Pim Fortuin was not killed by muslim extremists, he was killed by a left-wing radical, Volkert van der G., a man who was already known as a violent animal rights activist.

I think he referred to the filmmaker Theo van Gogh there.

"Shortsighted fear-mongering" would sum that article up nicely, I think.
The sad thing is, people buy it. It caters to their tribal instincts rather than their higher brain functions, and unfortunately a lot of people are loathe to use their brains.

GOED zo geert!
sorry had to say that
i am dutch and i was at first puting ? on his views but seeing the interview i agree with his every word in that interview it is OUR country OUR rules OUR laws and they have to adjust to it if they can't then head back the way you came if you can welcome to your new home.

You have a point, but that is still no reason to attack all Muslims in the same matter Hitler attacked all Jews. There are echoes of him all over this thread "Germany is for the Germans." All the evil just started with the confiscation of a few Jewish houses.

its not like i hate islam not at all but this is a democracy in holland and if those muslims

Please, do not blame all Muslims because of a few bad-apples.

can't life in a democracy then head back to iraq and thier other countries kick those damed americans out by telling them properly right in thier faces who DON'T want democracy and leave europe alone and europe should leave the middle easdt alone ofcourse those who can life acording to dutch laws should be allowed to life in holland and have an equal chance but those who can't should be denied acces to our country forever!

I agree mostly with what you are saying. However, it is still no reason to attack Muslims in general. And again, who determines Dutch laws? The people of pure race or the people who live there?

i was and am still afraid that geert say things to hard but indeed they way he say's things calls out a reaction that just proves his point thus i can't say anything else then that he is right and anyone who say's otherwise just wants to see holland and possibly europe in flames!

With comments like that it sounds like you want to see this thread in flames.

if he wasn't right then why would people need to kill him?

Wackos will kill for a lot of reasons. A loquacious neo-Nazi might find himself dead. That does not mean what he was saying was right.

or the few before him (theo van gogh & pim fortuyn to name 2 people) an why did they burn our flag! damaging not only wilders but the rest of holland who isn't making a anti koran movie as well! all this 100% proves that geert is right and with all respect to the muslims and great sadness for those of tham that ARE able to life in holland the way they should but i support him! i really do! you'l never hear me say that the islam isn't treu and that its all lies but i don't belief thier beliefs i just respect them as long as they leave me alone same goes for christianity and jewish i don't belief those beliefs but i do respect them as long as they leave me alone but the fact is i have never heared of a jew that blew himself up taking as many people with him as possible including possibly me but muslims on the other hand! they do not only threaten wilders but every non muslim just for not being muslim and that is unacceptable in europe besides i didn't even hate them in fact i would love to learn more about the islam so i can understand them better but not this way. i'l tell any muslim terrorist the following just kill me with your idiotic bombs i'd be honored to die for my country taking any of you with me to the aftherlive if that is what it takes to get rid of terrorists and i won't even have to kill them my enemy (muslim terrorists and extreamists NOT civillians)does that themselfs for me! tehy might think we can't stop them but the opposite is true they can't stop us certainly with people like wilders and its harsh but the time has come to take this battle to the next level and for that we need people like him! jet again i am sorry for all those muslims who can accept us as who accepted them once as i still accept them but we need to deal with this NOW. i will say no more i know i'm right and i know that harsh times require harsh methodes and i don't like it but more then losing my country's priden and becomming muslim against my will! wilders is not alone! and i can't do much JET! but once i can i will!

I agree mostly with the above. However, I do not agree even marginally with the way Geert puts it.

Apparently, a lot of people in the Netherlands agree with him. More than the naysayers on this forum, that's for sure.

Apparently, a lot of people in the Netherlands agree with him. More than the naysayers on this forum, that's for sure.

Not really, sorry.
Of course, alot of us do agree with the concept of freedom of speech.

Pat Condell's views on Islam rule:

http://dotsub.com/films/moredemands/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_1618

Of course, he's big on straightforward criticism of any religious idiocy...

More goodness from Pat Condell.

I agree with him completely.

http://dotsub.com/films/shariafiasco/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_2783

And my favorite from Pat Condell... http://dotsub.com/films/odhimmicanada/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_2477

I guess if he was posting on this forum, you all would be calling it hate speech.

No, I'd just call him the moron he is. "It will cost the plaintiffs precisely nothing." Yeah, because that's what our legal system is known for - being free of charge.

By the way, it's usually better to make one big post, rather than three small posts right in a row like that.


Hardly a moron. I'm an atheist, and I find his views on religious nuttery quite refreshing.

http://dotsub.com/films/responseto_4/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_2321

Maybe you should hear more of what he has to say.

And my favorite from Pat Condell... http://dotsub.com/films/odhimmicanada/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_2477

I guess if he was posting on this forum, you all would be calling it hate speech.

No, I'd just call him the moron he is. "It will cost the plaintiffs precisely nothing." Yeah, because that's what our legal system is known for - being free of charge.

By the way, it's usually better to make one big post, rather than three small posts right in a row like that.

No? Hmm, perhaps. He's just muttering moronic ideas then.
I'm an atheist, and I find his ranting about liberals dull and unoriginal.

Gee, this doesn't sound moronic:

http://dotsub.com/films/laughatsudan/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_2104

Nothing untrue there...

Anyone who is bashing an idiot medieval religion is good in my book.

At least we're lucky there aren't riots when the Pope does something stupid like declare a "new set of sins".

Hardly a moron.

No? Hmm, perhaps. He's just muttering moronic ideas then.

I'm an atheist, and I find his views on religious nuttery quite refreshing.

I'm an atheist, and I find his ranting about liberals dull and unoriginal.

True, but Yoo's premise does have logical support. In other words, it makes sense when you think about it. As Yootopia explains in his/her post.

Firsty just mad a claim that does not make sense when you think about it, nor does Firsty explain the logic or rationale behind it.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a couple thousand words to describe those "Moderate" Muslims (in this case, the Moderate community in London, England.)

http://www.staruppages.com/peaceful_religion/images/1.jpg
http://www.staruppages.com/peaceful_religion/images/9.jpg

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a couple thousand words to describe those "Moderate" Muslims (in this case, the Moderate community in London, England.)

http://www.staruppages.com/peaceful_religion/images/1.jpg
http://www.staruppages.com/peaceful_religion/images/9.jpg

And Geert's riposte is: "Exterminate those who slander Europe!"

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here’s a couple thousand words to describe those “Moderate” Muslims (in this case, the Moderate community in London, England.)

<snippy pics>
By the very nature of the signs they are holding, they are extremists.

But please, go ahead and embarrass yourself by trying to show how every single adherent of Islam supports such views.

True, but Yoo's premise does have logical support. In other words, it makes sense when you think about it. As Yootopia explains in his/her post.

Firsty just mad a claim that does not make sense when you think about it, nor does Firsty explain the logic or rationale behind it.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a couple thousand words to describe those "Moderate" Christians (in this case, the Moderate community in Topeka, Kansas.)

http://www.maggotpunks.com/headlines/2002-08-13-02.jpg
http://images.morris.com/images/cjonline/mdControlled/cms/2007/11/01/213976513.jpg

You see, I can do that too!:rolleyes:

Ah, but my point was that moderate Muslims (the ones we were being told were the ones who fled to Europe) were just as bad as the Fundie Christians we all hate.

Therefore you have successfully proven my point.
Thank you very much.

*snip*
Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a couple thousand words to describe those "Moderate" Christians (in this case, the Moderate community in Topeka, Kansas.)

http://www.maggotpunks.com/headlines/2002-08-13-02.jpg
http://images.morris.com/images/cjonline/mdControlled/cms/2007/11/01/213976513.jpg

You see, I can do that too!:rolleyes:

In the past, when an ethnic group invaded another nation to impose its culture and values upon it and drive out or suppress native beliefs and ideas, it usually did so by dint of economic, technological, military, or even simply numerical supremacy. Islamic immigrants have none of that. Nor has anyone been able to conclusively prove that they commit more crimes, that mosques outnumber churches, that traditionally Christian or Western European ideals and beliefs have been abandoned either out of fear or concession.

So I'm not buying it. Until you show me Islamic immigration manifesting itself as "a mighty horde of millionaire investment bankers galloping across the dusty Thracian plains astride hover-tanks, brandishing plasma electroshock lances and Qurans as they ululate discordantly to the night sky", I'd say "Islamization" is about as much of a threat to European culture as the Westboro Baptist Church is to American culture.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a couple thousand words to describe those "Moderate" Christians (in this case, the Moderate community in Topeka, Kansas.)

http://www.maggotpunks.com/headlines/2002-08-13-02.jpg
http://images.morris.com/images/cjonline/mdControlled/cms/2007/11/01/213976513.jpg

You see, I can do that too!:rolleyes:
Maybe the reason there's so much anti-Islam freakout in Europe is because they lack our good ol' home-grown American Xian nutters.

See, I'm American, lived here all my life. I've been told I'm going to burn in the eternal flames of Hell for:

1) Working at a health clinic (which did NOT perform abortions)
2) Failing to worship a particular God-image
3) Being non-heterosexual
4) Being female and not pregnant (I'm not kidding on this one)
5) Wearing pants and having short hair
6) Failing to support the presidency of George W Bush
7) Eating meat sometimes
8) Not eating meat sometimes (same discussion as #7)
9) Identifying as "feminist"
10) Putting up a Christmas tree

Those are just the first ten that came to mind. All of them were direct, personal threats from self-identified Christians. These are cases in which I was specifically told that I, personally, deserved to be tortured for all eternity.

After a while you just start to tune out this kind of stuff. Yeah, yeah, some religious wacko is threatening to cut my head off for wearing the wrong hat, and it's another Thursday afternoon in America.

Maybe we should send some of our Xian religious crazies over to Europe so they can become numb to it.

By the very nature of the signs they are holding, they are extremists. No, we were told that all the Muslims fleeing to Europe were Moderates. Therefore they must be moderates... or the people making the claim that they were were full of crap. You should tell them.

But please, go ahead and embarrass yourself by trying to show how every single adherent of Islam supports such views.

How about you embarass yourself by trying to find a picture of an equally large crowd of Muslims repudiating such views?

Or any crowd? That isn;t being chased by the first crowd?

Gee, this doesn't sound moronic:

I'm sure it doesn't, to you, but this....

Anyone who is bashing an idiot medieval religion is good in my book.

does.

You really only proved my point there. Dull, unoriginal, religious intolerance. Masturbate to that if you want but I've seen enough.

Maybe we should send some of our Xian religious crazies over to Europe so they can become numb to it.
Please don’t.

I enjoy my moderately secular existence.

Maybe the reason there's so much anti-Islam freakout in Europe is because they lack our good ol' home-grown American Xian nutters.

Funny, I think that if Europe had the US's Christian nutters, there'd be a lot MORE anti-Islamic feeling... due to experience.

Sure, there'd be more anti-Islamicism because of the nutter competition, but Europe's Secularists would also have a better idea of the crapstorm they'd be facing if they let either religious psycho community make too many inroads.

That's the thing about all this that gets me... yeah, I KNOW what maniacs the Christians can be. We've got the biggest maniacs of all Christian maniacs over here.

But even our worst ones don't pull crap like the Islamic maniacs do, okay? I ain't finding any Christians flying planes into buildings. And I don't think ANY of our Christian wackos have attacked Europeans in the last half-century, but the Islamic wackos have, do, and will keep doing so.

Strawman.


Tell gift-of-god. I didn't say it.



Pointless. The ability to find a picture is not indicative of anything. Pictures may be worth a 1000 words, but so is me typing LOL a thousand times in a row. Right now, I'm thinking the latter might be a more appropriate response to your type.
It'd be more content than you're putting out now.

You really only proved my point there. Dull, unoriginal, religious intolerance. Masturbate to that if you want but I've seen enough.

But the abrahamic religions are nonsensical and would only make relevant sense to the cultural understanding of the medieval ages, certainly not now, unless you completely detach yourself from scripture.

No, we were told that all the Muslims fleeing to Europe were Moderates.

Strawman.

Therefore they must be moderates... or the people making the claim that they were were full of crap. You should tell them.

Strawman.

How about you embarass yourself by trying to find a picture of an equally large crowd of Muslims repudiating such views?

Pointless. The ability to find a picture is not indicative of anything. Pictures may be worth a 1000 words, but so is me typing LOL a thousand times in a row. Right now, I'm thinking the latter might be a more appropriate response to your type.

You really only proved my point there. Dull, unoriginal, religious intolerance. Masturbate to that if you want but I've seen enough.
It's not religious intolerance.

What Christian nutters and Islamic nutters have in common is the demand to not be offended by Western culture and ideals.

Christians are offended by the teaching of evolution - and Islamic nutters are offended by many of the same things (women's equality, etc).

We have NO logical reason to accomodate religious nutcases. NONE.

Nor should we accomodate them in their demands.

Again with the strawman. You're demanding people argue a point and then tearing that supposed point down. For that to be true, the point I am demanding they argue would have to not be the point that they were arguing.

But it was.

Are you missing the point or being obtuse on purpose? You posted an image of fundementalist Muslims and claimed they were representative of Islam at large. Therefore, by your logic, I can post an image of fundementalist Christians and claim they are representative of each and every Christian.

Which is, of course, a complete load of nonsense.


No, you are missing the point. Because you are arguing now, while I am replying to a point argued several pages ago. Which is NOT the point YOU are arguing.

Although if you want to argue that Christianity is bad and dangerous because Fundie Christians are allowed to persist and thrive, I won't stop you. In fact, I'll agree with you. They suck too.

Ah, but my point was that moderate Muslims (the ones we were being told were the ones who fled to Europe) were just as bad as the Fundie Christians we all hate.

Therefore you have successfully proven my point.
Thank you very much.
Are you missing the point or being obtuse on purpose? You posted an image of fundementalist Muslims and claimed they were representative of Islam at large. Therefore, by your logic, I can post an image of fundementalist Christians and claim they are representative of each and every Christian.

Which is, of course, a complete load of nonsense.

Tell gift-of-god. I didn't say it.

Again with the strawman. You're demanding people argue a point and then tearing that supposed point down.

I'm not going to defend what you said he said she said. I'm just going to make fun of what YOU say. You are of course free to sit there and take it, I won't stop you.

It'd be more content than you're putting out now.

Refuting nonsense is a fairly content-free endeavor. Why use what is not needed?

Really, because "bashing an idiot medieval religion" sounds like religious intolerance to me.

As does the implication you make here...

that they should not be "accomodated." Of course you're vague here as to what you mean by "accomodate," but it sounds like you believe "religious nutters" should be deported? Not allowed to live in the country?

Or what? What exactly are you advocating?

No creationism or intelligent design taught in schools. Abortion should be legal. Women should not be forced into marriages or hijabs unless it is their specific desire to do so. Women are not second class citizens. We should never adopt sharia law because of that. No "special swim time" at pools, no "special gym time" at gyms. No special footbaths, etc.

No praying in schools - regardless of your religion.

The opposite of these are demands by religious nutters - so that our world will conform to their baseless desires to turn us into them.

I'm sure it doesn't, to you, but this....



does.

You really only proved my point there. Dull, unoriginal, religious intolerance. Masturbate to that if you want but I've seen enough.

'Medieval' covers a period from the fifth to the fifteenth century, so Islam is a Medieval religion. It doesn't seem to make much sense either, so I'd be interested to know what part of the phrase 'bashing an idiot, medieval religion' you're taking issue with.

It's not religious intolerance.

Really, because "bashing an idiot medieval religion" sounds like religious intolerance to me.

As does the implication you make here...

We have NO logical reason to accomodate religious nutcases. NONE.

that they should not be "accomodated." Of course you're vague here as to what you mean by "accomodate," but it sounds like you believe "religious nutters" should be deported? Not allowed to live in the country?

Or what? What exactly are you advocating?

How quickly we forget. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Yes, another religious nut. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Fuck all religious nutters...

But even our worst ones don't pull crap like the Islamic maniacs do, okay? I ain't finding any Christians flying planes into buildings. And I don't think ANY of our Christian wackos have attacked Europeans in the last half-century, but the Islamic wackos have, do, and will keep doing so.
How quickly we forget. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

For that to be true, the point I am demanding they argue would have to not be the point that they were arguing.

But it was.

No, it wasn't; you are flat-out lying now.

You claim that "they" (Gift-of-God) "told that all the Muslims fleeing to Europe were Moderates." You referenced a post in which Gift-of-God agreed with Yootopia's analysis.

(Actually, he only said that the premise had support, unlike yours. He didn't actually "Make" the claim either. But no matter, this is just one more error in your long line of errors.)

Yootopia's analysis in question was as follows: Seeing as you're not from Europe, you might not understand this. There is no particular problem with "Islamisation", nor really with a clash of cultures, mostly because expat Arabs mainly left their countries because they didn't like the intolerance and repression there, so they're quite Western in outlook already, and because we Europeans, especially the British and Dutch, try to be polite at all times.

There is the odd bad apple in the Muslim community, just as there is in every community.But there we go.

Do note that this is not saying "all Muslims fleeing to Europe are moderates." At best it's saying Muslims who flee to Europe "mainly" do so to flee repression - but that's not quite the same as saying they are moderates (you can certainly be repressed, and still be 'moderate' in your religious beliefs) and it's definitely not saying they are ALL moderates.

You're wrong and it's so obvious that even I can demonstrate it. ;)

I have a low tolerance for religious intolerance

Where does your own religious intolerance start though ?
To use an earlier example - before the altar of virgin offerings ?

Fuck all religious nutters...
Sure, but at the same time there’s nothing wrong in tolerating people to freely worship whatever god or gods they see fit; as long as they aren’t pushing their faith onto others unwillingly, or demanding that everyone abide by their particular laws.

Thus, people like Geert Wilders, our own TAi, who seem to think that any Muslim is a fanatic, hell-bent on destroying everything that is Good and Sacred, are blowing things all out of proportion. Not all Muslims are like that; they’re only a small minority, especially in the West.

We shouldn’t tolerate fanatical religious devotees of any bent (be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Hellenic, Norse or whatever) when they demand that the views of the minority they represent are enforced on anyone else. But that position doesn’t lead us to the position of outright banning all or one single religion.

'Medieval' covers a period from the fifth to the fifteenth century, so Islam is a Medieval religion. It doesn't seem to make much sense either, so I'd be interested to know what part of the phrase 'bashing an idiot, medieval religion' you're taking issue with.

Generally the implication in calling something "medieval" is not pointing out it's origins, but carries a negative connotation involving antiquated, barbaric, cruel, overly simplistic, etc.

Calling someone or something "idiot" is unambiguously just insulting.

So I guess I take issue with stereotyping and insulting a religion like that. As I'm a Jew, I happen to know that it starts with stereotyping, insulting, generalizing and then proceeds to deportations in leaky boats and happy fun camps with laughing gas. I have a low tolerance for religious intolerance, mainly because I have ethics but also because I don't want to be taking a ride in the cattle cars myself soon - when you Islamophobes get tired of hating Muslims and choose to hate Jews again.

No, I meant that a lot of Dutch people posted on the main topic itself.
Ah, sorry. Misunderstood. Then for that I am grateful.

Singling him out as "a Dutch person posted, but all you do is mock his spelling" is therefor a bit odd. As if him being Dutch is special or something when half the topicposters are also Dutch.
I meant when a Dutch poster comes out in support of him, nobody addressed his posts just made fun of his bad English. Being Dutch is special, in this case because this is a domestic issue in Holland and an international issue for the rest of us.
If it's to be found anywhere, it'll most likely be in the Netherlands and not Florida.
Aha....so one must live in that country to speak the truth about an event/issue currently important in that country? Being located outside that country automatically makes you unable to speak the truth about it? Geert is speaking the truth and is in the Netherlands, I'm just trying to bring it up for debate, discussion and give it some more publicity. It has nothing to do with Florida.....

Nice try though.
Typing " OMG TEH MUSILIMZ", while not original, at least saves us the trouble.
As much as I'd like to give myself credit for that, I didn't make it up. The "sitting on a time bomb" line is one that some Dutch people use to talk about the issues in society over there. I got it from them.


Not a problem unique to critics of muslims.
And as far as I know only one other has been killed....
First.....while not totally unique to critics of Islam...how often do you see someone under protection for their life or murdered in the name of Judaism/Christianity because they got offended that someone was criticizing their religion? While I can't think of a current case off the top of my head, I'm sure you may be able to find one...so I'll say that it pales in comparison to the cases of critics of Islam. Deny that, if you want but you shall only be denying reality.
De Pravda is algemeen verkrijgbaar.
Niet grappig....:rolleyes:

How quickly we forget. :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Scale and numbers.

Pardon me? I don't have religious intolerance, so I wouldn't know when or if it would theoretically start.

Anything one wishes to believe is fine ? I can agree with that.

Anything one does based on that belief is fine as well ?
That.. no. You must draw a line somewhere or you get complete and utter destruction.

Generally the implication in calling something "medieval" is not pointing out it's origins, but carries a negative connotation involving antiquated, barbaric, cruel, overly simplistic, etc.

Calling someone or something "idiot" is unambiguously just insulting.

So I guess I take issue with stereotyping and insulting a religion like that. As I'm a Jew, I happen to know that it starts with stereotyping, insulting, generalizing and then proceeds to deportations in leaky boats and happy fun camps with laughing gas. I have a low tolerance for religious intolerance, mainly because I have ethics but also because I don't want to be taking a ride in the cattle cars myself soon - when you Islamophobes get tired of hating Muslims and choose to hate Jews again.

When you say Jew, do you mean you practice the Jewish faith?

Where does your own religious intolerance start though ?
To use an earlier example - before the altar of virgin offerings ?

Pardon me? I don't have religious intolerance, so I wouldn't know when or if it would theoretically start.

Bloody hell! Look, Earths Reformation actually fits in quite nicely with the other ranters on this forum, but he has a poor grasp of how to write properly. I don't think he attended class when his teacher spoke about the use of punctuation, capital letters and paragraphs. However, he is a good example, albeit relatively moderate in tone, of the average Dutch Wilders-supporter. They tend to produce large bodies of textual diarrhea like there's no tomorrow on many, many forums. And yes, they tend to horribly abuse the Dutch language as well, despite their socalled love for the culture of the Netherlands.
ok i admid i suck at puntifications and i'm not very good with languages so what you gonna cry about that? wer are talking about a political subject not my writing bah idiot and abusing dutch language???
have you eaven read what i wrote? because you just don't give any usefull awnser and i DO love the netherlands with my heart!!! and no one can change that. really i don't understand wtf are you crying about i tought we were talking about geert wilders not me. and every group is diffirent, and i just happen to be someone not with a lack of education but with a lack of paying attention to languages because even dispite my poor writing ability people still understand me and and talking is a whole diffirent story. and you call my text diarrhea but give no xuporting evidence that it is infact diarrhea giving me the conclusion you are just scared to read it because you already know i'm atleast partially right but fine here for you very simple.
muslims are not evil and i'd be happy to be friends with some of them afther all we are all human.
extreamists muslims and terrorists are iritating and very very motivated byt the koran.
wilders want to koran banned because of this and that i belief is a bit to much because its a holy book for the muslims thus this would not only stop terrorist but infact activate non terrorists and create a bigger problem.
but we can take a more aggresive stance againt terrosists and extreamists and be a little less tolerant to muslims in total still tolerant but just a little less.
like i said before i don't hate muslims i am just afraid some and i say again some of them go out of line and need to either get back in the line or leave for good!

i paid extra attention to puntification for you hope its enough for you and hope you understand now good day to you because unlike >>>some<<< muslims (extreamists & terrorists) i will not be provoked to aggresiveness.

Sharia law is barbaric and medieval. Any questions? So is Old Testament law, if we were to somehow enact it as current law.

Do you really want to accomodate a form of law that treats women as chattel property, to be beaten and raped at will by men?

Really? Do you want to stone teenagers who talk back to their parents at the city gates?

Really?

Islam is not Sharia law. Any questions?

You were on about "bashing an idiot medieval religion" (Islam) and how delightful that made you feel, not "bashing an idiot medieval system of law proposed by some members of a religion" (Sharia).

Changing the goalposts doesn't speak well of you here.

Ah, so worshipping a meteor isn't idiotic to you....

Sharia is only a part of Islam. A very central part.

There are plenty of other idiot ideas in it.

Sharia law is barbaric and medieval. Any questions? So is Old Testament law, if we were to somehow enact it as current law.

Do you really want to accomodate a form of law that treats women as chattel property, to be beaten and raped at will by men?

Really? Do you want to stone teenagers who talk back to their parents at the city gates?

Really?

No we probably dont. But no need to be like "oooo evil people from the past please dont hurt us you barbarians!" - its what people did in the past, live with it or die with it. Just look at how they treated Jesus. Its a huge mistake to judge history by looking at it through our own "modern glasses". Beating women, stoning teenagers, thats kinda what they did back then, hate to break it to u. But no it would not be compatible today

Anything one wishes to believe is fine ? I can agree with that.

Anything one does based on that belief is fine as well ?
That.. no. You must draw a line somewhere or you get complete and utter destruction.

Of course. But simply arguing against religious stereotypes (frankly, smear propaganda), doesn't mean I advocate any action whatsoever.

When you say Jew, do you mean you practice the Jewish faith?

I mean I can be identified as "Jewish" by people who wish to do so. That is to say, when time comes for people to hate one another, they could care less if I actually practice or belief at all. They won't care anymore than people who beat up "Muslim-looking" guys care if their victims are actually Muslims. But no, I don't, and I don't believe in God or anything either.

Sounds about right: what else would you expect from a religion which was founded in the seventh century? Islam is out-dated, cruel and simplistic, just like all the other Abrahamic religions. I don't feel any compunctions about attacking the barbaric commands in the Tanach, neither do I hold back in pointing out the misogyny evident in Paul's epistles, so why should I give Islam special treatment?

And? What if the beliefs in question really are idiotic?

Too many people have fallen into the trap of thinking that the moment religion is invoked then an idea is immune from criticism. In the words of Daniel Dennett, rationality is expected to tip-toe respectfully away the moment religion is invoked. We live in an age of nuclear weapons and we can't afford to treat absurd religious beliefs with respect any more.



Uttterly pathetic, but not unexpected: you suggest that because I don't feel any obligation to give respect to a certain group of beliefs purely because they're pronounced to be 'religion' that makes me a proto-Nazi. You're a sorry specimen of humanity to even consider comparing a critic of religion to an advocate of genocide. As I said, pathetic.

Here's something for you to ponder (I don't seriously expect you to think about it, but others might): Nazism declares that non-Aryans deserve to be killed, and is recognised as a legitimate target for criticism. Why then are religions which preach eternal hellfire for unbelievers considered to sacrosanct.

What's with the word 'Islamophobe' anyway? We don't talk about 'Capitalistophobes' or 'Communistophobes' to describe people who dislike and openly criticise political ideology, even though they often use even stronger language than critics of religion.

I am a critic of religion, and specifically where religion tries to tell government what to do in order to further its goals.

No accomodation whatsoever to any religion. I'm not talking about making them leave (they can certainly stay). I'm not talking about killing anyone. I'm talking about denying them the right to not be offended.

Sorry, but they'll have to be offended. Christians, Jews, Islamists, Scientologists - their beliefs are the worst sort of government.

They do NOT have the right to never be offended. That means they'll have to learn evolution in school. They'll have to pay taxes to fund abortions. They'll have to take the hijab off when they get an ID card picture taken. They'll have to share the gym with men. They'll have to stop beating their wives. They'll have to stop doing honor killings. If they are the recipients of food aid during a disaster, they may have to eat pork in order to survive.

That's what I'm talking about.

Sharia law is barbaric and medieval. Any questions?

Islam is not Sharia law. Any questions?

You were on about "bashing an idiot medieval religion" (Islam) and how delightful that made you feel, not "bashing an idiot medieval system of law proposed by some members of a religion" (Sharia).

Changing the goalposts doesn't speak well of you here.

I mean I can be identified as "Jewish" by people who wish to do so. That is to say, when time comes for people to hate one another, they could care less if I actually practice or belief at all. They won't care anymore than people who beat up "Muslim-looking" guys care if their victims are actually Muslims. But no, I don't, and I don't believe in God or anything either.

But I'm also Jewish in that sense, in that I have a German Jewish background and would be part of the race if the race does exist, but I don't think that the Jewish faith and many aspects of certain Jewish cultures (luckily these aspects are few and far between these days) are exactly commendable, the religion itself certainly not. I don't hate those who practice it of course, nor do I hate any Muslim or Christian, I just don't think that the abrahamic religions unless you detach yourself strongly from the scriptures, are particularly good. It would be silly to equate this to Nazi like hating of religious people, that wouldn't make sense, I am not a self hating Jew, some of my family even died in the holocaust so I am resentful towards the almost spontaneous hatred for religious groups, but I think worrying about a slippery slope from dislike of a religion or culture to hatred of an entire group of religious people every time someone claims to dislike a certain religion is unfair and you shouldn't use it to immediately judge them.

Generally the implication in calling something "medieval" is not pointing out it's origins, but carries a negative connotation involving antiquated, barbaric, cruel, overly simplistic, etc.

Sounds about right: what else would you expect from a religion which was founded in the seventh century? Islam is out-dated, cruel and simplistic, just like all the other Abrahamic religions. I don't feel any compunctions about attacking the barbaric commands in the Tanach, neither do I hold back in pointing out the misogyny evident in Paul's epistles, so why should I give Islam special treatment?

Calling someone or something "idiot" is unambiguously just insulting.

And? What if the beliefs in question really are idiotic?

Too many people have fallen into the trap of thinking that the moment religion is invoked then an idea is immune from criticism. In the words of Daniel Dennett, rationality is expected to tip-toe respectfully away the moment religion is invoked. We live in an age of nuclear weapons and we can't afford to treat absurd religious beliefs with respect any more.

So I guess I take issue with stereotyping and insulting a religion like that. As I'm a Jew, I happen to know that it starts with stereotyping, insulting, generalizing and then proceeds to deportations in leaky boats and happy fun camps with laughing gas. I have a low tolerance for religious intolerance, mainly because I have ethics but also because I don't want to be taking a ride in the cattle cars myself soon - when you Islamophobes get tired of hating Muslims and choose to hate Jews again.

Uttterly pathetic, but not unexpected: you suggest that because I don't feel any obligation to give respect to a certain group of beliefs purely because they're pronounced to be 'religion' that makes me a proto-Nazi. You're a sorry specimen of humanity to even consider comparing a critic of religion to an advocate of genocide. As I said, pathetic.

Here's something for you to ponder (I don't seriously expect you to think about it, but others might): Nazism declares that non-Aryans deserve to be killed, and is recognised as a legitimate target for criticism. Why then are religions which preach eternal hellfire for unbelievers considered to sacrosanct.

What's with the word 'Islamophobe' anyway? We don't talk about 'Capitalistophobes' or 'Communistophobes' to describe people who dislike and openly criticise political ideology, even though they often use even stronger language than critics of religion.

Geert Wilders is really inviting attack, personally i think he loves how the extremists are threatening him, it adds credence to his viewpoints. Sometimes i think he'd even like being martyred. The whole time bomb thing is stupid, we have roughly 900k muslims in a country with 16,5million people, it's gonna be a long long time before they even get close to a majority.
I won't even talk about how Geert likes being plagued by death....that's just stupid. I'm sure Jews also enjoyed the holocaust, because it adds credence to Israel's existance.:rolleyes:

Yes..but since you are Dutch you will also know that in Holland everyone, generally, lives very close together, in close proximity. So 900,000 people are really felt, even more so in cities like Amsterdam and especially Rotterdam, where the Muslim population comes close to being around half.. I beleive it's in the 40 percentile. It leads to people saying stuff like this:

"Kom uit het land met de meeste culturen per vierkante meter
Maar men is bang om bij de buren te gaan eten"

That's what I'm talking about....that's why people feel it.

And just a little fyi: Pim Fortuin was not killed by muslim extremists, he was killed by a left-wing radical, Volkert van der G., a man who was already known as a violent animal rights activist.
I know very well how/why Fortuyn was killed but I was also talking about Van Gogh.....but since you bring up Fortuyn, while it's true he was killed by Van der G, a crazy animal rights guy....Pim was also heavily creatizied and in fear by the Muslim community and my many Leftists who called him racist because he dared to critize a religion.

Theres a difference between being afraid, and calling a speech anti-PVV because it calls for increased tolerance, thats slipping into the realm of paranoia. The speech didn't specify who shuold by more tolerant, so the queen most likely meant everybody.
She may have...but I think you know he's very popular and leads sort of that "anti-tolerance" movement right now...in the view of many Leftists. "Tolerance" usually is in response to Holland's stances on the intolerant Islam....and in my point of view it's just like when Geert and Balkenende got in the fight over "tolerance" and catering to Islam so as not to damage Holland's geo-political relations.

I'm dutch, and this sentence isn't :))
Then I must have been off on the grammar or spelling. Maybe it's "komen kan". I've been teaching myself Dutch because they don't offer it at my university. But regardless, it was very close and 100% understandable.

Mind giving me the correct version?
I was wondering why I could read it...
You could read it because often, Dutch is very close to German..that had nothing to do with any minor grammar or spelling mistake I may have made.
I think he referred to the filmmaker Theo van Gogh there.
I did indeed but it also applies to the heavy criticism Pim recieved from Muslims but also from the Left and from the Media who liked to call him a fascist and a racist and all that garbage...simply because he wanted to perserve Holland's society against the cultural change that the Islamic change in demographics would surely bring. There is a saying that the Left like to use in response to their silencing of neo-nazis...which, since I hate Neo-Nazis, I don't really mind hearing...but I think it works here to. "We don't not need to tolerate intolerance." Think about that.

Pim received threats becuase he spent his career working on this, which to those who don't understand means "The Islamization of our culture."
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/pim-islambook.jpg

As uncomfterble as it may be to some, you can't deny there is something very rotten in soceity today, and BBC touches on it here:

"The Netherlands' example as a successful, tolerant, multicultural community has taken a dent with the publication of a parliamentary report saying Dutch society is becoming increasingly polarised, with huge ethnic ghettos and subcultures tearing the country apart."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3417429.stm

I strongly urge people to read that BBC article before continuing this discussion.

I am a critic of religion, and specifically where religion tries to tell government what to do in order to further its goals.

No accomodation whatsoever to any religion. I'm not talking about making them leave (they can certainly stay). I'm not talking about killing anyone. I'm talking about denying them the right to not be offended.

Sorry, but they'll have to be offended. Christians, Jews, Islamists, Scientologists - their beliefs are the worst sort of government.

They do NOT have the right to never be offended. That means they'll have to learn evolution in school. They'll have to pay taxes to fund abortions. They'll have to take the hijab off when they get an ID card picture taken. They'll have to share the gym with men. They'll have to stop beating their wives. They'll have to stop doing honor killings. If they are the recipients of food aid during a disaster, they may have to eat pork in order to survive.

That's what I'm talking about.

Then your taking exactly the same line religion has taken over the years - "live our way or else". It will do nothing but make us end up worse off. Who will guard the guards? Watch the film Animal Farm = it might teach you a thing or two. If you havent watched it shame on you, great film.

I agree with some things Geert Wilders says, and I disagree with some other things he says.

When I turn 18 I am allowed to vote, and the next elections will be sometime after I turn 18. (I am 17 now) I will probably vote for Wilders for the next elections. Either him or "Iron" Rita Verdonk, not sure yet.

Here's something for you to ponder (I don't seriously expect you to think about it, but others might): Nazism declares that non-Aryans deserve to be killed, and is recognised as a legitimate target for criticism. Why then are religions which preach eternal hellfire for unbelievers considered to sacrosanct.

What's with the word 'Islamophobe' anyway? We don't talk about 'Capitalistophobes' or 'Communistophobes' to describe people who dislike and openly criticise political ideology, even though they often use even stronger language than critics of religion.
Oh, God.

QFT 100 times over and over again.

Thank you for posting this.

Nazism isn't a religion.

First: applause for the rest of your post. Especially the hell vs murder part.

However - this sentence intruiges me. Why is nazism a la Hitler not a religion ? It definitely was based on beliefs.
And why does it matter if an ideology is a religion or not ?

Pim received threats becuase he spent his career working on this, which to those who don't understand means "The Islamization of our culture."

So... What the hell is the Islamization of our culture anyway?

OK, and that's fine, I don't like many religions myself.

But when people like TAI go to such great lengths, generally making appeals to logical fallacies and resorting to sheer denial and histrionic propaganda-pasting, that's different. Particularly when they advocate anti-immigrant or anti-freedom policies based on that dislike.

I'm only advocating that we not accomodate demands to incorporate sharia law, demands to remodel bathrooms, demands to eliminate the teaching of evolution, demands to force women from the workplace, demands to get rid of reproductive freedom for women, demands to allow forced marriage, demands to make abortion illegal, demands to allow prayer in school, etc.

That's is NOT anti-immigrant. It is NOT anti-freedom.

Sounds about right: what else would you expect from a religion which was founded in the seventh century? Islam is out-dated, cruel and simplistic, just like all the other Abrahamic religions. I don't feel any compunctions about attacking the barbaric commands in the Tanach, neither do I hold back in pointing out the misogyny evident in Paul's epistles, so why should I give Islam special treatment?

Thanks for the concession. Yes, calling Islam "medieval" in this context is indeed an insult.

And? What if the beliefs in question really are idiotic?

And what if they are? "Idiotic" is still nothing more than an insult and I'm not going to treat it like some sort of philosophical treatise.

Too many people have fallen into the trap of thinking that the moment religion is invoked then an idea is immune from criticism. In the words of Daniel Dennett, rationality is expected to tip-toe respectfully away the moment religion is invoked. We live in an age of nuclear weapons and we can't afford to treat absurd religious beliefs with respect any more.

What does nuclear weapons have to do with disrespecting religion? Talk about absurd. And again thank you for showing what you're really about - "bashing" (Sanmartin) Islam, "attacking" religion etc. Honesty is refreshing.

Uttterly pathetic, but not unexpected: you suggest that because I don't feel any obligation to give respect to a certain group of beliefs purely because they're pronounced to be 'religion' that makes me a proto-Nazi.

I suggest that because you "bash," "attack," and are proud of how little "respect" you show one religion, you might "bash," "attack," and show no "respect" to another. This isn't exactly an unreasonable leap. The hate is seeping from your every word.

You're a sorry specimen of humanity to even consider comparing a critic of religion to an advocate of genocide.

Perhaps you could explain the difference between generalizing and hating Jews, and generalizing and hating Muslims. I'm sure there's a key difference that's so shocking and amazing that only a Superb Specimen of Humanity such as yourself could point it out. I'll wait while you do so.

Here's something for you to ponder (I don't seriously expect you to think about it, but others might): Nazism declares that non-Aryans deserve to be killed, and is recognised as a legitimate target for criticism.

Nazism isn't a religion.

Why then are religions which preach eternal hellfire for unbelievers considered to sacrosanct.

That's a tough one.

"You should be KILLED."
"You will have hot flashes in the eternal fantasyland where the invisible man in the sky will place you."

There's a very subtle legal difference here which I'm sure a Specimen of Humanity such as yourself will be able to spot.

What's with the word 'Islamophobe' anyway? We don't talk about 'Capitalistophobes' or 'Communistophobes' to describe people who dislike and openly criticise political ideology, even though they often use even stronger language than critics of religion.

We could if we wanted. Of course, Islam is a religion, not a political ideology, but that's not your first error nor will it be your last!

But I'm also Jewish in that sense, in that I have a German Jewish background and would be part of the race if the race does exist, but I don't think that the Jewish faith and many aspects of certain Jewish cultures (luckily these aspects are few and far between these days) are exactly commendable, the religion itself certainly not. I don't hate those who practice it of course, nor do I hate any Muslim or Christian, I just don't think that the abrahamic religions unless you detach yourself strongly from the scriptures, are particularly good. It would be silly to equate this to Nazi like hating of religious people, that wouldn't make sense,

OK, and that's fine, I don't like many religions myself.

But when people like TAI go to such great lengths, generally making appeals to logical fallacies and resorting to sheer denial and histrionic propaganda-pasting, that's different. Particularly when they advocate anti-immigrant or anti-freedom policies based on that dislike.

When I turn 18 I am allowed to vote, and the next elections will be sometime after I turn 18. (I am 17 now) I will probably vote for Wilders for the next elections. Either him or "Iron" Rita Verdonk, not sure yet.
I'm glad to hear that, but would you mind telling us why are considering them. What made you?
Nazism isn't a religion.
Debatable anyway..as it saught to restablish itself as a religion of sorts instead of religion.
That's a tough one.

"You should be KILLED."
"You will have hot flashes in the eternal fantasyland where the invisible man in the sky will place you."

There's a very subtle legal difference here which I'm sure a Specimen of Humanity such as yourself will be able to spot.
Except that they are both terrible ways of looking at the world, which incite violence and hatred and often times, Muslims do not feel like waiting for God's judgement and often deal it themselves by attacking the infidels in question. The point is both ways of thinking are wrong and unacceptable in a civilized society.


We could if we wanted. Of course, Islam is a religion, not a political ideology, but that's not your first error nor will it be your last!
Actually, it's both. Islam is a political ideology, which also has legal and social ideologies attached to it. Ever heard of the Church's "religious politics" in the Middle Ages. Quite like that.

Quite sad too, that current present day Islam can be compared to the Church of the Middle Ages, which we all know could be awful, repressive, violent and corrupt, but we aren't allowed to say the same thing about Islam.

First: applause for the rest of your post. Especially the hell vs murder part.

However - this sentence intruiges me. Why is nazism a la Hitler not a religion ? It definitely was based on beliefs.
And why does it matter if an ideology is a religion or not ?

I guess nazism isn't considered a religion because the practitioners themselves generally consider themselves to be Christians (in the US) or perhaps "pagans" or something - although certainly they would feel that their political beliefs are reconcilable with their religious beliefs, they would differentiate one from the other.

As to whether something is religion or not, it matters because of the First Amendment in the US (and in other countries that have similar distinctions between religion and non-religion), and to most religious people who take their religion more seriously (encompassing far more in their lives, and on a philosophical and spiritual basis as well) than some mere political party or ideology.

Beating women, stoning teenagers, thats kinda what they did back then, hate to break it to u.
Over 5 million American women are battered by an intimate partner each year.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among American women.

The leading cause of death among pregnant women in America is homicide at the hands of an intimate partner.

The Southern Baptist convention has stated that a wife's duty is to submit to her husband. Christian Reconstructionalists, like the Rev. William O. Einwechter, have specifically defended domestic abuse (including the stoning of children) as Biblically-mandated practices. There are even a growing number of organizations, like "Christian Domestic Discipline" (they have a website) which openly and specifically exist to promote the use of violence against women as part of a Christian marriage.

Yeah, good thing domestic abuse is just something they did "back then." And what a relief to know that nobody uses religious doctrine to excuse, condone, and encourage wife-beating any more.

That's a tough one.

"You should be KILLED."
"You will have hot flashes in the eternal fantasyland where the invisible man in the sky will place you."

There's a very subtle legal difference here which I'm sure a Specimen of Humanity such as yourself will be able to spot.

Or, alternatively, you could make an honest comparison.

"I think you should be killed."
"I think you should be tortured endlessly for the rest of eternity."

Hmm.

You know, you're right. There is a subtle difference. Simply thinking somebody should be killed is a good deal less barbaric than wishing an ETERNITY of torture upon them.

Over 5 million American women are battered by an intimate partner each year.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among American women.

The leading cause of death among pregnant women in America is homicide at the hands of an intimate partner.

The Southern Baptist convention has stated that a wife's duty is to submit to her husband. Christian Reconstructionalists, like the Rev. William O. Einwechter, have specifically defended domestic abuse (including the stoning of children) as Biblically-mandated practices. There are even a growing number of organizations, like "Christian Domestic Discipline" (they have a website) which openly and specifically exist to promote the use of violence against women as part of a Christian marriage.

Yeah, good thing domestic abuse is just something they did "back then." And what a relief to know that nobody uses religious doctrine to excuse, condone, and encourage wife-beating any more.

Any use of religion to justify this sort of barbarism and medieval thinking should be nullified. It should be illegal to endorse such behavior using any religion whatsoever.

I'm only advocating that we not accomodate demands to incorporate sharia law, demands to remodel bathrooms, demands to eliminate the teaching of evolution, demands to force women from the workplace, demands to get rid of reproductive freedom for women, demands to allow forced marriage, demands to make abortion illegal, demands to allow prayer in school, etc.

That's is NOT anti-immigrant. It is NOT anti-freedom.

Again it depends what you mean by "accomodate." You mean, not allow such demands? Repress them? See here in the US, you can generally advocate (make "demand") for whatever changes you want.

If that's not the case, then what you are arguing for would be different from what the anti-Islamic crowd (see: TAI and co) are arguing for in Europe and elsewhere.

Except that they are both terrible ways of looking at the world

Perhaps so, but advocating someone's murder is different from advocating that they be punished by imaginary deities. In fact, generally the former is a crime, while the latter is not.

Muslims do not feel like waiting for God's judgement and often deal it themselves by attacking the infidels in question.

Yet another example of a stupid generalization.

Actually, it's both. Islam is a political ideology, which also has legal and social ideologies attached to it. Ever heard of the Church's "religious politics" in the Middle Ages.

The Church is an institution. Islam is not. Islam is the entire body of a religion. But if your comparison was apt, you would now have to claim that Christianity is a political ideology. Is it?

Quite sad too, that current present day Islam can be compared to the Church of the Middle Ages

...only by turning off the brain first.

, which we all know could be awful, repressive, violent and corrupt, but we aren't allowed to say the same thing about Islam.

Oh you're allowed to say it. People are allowed to be wrong all they want.

Nazism isn't a religion.

The only reason you would make this statement in response to his post would be if you are arguing that religions should be granted special status as compared to all other schools of thought. In other words, Nazism is open to criticism because it's not a religion, but Christianity can't be similarly critiqued because it's a religion.

I'm hoping this is not your argument, because it's one of the most cowardly and laughable arguments that believers trot out.

Or, alternatively, you could make an honest comparison.

"I think you should be killed."
"I think you should be tortured endlessly for the rest of eternity."

I made an honest comparison. The first is possible to carry out, and can be considered a threat, and is most likely illegal. The latter, assuming we're still talking about Hell here, is not possible (in the eyes of the law, or common sense) to carry out, and so wouldn't be a threat except in your endeavor to be "honest" you just said "torture" instead of, ya know, the "torture of hell-fire and damnation" which is clearly different from a person torturing someone else. Yeah, "honestly" attempting to conflate wishing someone goes to Hell with a torture threat.

The only reason you would make this statement in response to his post would be if you are arguing that religions should be granted special status as compared to all other schools of thought. In other words, Nazism is open to criticism because it's not a religion, but Christianity can't be similarly critiqued because it's a religion.

Special status? No. Different status. The difference is there whether you want to see it or not (apparently the latest thing is to pretend to see no difference between religion and anything else). It's ascribed throughout our society, law, speech, politics, culture and in common fucking sense.

If you honestly can't tell the difference between religion and political ideology, then this forum - or any other medium involving both writing and reading - is not for you.

I'm only advocating that we not accomodate demands to incorporate sharia law, demands to remodel bathrooms, demands to eliminate the teaching of evolution, demands to force women from the workplace, demands to get rid of reproductive freedom for women, demands to allow forced marriage, demands to make abortion illegal, demands to allow prayer in school, etc.

That's is NOT anti-immigrant. It is NOT anti-freedom.
Actually, that sounds exactly what Pim and Geert say...except that they connect the dots and say that those that are posing the greatest threat to taking this away from the culture, are Muslims. That's the only difference between you and them.
So... What the hell is the Islamization of our culture anyway?
I'm glad you asked that question. It's exactly for questions like that the Pim wrote the book:
Tegen de islamisering van onze cultuur: Nederlandse identiteit als fundament

But since I know you won't look into it...you could also say it would be the accomadating to the demands that Sanmartin was saying we should not give into...plus a really dangerous atmosphere for other religions notably Jews, women, homosexuals and converts from Islam. Also, a direct injection of religion back into politics, something the reformation, renaissance and enlightenment all eventually reduced for Europe.

In a few words, regression back to The Middle Ages.

Thanks for the concession. Yes, calling Islam "medieval" in this context is indeed an insult.

And what if they are? "Idiotic" is still nothing more than an insult and I'm not going to treat it like some sort of philosophical treatise.

Who's claiming it's a deep and meaningful critique? I'm just saying it's accurate, and the fact that some people might not like hearing it doesn't mean we should refrain from saying it if it's right. If we treat stupid ideas with feigned respect then they accrue respectibility; this is the whole basis of the Discovery Institute's 'Teach the Controversy' campaign: their ideas are stupid, but if they're presented as being on a par with evolution then people will assume that there's something behind it.

Take Scientology: it's an evil cult. 'Evil cult' isn't likely to earn you a PhD in comparative religion, but it's true. Refraining from calling it an evil cult simply because it's insulting is absurd. Mockery is actually one of the best ways to marginalise silly ideas.

What does nuclear weapons have to do with disrespecting religion? Talk about absurd. And again thank you for showing what you're really about - "bashing" (Sanmartin) Islam, "attacking" religion etc. Honesty is refreshing.

Do try and keep up: there are enough nuclear weapons in the world to end civilisation as we know it, and the man with his finger on the launch button for the largest stockpile is a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the fiery end of the world portrayed in Revelations and thinks it's a good thing. Pakistan is a very unstable country and there's a danger that religious radicals will sieze power; Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Religious terrorist groups are currently trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (with debatable success). Belief in the Apocalypse (and the afterlife in general) is dangerous in this context, as are violent disputes over whose religion is the 'one true faith'.

I suggest that because you "bash," "attack," and are proud of how little "respect" you show one religion, you might "bash," "attack," and show no "respect" to another. This isn't exactly an unreasonable leap. The hate is seeping from your every word.

No it's not an unreasonable leap (and as I gave examples of myself 'attacking' and 'bashing' at least three different religions in my last post and have added a fourth in this post I can't see why you think this is such a stunning revelation, unless you're falling into the infantile fallacy of equating the belief with the believer).

Perhaps you could explain the difference between generalizing and hating Jews, and generalizing and hating Muslims. I'm sure there's a key difference that's so shocking and amazing that only a Superb Specimen of Humanity such as yourself could point it out. I'll wait while you do so.

Kindly show me where I said I hated Muslims. I didn't, I won't, and you're a liar for suggesting otherwise. I don't think either of my two posts in this thread so far have even used the word Muslim. Like so many of your ilk you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between a belief and a believer.

Nazism isn't a religion.

That's a tough one.

"You should be KILLED."
"You will have hot flashes in the eternal fantasyland where the invisible man in the sky will place you."

There's a very subtle legal difference here which I'm sure a Specimen of Humanity such as yourself will be able to spot.

This coming from somebody who's incapable of understanding the difference between Muslims and Islam (while claiming to be an opponent of belief in a 'Muslim hivemind')?

Obviously those beliefs have absolutely no affect on people's conduct in this life.

I mean, obviously a group which believes that sexually-active homosexuals will burn in Hell will have absolutely no interest in persecuting them and denying them rights to try and make them change their ways. Oh wait...

And obviously a group which believes that all non-believers will burn in Hell won't discriminate against them now in the hope of making them convert. Oh wait...

And obviously a group which believes that apostates will burn in Hell for deserting the one true faith TM won't have any interest in attacking apostates, whether emotionally or physically, in an attempt to dissuade other believers from considering the same course of action. Oh wait...

History proves you wrong, and even if it didn't it wouldn't alter the fact that beliefs which declare that unbelievers deserve torture in the next life are just as hateful and detestable (dare I say 'out-dated, cruel and simplistic'?) as beliefs which declare that group X deserve death in this life.

We could if we wanted. Of course, Islam is a religion, not a political ideology, but that's not your first error nor will it be your last!

I'm stunned. Seriously. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone miss the point with such pride and such vigour.

Of couse Islam is a religion, please try reading in future. The whole point is that religion is no more deserving of respect or protection than political ideology, and nobody throws around emotive language like '-ophobe', 'Nazi' or 'bigot' to silence criticism of political views.

Indeed. This is also a great example of the real world danger of theological doctrines: once you accept beliefs like "woman was created from man's rib because he needed a companion" it's not a big step to move to "women are subordinate to men".

Somehow, Trostia believes that this sort belief (belief that the imposition of theological doctrines on law and society) is Islamophobia...

talk about your knee-jerk reactions...

Yet such things are full of the "It's Not Bad As" comparisons that are popular nowadays. Fundamentalist Christianity is overlooked simply because "It's Not Bad As" Fundamentalist Islam, and any instances of Christian-linked violence are automatically dismissed because "It's Not Bad As" Muslim-linked violence.

I'm not dismissing the idiocy and violence of Christians.

Over 5 million American women are battered by an intimate partner each year.

Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among American women.

The leading cause of death among pregnant women in America is homicide at the hands of an intimate partner.

The Southern Baptist convention has stated that a wife's duty is to submit to her husband. Christian Reconstructionalists, like the Rev. William O. Einwechter, have specifically defended domestic abuse (including the stoning of children) as Biblically-mandated practices. There are even a growing number of organizations, like "Christian Domestic Discipline" (they have a website) which openly and specifically exist to promote the use of violence against women as part of a Christian marriage.

Yeah, good thing domestic abuse is just something they did "back then." And what a relief to know that nobody uses religious doctrine to excuse, condone, and encourage wife-beating any more.

Indeed. This is also a great example of the real world danger of theological doctrines: once you accept beliefs like "woman was created from man's rib because he needed a companion" it's not a big step to move to "women are subordinate to men".

Actually, that sounds exactly what Pim and Geert say...except that they connect the dots and say that those that are posing the greatest threat to taking this away from the culture, are Muslims. That's the only difference between you and them.

But why is it necessary to join any dots? It's so much more effective to say "anyone who embraces these liberal values is my friend, anyone who doesn't is my enemy". If somebody supports equality for women, gay-rights, science etc. then I don't particularly care whether they're a Muslim, Christian, Atheist or Satanist (although I might still consider their beliefs to be silly). If you insist on opposing all Muslims rather than just the illiberal ones then you're fighting unnecessary battles against potential allies (not to mention implicitly welcoming illiberal Christians and Atheists as your allies).

The point is that the people making such rants generally don't care whether or not there are Muslims who actually respect local laws and traditions. It's much simpler for them and their target audience to paint all Muslims as part of the same insectoid Bin-Laden worshipping hivemind and foster a gradual shift in attitude and climate that makes mass internment/deportations of Muslims easier over the course of years.

Read my posts.

I am against making accomodations for fundamentalist Christians who want prayer in schools. I am against Muslims who want their ID photo taken with the veil in place. I am against any religious accomodation apart from them building their places of worship and worshipping. I am against public prayer. I am against the destruction of the rights of women by Christians and Muslims alike.

I am against Scientologists who decry psychological and psychiatric treatment.

I am not for deportation, etc. I am for them to stop asking for these accomodations, and for them to stop asking for "the right to not be offended" by secular society.

Indeed. This is also a great example of the real world danger of theological doctrines: once you accept beliefs like "woman was created from man's rib because he needed a companion" it's not a big step to move to "women are subordinate to men".

Yet such things are full of the "It's Not Bad As" comparisons that are popular nowadays. Fundamentalist Christianity is overlooked simply because "It's Not Bad As" Fundamentalist Islam, and any instances of Christian-linked violence are automatically dismissed because "It's Not Bad As" Muslim-linked violence.

If you insist on opposing all Muslims rather than just the illiberal ones then you're fighting unnecessary battles against potential allies (not to mention implicitly welcoming illiberal Christians and Atheists as your allies).

The point is that the people making such rants generally don't care whether or not there are Muslims who actually respect local laws and traditions. It's much simpler for them and their target audience to paint all Muslims as part of the same insectoid Bin-Laden worshipping hivemind and foster a gradual shift in attitude and climate that makes mass internment/deportations of Muslims easier over the course of years.

I'm glad you asked that question. It's exactly for questions like that the Pim wrote the book:
Tegen de islamisering van onze cultuur: Nederlandse identiteit als fundament

But since I know you won't look into it...you could also say it would be the accomadating to the demands that Sanmartin was saying we should not give into...plus a really dangerous atmosphere for other religions notably Jews, women, homosexuals and converts from Islam. Also, a direct injection of religion back into politics, something the reformation, renaissance and enlightenment all eventually reduced for Europe.

In a few words, regression back to The Middle Ages.
So the "Islamization of our culture" is a mix of legitimate criticism of Islam, straw men arguments, fearmongering (in part unconnected to the religion of Islam), islamophobia and plain old fantasies?

I see...

Somehow, Trostia believes that this sort belief (belief that the imposition of theological doctrines on law and society) is Islamophobia...

talk about your knee-jerk reactions...

Odd isn't it? If you point out that somebody is declaring a book containing blatant misogyny as 'the infallible word of God' and they're offended then surely it's their fault for eulogising bigoted tripe, not your's for bringing it to light.

There's a cartoon on the website showing a priest slapping a man in a gay-pride t-shirt with a ruler. After a few frames the gay guy gets fed up and shouts "Will you stop doing that!?!", at which point the shocked priest replies "Why, you're a Christian-hating bigot!". Sadly I can't find it right now. :(

Yet such things are full of the "It's Not Bad As" comparisons that are popular nowadays. Fundamentalist Christianity is overlooked simply because "It's Not Bad As" Fundamentalist Islam, and any instances of Christian-linked violence are automatically dismissed because "It's Not Bad As" Muslim-linked violence.

I try to be even-handed in criticising all misogyny/homophobia/general silliness equally, but I still get accused of being an Islamophobe. :(

The point is that the people making such rants generally don't care whether or not there are Muslims who actually respect local laws and traditions. It's much simpler for them and their target audience to paint all Muslims as part of the same insectoid Bin-Laden worshipping hivemind and foster a gradual shift in attitude and climate that makes mass internment/deportations of Muslims easier over the course of years.

Quite. I'm as concerned about the influx of highly conservative immigrants into the UK as the next man, but it's rare to see any mention of the Polish and African Christians, some of whom make Sharia look tame (accusing children of witchcraft for example).

Somehow, Trostia believes that this sort belief (belief that the imposition of theological doctrines on law and society) is Islamophobia...

No, I believe that

1) Generalizing from some Muslims to all Muslims or Islam as a whole
2) Said generalizations being negative as well as easily disproven
3) Supporting said generalizations even after they are shown incorrect
4) Harping on in fearful manner about the danger of Islam
5) Spitting insults like "idiot religion" about Islam

Tends to indicate what some call Islamophobia.

In contrast, what you said doesn't even make sense. ("Believes that this sort belief (belief that the imposition of theological doctrines on law and society) is Islamophobia"???) In addition to being a strawman.

Who's claiming it's a deep and meaningful critique? I'm just saying it's accurate, and the fact that some people might not like hearing it doesn't mean we should refrain from saying it if it's right.

OK, so you're saying it's accurate and right. It was by the author's own admission just "bashing" a "religion." I'm going to treat that with the respect it deserves!

Do try and keep up: there are enough nuclear weapons in the world to end civilisation as we know it, and the man with his finger on the launch button for the largest stockpile is a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the fiery end of the world portrayed in Revelations and thinks it's a good thing. Pakistan is a very unstable country and there's a danger that religious radicals will sieze power; Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Religious terrorist groups are currently trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (with debatable success). Belief in the Apocalypse (and the afterlife in general) is dangerous in this context, as are violent disputes over whose religion is the 'one true faith'.

Religious zealots, anti-religious zealots. No one has the higher ground there and you're not doing much to show how nuclear weapons somehow justifies "bashing" anyone.

No it's not an unreasonable leap

And yet I was "pathetic" and a "unworthy specimen of humanity" (or whatever) for making it?

Kindly show me where I said I hated Muslims.

Kindly show me where I said I was wrong about anything! I didn't, therefore - I must be right on all things. ;)

I didn't, I won't, and you're a liar for suggesting otherwise. I don't think either of my two posts in this thread so far have even used the word Muslim.

No, just defended Islamophobia and religious intolerance and the stupid ideas of those who believe as you do. You don't need to use the word "Muslim" to be discussing Muslims or Islam. What a silly way of thinking you have.

Like so many of your ilk you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between a belief and a believer.

Do tell, who are my ilk? Describe them for me. And I don't mean by making stupid accusations, I mean give a description so I know for future reference.

This coming from somebody who's incapable of understanding the difference between Muslims and Islam (while claiming to be an opponent of belief in a 'Muslim hivemind')?

I'm capable of understanding many things, including your use of a strawman here.

Obviously those beliefs have absolutely no affect on people's conduct in this life.

I mean, obviously a group which believes that sexually-active homosexuals will burn in Hell will have absolutely no interest in persecuting them and denying them rights to try and make them change their ways. Oh wait...

And obviously a group which believes that all non-believers will burn in Hell won't discriminate against them now in the hope of making them convert. Oh wait...

And obviously a group which believes that apostates will burn in Hell for deserting the one true faith TM won't have any interest in attacking apostates, whether emotionally or physically, in an attempt to dissuade other believers from considering the same course of action. Oh wait...

And here you were just expounding on what an idiot *I* was for not differentiating between belief and believer.

Here, have some crow, it's delicious today.

History proves you wrong, and even if it didn't it wouldn't alter the fact that beliefs which declare that unbelievers deserve torture in the next life are just as hateful and detestable (dare I say 'out-dated, cruel and simplistic'?) as beliefs which declare that group X deserve death in this life.

Life proves you wrong. Here's a challenge, O Great Specimen. You go out into the real world. Try two things - one, wish hell-fire and eternal damnation to people. Two, wish death to them. See if the reactions you get are, as you seem to think, exactly the same (what with neither wish being intrinsically different or worse). Let me know how it goes.

I'm stunned. Seriously. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone miss the point with such pride and such vigour.

What's to miss? You're merely trying in vain to justify religion bashing, insults and generalizations. Not much of a "point."

Of couse Islam is a religion, please try reading in future. The whole point is that religion is no more deserving of respect or protection than political ideology

If Islam is a religion, how come you described it a post ago as a political ideology?

You honestly can't tell the difference between the two, and you seem to be unfamiliar with things like the Bill of Rights as well, or at least the dictionary.

, and nobody throws around emotive language like '-ophobe', 'Nazi' or 'bigot' to silence criticism of political views.

Emotive words like "You're pathetic" or a "sad specimen of humanity?" I guess emotions are only bad if they're not yours and I guess ad hominem attempts to silence the opposition come only from your opponents. Up is down, etc etc.

As to whether something is religion or not, it matters because of the First Amendment in the US (and in other countries that have similar distinctions between religion and non-religion), and to most religious people who take their religion more seriously (encompassing far more in their lives, and on a philosophical and spiritual basis as well) than some mere political party or ideology.

Hmm. Since it far more important and influential for people, does that not mean that it is also a greater potential threat than e.g. an ideology ?

Note that I am not saying that it actually is a threat.

OK, so you're saying it's accurate and right. It was by the author's own admission just "bashing" a "religion." I'm going to treat that with the respect it deserves!

And you cowardly avoid defending your claim that describing a religion as 'idiotic' is necessarily bad. Good job.

Religious zealots, anti-religious zealots. No one has the higher ground there and you're not doing much to show how nuclear weapons somehow justifies "bashing" anyone.

Did you miss the bit about 'believing in the inevitable fiery end of the world, i.e. the Apocalypse, and regarding it as a good thing? How about the whole afterlife thing: how many atheists are going to try and destroy the world because they believe they'll be rewarded for it in the next life?

And yet I was "pathetic" and a "unworthy specimen of humanity" (or whatever) for making it?

No, you are (note present tense) pathetic and a 'sorry' specimen of humanity for implying that I'm a Nazi. I will continue to regard you as such until such time as you apologise for your outrageous slur.

You're still failing to see the difference between beliefs and believers. Ironic coming from somebody who claims not to regard Muslims as a homogenous hive-mind, no?

Kindly show me where I said I was wrong about anything! I didn't, therefore - I must be right on all things. ;)

The Greater Trostia Doctrine: It is acceptable to call people Nazis and put bigotted words into their mouths without requiring any evidence that they actually hold such beliefs.

You're just showing how pathetic you are and demonstrating your inability to form a reasoned argument, please don't let me stop you.

No, just defended Islamophobia and religious intolerance and the stupid ideas of those who believe as you do. You don't need to use the word "Muslim" to be discussing Muslims or Islam. What a silly way of thinking you have.

For Heaven's sake, learn to distinguish between the belief and the believer.


Do tell, who are my ilk? Describe them for me. And I don't mean by making stupid accusations, I mean give a description so I know for future reference.

You dare to call me a Nazi and then you complain about 'stupid accusations'? You've gone beyond shooting yourself in the foot: you've ripped off your own leg and you're even now trying to club yourself to death with it.

By 'your ilk' I refer to people who are incapable of distinguishing criticism of Islam from criticism of Muslims, and who prefer to make unfounded ad hominems rather than forming reasonable arguments.

I'm capable of understanding many things, including your use of a strawman here.

It's not a strawman because you seem genuinely incapable to distinguishing the two, as you've demonstrated numerous times in this post alone...

And here you were just expounding on what an idiot *I* was for not differentiating between belief and believer.

Yes. There's a difference between saying "some beliefs can and do influence actions" and saying "criticising a belief in inseparable from criticising the believer". This is slightly more complicated than the basic distinction between the belief and the believer, so get your head around that one first and then we'll talk, k?

Here, have some crow, it's delicious today.

You should know...

Life proves you wrong. Here's a challenge, O Great Specimen. You go out into the real world. Try two things - one, wish hell-fire and eternal damnation to people. Two, wish death to them. See if the reactions you get are, as you seem to think, exactly the same (what with neither wish being intrinsically different or worse). Let me know how it goes.

So because people are inured to doctrines of damnation and have been taught from an early age that religions are instrinsically worthy of respect that makes religion less morally evil?

Try reading some Moral Philosophy and you'll find that people's perceptions don't necessarily affect the morality of an action or belief. I know somebody who thinks that the legalisation of abortion was worse than the Holocaust, does that make it so?

What's to miss? You're merely trying in vain to justify religion bashing, insults and generalizations. Not much of a "point."

So you still miss it. Let's try again shall we?

1. It's acceptable to criticise political ideologies in strong terms.
2. There's no reason to give religious ideologies special treatment.
3. Therefore it's acceptable to criticise religious ideologies in strong terms.

All clear?

If Islam is a religion, how come you described it a post ago as a political ideology?

I don't think I've ever used the 'headbang' smilie on this forum but I've never been more tempted. Read again.

You honestly can't tell the difference between the two, and you seem to be unfamiliar with things like the Bill of Rights as well, or at least the dictionary.

I'm reasonably familiar with the bill of rights but I don't see what significance it has: I'm not an American, and to the best of my knowledge the bill doesn't say "religion is exempt from criticism". Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom from Criticism.

Emotive words like "You're pathetic" or a "sad specimen of humanity?" I guess emotions are only bad if they're not yours and I guess ad hominem attempts to silence the opposition come only from your opponents. Up is down, etc etc.

You filthy hypocrite. The moment you dared compare me to a Nazi you lost any right to complain about 'emotive language' and ad hominem attacks. How you have the nerve to whine about personal attacks after you employed possibly the worse slander imaginable against me with no foundation whatsoever is beyond me. You confirm everything I've said and I don't intend to waste any more of my time on you.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words

O look - pic spam. Why that and the other dudes links to some right wing wind bags rantings have won you the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


nobody addressed his posts just made fun of his bad English.

No, his failure to use fucking paragraphs.....


The "sitting on a time bomb" line is one that some Dutch people use to talk about the issues in society over there.

Thats OK. Seeing as thats the way we're going - Hows things living in the Great Satan? (thats just a line that some Iranians use. I got it from them).


often do you see someone under protection for their life or murdered in the name of Judaism/Christianity because they got offended that someone was criticizing their religion? .

I can think of people checking under their car every morning because they go to the "wrong" church, who weren't able to sleep in the same house two nights in a row because of their membership of the "wrong" church, who were taken out and shot, shot in their houses, and on at least one occassion shot in their "wrong" church itself.......

I'll say that it pales in comparison to the cases of critics of Islam. Deny that, if you want but you shall only be denying reality.

You can say it the high hills, but like so much else you've come out with, thats not going to make it a fact any time soon. To be blunt you know fuck all about fuck all, and it shows.

except that they connect the dots and say that those that are posing the greatest threat to taking this away from the culture, are Muslims. .

Bollocks. They connect the dots, say "lookit the beasty" and try to spook a few votes out of it. Its hysterical, crypto-racist shite.

And you cowardly avoid defending your claim that describing a religion as 'idiotic' is necessarily bad. Good job.

I never claimed that slandering, making stupid generalizations or spewing insults is a bad thing. (Although generally it is considered to be so by most people.)

I merely said I wasn't going to give insults any more respect than they deserve.

Did you miss the bit about 'believing in the inevitable fiery end of the world, i.e. the Apocalypse, and regarding it as a good thing? How about the whole afterlife thing: how many atheists are going to try and destroy the world because they believe they'll be rewarded for it in the next life?

Oh, no, I didn't miss it. Nice generalization, still doesn't support your point.

No, you are (note present tense) pathetic and a 'sorry' specimen of humanity for implying that I'm a Nazi.

I never implied that you were a Nazi. I'm sure you're a member of no such party.

I will continue to regard you as such until such time as you apologise for your outrageous slur.

The one you just invented?

You're still failing to see the difference between beliefs and believers. Ironic coming from somebody who claims not to regard Muslims as a homogenous hive-mind, no?

You said this before. Still no support. Yawn.

The Greater Trostia Doctrine: It is acceptable to call people Nazis

Indeed it is, but I didn't call you a Nazi and you won't find a single post in which I make such a claim.

and put bigotted words into their mouths without requiring any evidence that they actually hold such beliefs.

Incidentally, you're complaining that I put words into your mouth, but you're claiming I called you a Nazi. Ironic? Hypocrisy? Idiotic? What's the best word for that?

You're just showing how pathetic you are and demonstrating your inability to form a reasoned argument

More on that I see. I guess you just want to call people stupid, pathetic, subhuman waste, etc. And it's delicious that the only criteria you seem to have for someone to be a pathetic waste of flesh is disagreeing with you on an internet forum.

For Heaven's sake, learn to distinguish between the belief and the believer.

More on that I see. But you yourself said that the believers were dangerous because of the belief. (Never mind that few believers welcome the end of the world!) Seems you should eat your own words before trying to cram them down my throat.

You dare to call me a Nazi

Oh I do? Where?

and then you complain about 'stupid accusations'?

Indeed. See, now you're accusing me of something I didn't say. It's just another in a long line of stupid accusations you're making.

You've gone beyond shooting yourself in the foot: you've ripped off your own leg and you're even now trying to club yourself to death with it.

A vivid, if inept analogy.

By 'your ilk' I refer to people who are incapable of distinguishing criticism of Islam from criticism of Muslims

So, my ilk includes just about the entire population of Muslims. AND yourself! Well, how about that, we're all of the same ilk.

, and who prefer to make unfounded ad hominems rather than forming reasonable arguments.

So, my ilk no longer includes most Muslims, but it still includes you. Let's hold hands.

It's not a strawman because you seem genuinely incapable to distinguishing the two, as you've demonstrated numerous times in this post alone...

It's a good thing I demonstrated it I guess, since you sure as shit haven't. Of course I didn't either, but facts seem to bother you so pretend I didn't just say that.

Yes. There's a difference between saying "some beliefs can and do influence actions" and saying "criticising a belief in inseparable from criticising the believer"

And indeed, a difference between Islam is an "idiot medieval religion" and anything I have said.

What's your point here again? Oh, right, I'm supposed to have said one of those phrases.

This is slightly more complicated than the basic distinction between the belief and the believer, so get your head around that one first and then we'll talk, k?

Ah, so when you connect the two you are just being "complicated" and if I do, I am "unable" to "understand" the difference between a person and a belief. Versatile!

You should know...

Nah, I really wouldn't. Few people here have the power to make me step back and realize just how wrong I am being. You aren't one of them, however, at least not on this issue and I doubt on any other since your main argument thrust seems to consist of defending insults toward Islam by repeating them, and making more insults for anyone who disagrees with you. Not very persuasive.

So because people are inured to doctrines of damnation and have been taught from an early age that religions are instrinsically worthy of respect that makes religion less morally evil?

So this has what to do with what I just said? Nothing, right? Yeah, I just reviewed my quote and this has got fuck-all to do with what I said. My point is that people view religion and non-religion differently, and therefore "religious threats" (like damnation) as different from actual threats (like I'm going to kill you). This is why you can, legally, threaten anyone you want with hell-fire, because you're not presenting an actual threat. Similarly,it's why you can't legally threaten someone because that would be. See, there's a difference, and you claimed there wasn't.

I wasn't even going on about "intrinsically worthy of respect" or "less morally evil."

Try reading some Moral Philosophy and you'll find that people's perceptions don't necessarily affect the morality of an action or belief. I know somebody who thinks that the legalisation of abortion was worse than the Holocaust, does that make it so?

Or "moral relativism."

So you still miss it. Let's try again shall we?

1. It's acceptable to criticise political ideologies in strong terms.
2. There's no reason to give religious ideologies special treatment.
3. Therefore it's acceptable to criticise religious ideologies in strong terms.

All clear?

2 is clearly wrong, according to the tenets of law, democracy and general society. The Bill of Rights shows this. So "no reason" is bullshit - just "no reason I, who wish to insult Islam, can agree with."

Hence, your conclusion is founded on a bullshit premise and you are just plain fucking wrong. All clear? No? Perhaps insulting me some more will make you feel better.

I'm reasonably familiar with the bill of rights but I don't see what significance it has: I'm not an American, and to the best of my knowledge the bill doesn't say "religion is exempt from criticism". Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom from Criticism.

True enough, but it is yet one more indication that religion is NOT the same thing as a political ideology. You seem to dislike this, hence you describe religion as something that "could be called a religion" or some equally bullshit phrase that tells me your disagreement hinges on sheer denial. Nah it ain't religion, paw!

You filthy hypocrite. The moment you dared compare me to a Nazi you lost any right to complain about 'emotive language'

Ah, but you see I wasn't complaining about "emotive language;" you were.

Also what is this nonsense about losing the right to complain? That's a right no human ever loses. It's a birthright. You complain because I compared your religion-hating to the religion-hating of Nazis, I will complain because all you can do is blubber and spit out nonsense insults.

I guess it would never occur to you to imagine that hey, maybe hating Islam is not much different from hating Judaism.

and ad hominem attacks.

Yeah, name one. I may have offended your obviously delicate sensibilities, but I never construct on argument based purely on that, hence it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

Even if comparing Jew-hating to Muslim-hating constitute an "attack" to begin with.

How you have the nerve to whine about personal attacks

The trend here is I am against "attacks," while you and your cohorts are clearly for "bashing" and "attacks." That you choose to bash and attack Islam doesn't exactly make you better. And frankly, in comparison with that, your imaginary personal attack pales in significance.

after you employed possibly the worse slander imaginable against me with no foundation whatsoever is beyond me.

Yeah yeah. And you were calling me a pathetic specimen of humanity based on the exceptionally solid foundation of me disagreeing with you...

You confirm everything I've said

Ha! I always love it when people do this. Apparently proving you wrong is just in fact proving you right. Somehow. Uh, it makes sense.

and I don't intend to waste any more of my time on you.

That's too bad, I really enjoyed it. Maybe when you're done crying you can come back and show more of your "reasoned arguments" as to why religious intolerance is a good thing.

food aid during a disaster, they may have to eat pork in order to survive.


They can eat pork, you Atheist. Islam is flexible, and it is. Allah said that we may only do the outlawed when we can do nothing else to survive.
Ex: Jailed and only given pork and beer as food and drink. Allah let them eat the pork and drink the beer, as it's the only way to survive.

Do more research before attacking a religion/ culture.

The man claims to be a defender of free speech, yet also (http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/article451302.ece/Wilders_verbied_de_Koran%2C_ook_in_moskee) calls for banning the Koran.

I don't know what I find worse, his hypocrisy or his bigotry. I'd have to say "both."

LOL...
Contradicting himself, is what his kind of people do all times..

Do more research before attacking a religion/ culture.

LOL...
Contradicting himself, is what his kind of people do all times..

Oh, Java-Minang, will you ever cease to amuse?

For those not familiar with JM, his signature is completely non-sarcastic, amongst other things.

LOL...
Contradicting himself, is what his kind of people do all times..

Pretty much.

Oh, Java-Minang, will you ever cease to amuse?

Famongst or those not familiar with JM, his signature is completely non-sarcastic, other things.

What amusement? Debates? ;)

But, seeing as Capitalism and Liberalism has forced it's way and changed our values, we must defend againts that, it is not?
Imagine, the communism has made it way to America (Or your country), will you fight againts it?
And, I saw everyday the negative things you WESTERNer has put to our youngster's minds!
They have been brain washed, I know it!

(Ups, a little out of control there)

Let me say it one more time.
DEATH TO ALL GAYS!

Do more research before attacking a religion/ culture.

LOL...
Contradicting himself, is what his kind of people do all times..

What amusement? Debates? ;)

*pats head*

*pats head*


Mind your fingers....