NationStates Jolt Archive

Dunno what's actually in it yet, but in the 2 minutes I've watched so far, it's had Muhammed with a bomb turban *sigh* and then the Sept. 11th attacks *very extra sigh*, oh and footage of the Madrid Train Bombings, which is genuinely tragic because of its immediacy.

It's about 20 minutes long.

Please don't link to gory videos - English
Please don't link to gory videos - Nederlands

So aye, there we go, take a look and hate it or love it, and discuss.

Yes, the "highly anticipated" movie by Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician with fascinating hair and a talent to put pencils up his nose, is now viewable on the internet. Painfully slowly, but still. And no, I will not provide you with a link.

In it Geert promised he would show the world the evil that is Islam, and how being a muslim must means you are an enemy of a democracy and freedom loving folks everywhere.

I daresay his movie failed to actually do that.

Then again, the complete and utter suckyness of the movie does make the actions of certain muslim groups and prominent muslim religious leaders of the past few months, involving death threats, flagburnings and so on seem all the more... silly.

Thoughts ?

Hey you're link doesn't work, for some reason it's been disbanded by live leak site.
New link please.

Me. Yootopia provided links - and I believe was slightly faster. Prolly because I posted after watching ;)

Or the mods can merge them. The topic is not that fascinating.

Yes, the "highly anticipated" movie by Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician with fascinating hair and a talent to put pencils up his nose, is now viewable on the internet. Painfully slowly, but still. And no, I will not provide you with a link.

God forbid anyone else link to the video and actually exercise their right of free expression :eek:

In it Geert promised he would show the world the evil that is Islam, and how being a muslim must means you are an enemy of a democracy and freedom loving folks everywhere.

I daresay his movie failed to actually do that.


So, it's OK for you to see it, but not anyone else, right? And we get to take your word for what it's about. :rolleyes:




Thoughts ?

1) Props to Wilders.

2) Free speech trumps all, especially idiotic PC inventions like "hate speech".

3) It's damn good and time to drive a stake through the heart of the MOSLEM HECKLER'S VETO.

Just finished watching it, pretty obscene in parts. I would issue a warning to those who may get offended by graphic images.

God forbid anyone else link to the video and actually exercise their right of free expression :eek:

Oh puh-lease. Google is your friend. So is the other thread. Allow me the liberty of not linking to something that contains graphic imagery on these forums. Possibly that is even something the rules state.

So, it's OK for you to see it, but not anyone else, right? And we get to take your word for what it's about. :rolleyes:

Nope - you are expected to make an effort. I know, that is unfashionable these days. I mean - it would actually take you.. let me try... ah yes.
Two seconds.


1) Props to Wilders.

For what ? Putting a few pictures together and saying general stuff ?

2) Free speech trumps all, especially idiotic PC inventions like "hate speech".

Agreed. Then again, wasting free speech is ... well... such a waste.

Meh. I've seen better.

Just finished watching it, pretty obscene in parts. I would issue a warning to those who may get offended by graphic images.

Shush. Some people here believe that you are now trampling on peoples freedom of expression ;)

I'm not watching that filth. I'm sorry, but Mr Wilders can go goose-step himself onto a leaky boat full of refugees for all I care. I have no patience for nazi-esque bigotry, especially coming from European politicians. One would think they'd know better. Maybe he does and he just wants to be the next Fuhrer or something.

I'm not watching that filth. I'm sorry, but Mr Wilders can go goose-step himself onto a leaky boat full of refugees for all I care. I have no patience for nazi-esque bigotry, especially coming from European politicians. One would think they'd know better. Maybe he does and he just wants to be the next Fuhrer or something.

I have not seen it, and I doubt I ever will, but I understand it is just collection of old footage... It has certainly taken him a long time making it, and the only positive thing is that he did not use government funding to create his (ahem...) "magnum opus". :-)

And about the 'fuhrer' bit, perhaps, but it takes more than a silly hairdo to qualify for that job. [grin!]

I'm not watching that filth. I'm sorry, but Mr Wilders can go goose-step himself onto a leaky boat full of refugees for all I care. I have no patience for nazi-esque bigotry, especially coming from European politicians. One would think they'd know better. Maybe he does and he just wants to be the next Fuhrer or something.

You just hate our freedoms, you Nazi-Commie. DON'T YOU SEE?! The movie clearly shows the undeniable evil of the Muslims!
It had emotional imagery! It contained poorly translated quotes! IT APPEALED TO MY EMOTIONS, DAMMIT!
We must stop this scourge from corrupting the pure nations of Europe like we did with the Nazis and when we "defeated communism in 1989"!

God forbid anyone else link to the video and actually exercise their right of free expression :eek:This makes no sense.
So, it's OK for you to see it, but not anyone else, right? And we get to take your word for what it's about. :rolleyes:This also makes no sense.1) Props to Wilders.Porque?
2) Free speech trumps all, especially idiotic PC inventions like "hate speech".Huh?
3) It's damn good and time to drive a stake through the heart of the MOSLEM HECKLER'S VETO.Gloating? Isn't that borderline trolling?

Oh jesus. Shall I even dare tourture my brain through watching that?

I just watched it on LiveLeak, and was going to start a thread on it...

I found it to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen and it basically portrays Islam as some kind of bloodthirsty hive mind bent on the destruction of Western Civilization and World Domination...

It's got some verses from the Koran (without any context) and some random news headline to back up his point...then he has a bunch of picture of mosques and minarets and makes some ominous prediction about the future of Holland and Europe.

God forbid anyone else link to the video and actually exercise their right of free expression :eek:

So, it's OK for you to see it, but not anyone else, right? And we get to take your word for what it's about. :rolleyes:

1) Props to Wilders.

2) Free speech trumps all, especially idiotic PC inventions like "hate speech".

3) It's damn good and time to drive a stake through the heart of the MOSLEM HECKLER'S VETO.

Freedom is great, but the movie is just "ZOMG EBIL MOSLEMZ!!!!!!" over and over again....

It's got some verses from the Koran (without any context)

You know, I've actually wondered about this. What do you mean by (without any context)? I'm just curious.

You ... actually wondered about this. ... do you mean ... any context ... curious.

Now look at what I did to your post. I took it out of its context, by removing words at random and adding the triple dot!

what is it with that part of Europe these days :confused:

also I exercise my right to not waste X amount of my life on some dutch politicians masturbation when I could just watch PUPPIES (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gt8zNxbBkqI)

You know, I've actually wondered about this. What do you mean by (without any context)? I'm just curious.

look up context in the dictionary... I mean duuuuude

Do you guuys want the dutch one or the english version?

also I exercise my right to not waste X amount of my life on some dutch politicians masturbation when I could just watch PUPPIES (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gt8zNxbBkqI)



KITTENS ARE BETTER! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qu7hu61BOWM)

*yawn*

Strange, I totally missed this news for about 6 hours now :) And I didn't hear anybody here (in the Netherlands) talking about it (yet).

Let's see what happens... Probably some more extremists crying and shouting and some more flag burning in certain countries *yawn*

What's new?

SNIP

so its war you want!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bcV-TL9mho)

What's new?

well I can't say I haven't gained something from this thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrrCuCyQVNk&feature=related)

Speaking of bunnies... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg)

I liked the Madrid train bombing video. I hadn't seen that before. Bomb fall go boom.

wow, that's sick

Hmm hardly anything new in that video. The same verses from the Koran as always, the same terrorist attack videos and the same, "OMG EUROPE IS GOING TO TURN INTO EURABIA" crap you can see on Youtube everyday. Only difference, this one has the cool page-turning thingy that the other "Death of Europe" videos lack.

Funny thing is, most of the muslim organizations in the Netherlands were muted about this, so far atleast. They just said what I did, it's the same shit, different day. Nothing new here, move along folks.

Unfortunately, that was almost effective propaganda. I'm starting to feel concerned about the future of Britain and Europe. :(

Now look at what I did to your post. I took it out of its context, by removing words at random and adding the triple dot!

look up context in the dictionary... I mean duuuuude

The reason I ask is whenever someone post questionable and violent passage from the Koran, someone always uses "Well they've taken it out of Context!" While that may be true, the passages they quote do promote violent, but so do passages in the Bible, in fact it seems like all three Abrahamic faith has Holy Books that has passage promoting Violent for one reason or another. What makes this unique though is that these passage do allow assholes like Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to interpret the passages as "They must destroy the West". Maybe I just feel like the violent passages in the Koran are getting a pass with the "They've taken it out of Context!" tactic.

You know, I've actually wondered about this. What do you mean by (without any context)? I'm just curious.

I'm saying he randomly took some quote from the Koran, may have skewered it, and just put it in his movie so he could point and say "LOOK! THE KORAN TELLS PEOPLE TO MURDER!" etc.

Maybe me saying "without any context" was a bad way to put it...

Also, I find it very hypocritical when people do this but totally disregard anything immoral that may be found in the bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_the_Bible) or any other religious text

...The topic is not that fascinating.....

bwahahahaha.....tell that when this thread goes to tens of pages....:p

Didn't someone start a thread about this guy? :confused:

so its war you want!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bcV-TL9mho)


Siamese FTW! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riws0Zgp1Qo)

Siamese FTW! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riws0Zgp1Qo)Victorian abortion pwns all! (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/VictorianPostcard.jpg)

Didn't someone start a thread about this guy? :confused:
Yes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649269618764219.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

The Wall Street Journal:

Islam and Free Speech

By PETER HOEKSTRA

The Netherlands is bracing for a new round of violence at home and against its embassies in the Middle East. The storm would be caused by "Fitna," a short film that is scheduled to be released this week. The film, which reportedly includes images of a Quran being burned, was produced by Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and leader of the Freedom Party. Mr. Wilders has called for banning the Quran -- which he has compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" -- from the Netherlands.

After concern about the film led Mr. Wilders's Internet service provider to take down his Web site, Mr. Wilders issued a statement this week that he will personally distribute DVDs "On the Dam" if he has to. That may not be necessary, as the Czech National Party has reportedly agreed to host the video on its Web site.


Marked for death: Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Reasonable men in free societies regard Geert Wilders's anti-Muslim rhetoric, and films like "Fitna," as disrespectful of the religious sensitivities of members of the Islamic faith. But free societies also hold freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. We don't silence, jail or kill people with whom we disagree just because their ideas are offensive or disturbing. We believe that when such ideas are openly debated, they sink of their own weight and attract few followers.

Our country allows fringe groups like the American Nazi Party to demonstrate, as long as they are peaceful. Americans are permitted to burn the national flag. In 1989, when so-called artist Andres Serrano displayed his work "Piss Christ" -- a photo of a crucifix immersed in a bottle of urine -- Americans protested peacefully and moved to cut off the federal funding that supported Mr. Serrano. There were no bombings of museums. No one was killed over this work that was deeply offensive to Christians.

Criticism of Islam, however, has led to violence and murder world-wide. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Salman Rushdie over his 1988 book, "The Satanic Verses." Although Mr. Rushdie has survived, two people associated with the book were stabbed, one fatally. The 2005 Danish editorial cartoons lampooning the prophet Muhammad led to numerous deaths. Dutch director Theodoor van Gogh was killed in 2004, several months after he made the film "Submission," which described violence against women in Islamic societies. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who wrote the script for "Submission," received death threats over the film and fled the country for the United States.

The violence Dutch officials are anticipating now is part of a broad and determined effort by the radical jihadist movement to reject the basic values of modern civilization and replace them with an extreme form of Shariah. Shariah, the legal code of Islam, governed the Muslim world in medieval times and is used to varying degrees in many nations today, especially in Saudi Arabia.

Radical jihadists are prepared to use violence against individuals to stop them from exercising their free speech rights. In some countries, converting a Muslim to another faith is a crime punishable by death. While Muslim clerics are free to preach and proselytize in the West, some Muslim nations severely restrict or forbid other faiths to do so. In addition, moderate Muslims around the world have been deemed apostates and enemies by radical jihadists.

Radical jihadists believe representative government is un-Islamic, and urge Muslims who live in democracies not to exercise their right to vote. The reason is not hard to understand: When given a choice, most Muslims reject the extreme approach to Islam. This was recently demonstrated in Iraq's Anbar Province, which went from an al-Qaeda stronghold to an area supporting the U.S.-led coalition. This happened because the populace came to intensely dislike the fanatical ways of the radicals, which included cutting off fingers of anyone caught smoking a cigarette, 4 p.m. curfews, beatings and beheadings. There also were forced marriages between foreign-born al Qaeda fighters and local Sunni women.

There may be a direct relationship between the radical jihadists' opposition to democracy and their systematic abuse of women. Women have virtually no rights in this radical world: They must conceal themselves, cannot hold jobs, and have been subjected to honor killings. Would most women in Muslim countries vote for a candidate for public office who supported such oppressive rules?

Not all of these radicals are using violence to supplant democratic society with an extreme form of Shariah. Some in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are attempting to create parallel Islamic societies with separate courts for Muslims. According to recent press reports, British officials are investigating the cases of 30 British Muslim school-age girls who "disappeared" for probable forced marriages.

While efforts to create parallel Islamic societies have been mostly peaceful, they may actually be a jihadist "waiting game," based on the assumption that the Islamic populations of many European states will become the majority over the next 25-50 years due to higher Muslim birth rates and immigration.

What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.

Even if the new Wilders film proves newsworthy, it is likely that few members of the Western media will air it, perhaps because they have been intimidated by radical jihadist threats. The only major U.S. newspaper to reprint any of the controversial 2005 Danish cartoons was Denver's Rocky Mountain News. You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.

European officials have been similarly cautious. A German court ruled last year that a German Muslim man had the right to beat his wife, as this was permitted under Shariah. Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, stated last month that the implementation of some measure of Shariah in Britain was "unavoidable" and British Muslims should have the choice to use Shariah in marital and financial matters.

I do not defend the right of Geert Wilders to air his film because I agree with it. I expect I will not. (I have not yet seen the film). I defend the right of Mr. Wilders and the media to air this film because free speech is a fundamental right that is the foundation of modern society. Western governments and media outlets cannot allow themselves to be bullied into giving up this precious right due to threats of violence. We must not fool ourselves into believing that we can appease the radical jihadist movement by allowing them to set up parallel societies and separate legal systems, or by granting them special protection from criticism.

A central premise of the American experiment are these words from the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There are similar statements in the U.S. Constitution, British Common Law, the Napoleonic Code and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, hundreds of millions in the U.S. and around the world enjoy freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and many other rights.

These liberties have been won through centuries of debate, conflict and bloodshed. Radical jihadists want to sacrifice all we have learned by returning to a primitive and intolerant world. While modern society invites such radicals to peacefully exercise their faith, we cannot and will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.
Mr. Hoekstra, who was born in the Netherlands, is ranking Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

I'll watch it when I get home, but by the sound of things I won't be impressed. In the interim:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649269618764219.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

The Wall Street Journal:

Islam and Free Speech

By PETER HOEKSTRA

Copy paste spam is bad.

Copy paste spam is bad.
Oh grow up a bit. It's not spam at all..it's an article from someone who knows what he's talking about that is highly relevant to the thread that I posted it in.

I even italicized what were, in my opinion, the most important parts.

Read it or ignore it (though ignoring it doesn't make for good debates)....but stop wasting everyones time being annoying.

From a professional point of view, the documentary film, or the "audiovisual collage" that I just saw, is unimaginative, not exactly creative and it is just more of the same argument against Islam. It didn't show anything new, I guess the ruckus it started is because it is made by a known dutch politician, of whom I do not know anything but just that he is an antislam conservative.

Yet, check the video again. There is something I can say about the video. No voice off. No narrator telling the viewer how he should think, or how he should read the images and the texts. Just the souras, (and as far as I know, they are accurately translated) with real videos, and real footages. The people that scare you and make you rethink that he has more than a point are the muslims interviewed or quoted directly in the video, not the maker.

I can't accuse the film of lying, or manipulating the truth. Perhaps the final text is indeed an hyperbole, but I think the message of "torn off the offensive and aggressive parts of the Quoran is indeed constructive. However, it just contradicts itself when it says that, and "ban Islam from our lands because it is going to harm us all", at the same time.

As I said, nothing new, and I think I lost 20 minutes of my time watching it. But then again, he has a valid point. I've seen better several times. (Watch Death in Gaza, an excellent documentary about Gaza in general and islamic extremism in particular), but I also have seen worse.

Another relevant video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

Oh grow up a bit. It's not spam at all..it's an article from someone who knows what he's talking about that is highly relevant to the thread that I posted it in.

I even italicized what were, in my opinion, the most important parts.

Read it or ignore it (though ignoring it doesn't make for good debates)....but stop wasting everyones time being annoying.

The idea of debates is that you put forward your opinion and support it, and possibly dispute other people's opinions and discredit their support. I trust you can see how just posting an article doesn't quite match up with that. Tell us what you think of it, why you think the parts you italicised are important.

Do I really want to watch this?


Part of my brain says "Yes yes!" the other part says "No your blood pressure cant handle it!"

Props to Wilders
.


For what ? Putting a few pictures together and saying general stuff ?

.

No, for being, at the very least, the bravest film maker on the planet.

Pissing off the entrenched and pretty much passive establishment is passe.
Pissing off a mob of people who want to kill you over it (and have already demonstrated their willingness and capability) takes guts. Not that many people are so willing to back up their beliefs like that. The guy has really put himself on the line for this movie, and THAT deserves props.

No, for being, at the very least, the bravest film maker on the planet.

Pissing off the entrenched and pretty much passive establishment is passe.
Pissing off a mob of people who want to kill you over it (and have already demonstrated their willingness and capability) takes guts. Not that many people are so willing to back up their beliefs like that. The guy has really put himself on the line for this movie, and THAT deserves props.

We're giving props to people who strive for Darwin Awards?

I just watched it.

Very effective peice of propaganda Wilder has here. Ill give him credit for being a good propagandist. Heres a few things:

1. I notice all the verses from the Koran quoted are quoted out of context. For example, the first one quoted is when Muhammed is preparing to take over the Middle East. But he doesnt tell you that. In their context, the quotes do seem less frightening.

2. The little three and a half year old girl who says jews are apes and pigs has been mislead by her family. The Koran does not say that jews are apes and pigs. Rather, it says that jews and Christians are "people of the book" and are therefore to be respected.

3. I dont see whats so shocking about the guy who says that in Europe you can be gay or commit adultry but he doesnt do that because Islam does not allow for that. No Abrahamic religion allows that. He doesnt say anything offensive, but hes somehow portrayed as being "teh ebil moslem" for saying he chooses to not commit adultry...

I like how this video mostly contains quotes from the nutters and seeks to make it seem like these views are the common views in Islam. This would be like me making a video about how Christians are enemie of free society, and just including quotes like this:

Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
-D. James Kennedy

Americans must be 'Christocrats" -- citizens of both their country and the Kingdom of God and that is not a democracy; that is a theocracy, that means God is in control, and you are not.
-Rev. Ron Parsely

Hell has room for all of your soldiers, America! George Bush has been suckered into a bloody, senseless war that he can't win by a God determined to execute vengeful justice on a disobedient nation. You hated your children, raising them for the devil and hell, teaching them to murder their unborn babies, eat feces, and practice every form of sexual perversion the dark mind of man can create. You cannot silence the preaching at their funerals, and if you had half a brain, you'd embrace it as the only truth of God you've ever heard.
-Fred Phelps

It's the fags, stupid! When a society determines to set the abominable sin of sodomy (Lev. 18:22) up on a pedestal, such that they seek to criminalize preaching against it from the Bible, they have gone the way of Sodom. Sodom's sin wasn't that the entire population of that thriving 5 city metropolis were practicing fags, their sin was that they all condoned it, to the point of trying to force everyone else, even angels, to love it (Gen. 19). When you've done that, you can only expect the same punishment Sodom received -- destruction by fire.
-www.godhatesamerica.com

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power....
-Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1

Along with other quotes from Klansmen and people like that.


And then I threw in Bible verses like:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
-Leviticus 20:13

And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die
-Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33

And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.
-Exodus 32:35

And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods...And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun...And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation...And when Phinehas...saw it, he rose up...and took a javelin in his hand...and thrust both of them through...So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
-Numbers 25:1-9

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me
-Luke 19:27 (yeah, thats the NT bitches).

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:20-21

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

-1 Corinthians 14:34

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

-1 Timothy 2:11


And I could keep going. I hope you now understand how easy it is to portray one side as nothing but an evil hivemind out to get you just by selective quoting of their holy book and only paying attention to what that religions nutters say.


I will give him props for this though. He says that its up to Muslims to tear out the violent passages from the Koran. I agree. But the same can be applied to everyone, Christians, Jews, etc. They all need to.

What is particularly disturbing about these assaults against modern society is how the West has reacted with appeasement, willful ignorance, and a lack of journalistic criticism. Last year PBS tried to suppress "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center," a hard-hitting documentary that contained criticism of radical jihadists. Fortunately, Fox News agreed to air the film.


Gee, go figure :rolleyes:

You can be sure that if these cartoons had mocked Christianity or Judaism, major American newspapers would not have hesitated to print them.

Bull. Shit. They would not have been printed. Stop pretending like Christianity or Judaism is victimized in America.

No, for being, at the very least, the bravest film maker on the planet.

Pissing off the entrenched and pretty much passive establishment is passe.
Pissing off a mob of people who want to kill you over it (and have already demonstrated their willingness and capability) takes guts. Not that many people are so willing to back up their beliefs like that. The guy has really put himself on the line for this movie, and THAT deserves props.

What bullshit. This guy makes his career off being an Islamophobe. He benefits from the so-called "threat" (puh-leeze. Like a politician is going to lack for security.) far more than he risks.

"Bravery." Ha. No, it's greed and power, attention-seeking, trolling writ large. Fuck that kind of "bravery." It doesn't take any bravery to be a complete douchebag racist twat with stupid hair.

It doesn't take any bravery to be a complete douchebag racist twat with stupid hair.

When that racism gets you shanked/shot/blowed up, it does.


But its not the good kind of bravery that contributes to society. Its the stupid kind where you just pity the poor sucker.

When that racism gets you shanked/shot/blowed up, it does.


Yeah OK. Name me five Dutch MP's who've been shanked, shot or blown up.

Ever.

;)

Now look at what I did to your post. I took it out of its context, by removing words at random and adding the triple dot!

Did the film do that?

Incidentally, what you did isn't 'taking out of context, it's just plain distortion.

PUPPIES (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gt8zNxbBkqI)

That was wonderful, thanks.

Yeah OK. Name me five Dutch MP's who've been shanked, shot or blown up.

Ever.

;)

I can think of a Dutch film-maker who was murdered not so very long ago...

Yeah OK. Name me five Dutch MP's who've been shanked, shot or blown up.


Pim Fortuyn?

Also I must stress again that you should not misuse words, hating a religion is not racist. Although he may have bigoted views towards Muslim culture, Islam is not a race, so he cannot be racist.

I will give him props for this though. He says that its up to Muslims to tear out the violent passages from the Koran. I agree. But the same can be applied to everyone, Christians, Jews, etc. They all need to.

I noticed that line in a newspaper article (I haven't watched the film yet) and I liked it too: if somebody is proclaiming a book to be divinely inspired and I point out the misogyny/homophobia/violence which is endemic in it then that's their problem for lauding such a nasty book, not mine for telling people what the book says. I dislike Wilder, but he's got at least one thing right.

Although he may have bigoted views towards Muslim culture, Islam is not a race, so he cannot be racist.
Oh sure he can, he can manage both :D

Pim Fortuyn?

Okay, that's 1. So far, a profession/activity (Dutch Islamophobic politician) that has involved one fatality.

Gee, that's a big risk there. What giant cajones Wilders has, for daring to do what has slaughtered an entire person. I guess that makes me fucking superheroic for smoking my cigarettes, since cigarettes have killed hundreds of thousands of people. Where's my medal? Where do I get New Mittani and Mott Haven and the other fawning vicarious fascists worshiping at the temple of my awesomeness?

I don't. Because no one cares about "bravery." It's about pissing off those dirty Muslims. That's all Wilders is about, that's all his followers are about. Nothing more.

Also I must stress again that you should not misuse words, hating a religion is not racist. Although he may have bigoted views towards Muslim culture, Islam is not a race, so he cannot be racist.

Yeah, I can't be a racist either cuz I have Jewish friends.

A guy who is so filthy bigoted as Wilders is no different whatsoever from racism. The only reason he isn't on about Jews instead of Muslims is because Muslim-hating is the new Jew-hating - it's PC to do now. I can assure you he'd have no problems spitting racist trash as well as "merely" anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, anti-Islamic, anti-liberty bullshit.

Okay, that's 1. So far, a profession/activity (Dutch Islamophobic politician) that has involved one fatality.

Gee, that's a big risk there. What giant cajones Wilders has, for daring to do what has slaughtered an entire person. I guess that makes me fucking superheroic for smoking my cigarettes, since cigarettes have killed hundreds of thousands of people. Where's my medal? Where do I get New Mittani and Mott Haven and the other fawning vicarious fascists worshiping at the temple of my awesomeness?

Theo van Gogh? He wasn't a politician but he was murdered for making a film which was critical of Islam.

Okay, that's 1. So far, a profession/activity (Dutch Islamophobic politician) that has involved one fatality.


Many outspoken, or even not so outspoken critics (Salman Rushdie for instance) of Islam have been forced underground and had fatwas issued on them.


I don't. Because no one cares about "bravery." It's about pissing off those dirty Muslims. That's all Wilders is about, that's all his followers are about. Nothing more.


I don't know a great deal about this man, can you back this up?


A guy who is so filthy bigoted as Wilders is no different whatsoever from racism. The only reason he isn't on about Jews instead of Muslims is because Muslim-hating is the new Jew-hating - it's PC to do now. I can assure you he'd have no problems spitting racist trash as well as "merely" anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, anti-Islamic, anti-liberty bullshit.

That would be peculiar though, since I gather from the film that one of the reasons he hates Islam is because it is anti liberty and anti-semitic.

Theo van Gogh? He wasn't a politician but he was murdered for making a film which was critical of Islam.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali actually was a Dutch MP and has been living under police protection since Theo's murder.

Theo van Gogh? He wasn't a politician but he was murdered for making a film which was critical of Islam.

Oh you mean he wasn't a politician, and wouldn't have access to the same level of security and protection that Mr Wilders would, and therefore isn't really relevant to what I've been saying? Yeah.

I repeat, when I get the likes of New Mitanni creaming their jeans about how brave and heroic I am, for doing something (smoking cigarettes) that is very risky (killing tens of thousands, if not more every year), then I will indulge this fantasy about Wilders doing something (making hate propaganda) that is technically risky (killing one or more every few years).

But we know they won't. It's not the bravery that makes them cream their jeans at all. It's the Muslim-hating goodness, which just appeals so.

Many outspoken, or even not so outspoken critics (Salman Rushdie for instance) of Islam have been forced underground and had fatwas issued on them.

[quote]I don't no a great deal about this man, can you back this up?

Yeah there's a film in the OP that very clearly demonstrates it.

That would be peculiar though, since I gather from the film that one of the reasons he hates Islam is because it is anti liberty and anti-semitic.

At least two Dutch Jewish organizations disagree, claiming that Wilders' anti-Islamic rhetoric is no different in any significant way from anti-semitism.

http://digg.com/world_news/Dutch_Muslims_surprised_by_Jewish_anti_Wilders_advertisement

Yeah there's a film in the OP that very clearly demonstrates it.


You base your opinion on something you haven't even seen?


At least two Dutch Jewish organizations disagree, claiming that Wilders' anti-Islamic rhetoric is no different in any significant way from anti-semitism.

http://digg.com/world_news/Dutch_Muslims_surprised_by_Jewish_anti_Wilders_advertisement

There's a difference between Islamic hating being on par with anti-semitism and someone who would be ready to support anti-semitism or anti-liberty if it became popular.

Oh you mean he wasn't a politician, and wouldn't have access to the same level of security and protection that Mr Wilders would, and therefore isn't really relevant to what I've been saying? Yeah.

He's had police protection since Theo was murdered but I've not seen any indication that he got extra protection for being an MP. Police protection isn't that effective against somebody who's willing (or even desperate) to die in the attack: it's largely based on deterrence, i.e. "if you shoot him then we'll shoot you back before you can get away". I don't like the man but he's got balls (for the moment anyway :p).

He's had police protection since Theo was murdered but I've not seen any indication that he got extra protection for being an MP. Police protection isn't that effective against somebody who's willing (or even desperate) to die in the attack: it's largely based on deterrence, i.e. "if you shoot him then we'll shoot you back before you can get away". I don't like the man but he's got balls (for the moment anyway :p).
Plus politicians in Europe have tended not to have a very high level of protection. Unlike in America, it hasn't really been needed. Just look at how fairly recently the foreign minister of Sweden was stabbed to death while shopping, no bodyguard protection there.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13562561']Plus politicians in Europe have tended not to have a very high level of protection. Unlike in America, it hasn't really been needed. Just look at how fairly recently the foreign minister of Sweden was stabbed to death while shopping, no bodyguard protection there.

Indeed. David Cameron, the leader of the opposition in the UK, cycles to work, as does Boris Johnson, the man who's likely to become Mayor of London.

EDIT: Oops, I see you're from the UK too and don't need explanations of who Cameron and Johnson are, my bad. :p:)

Also I think it's funny that GT is spouting his usual bullshit without understanding who he's even talking about. For instance....GT claims that this guy would have no problem jumping on Jews and being an anti-semetic nazi and such....if it were popular.

But let's leave GT's world of fiction that only exists in and around his computer chair and enter the factual world of reality:

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.[24]

Originally, Wilders wanted to move to the Jewish state because he thought one could, as opposed to the Netherlands, 'work for your own money'.[24] Wilders worked in bread factories and a moshav.[25] 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 Ben Gurion Airport." [24]

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.[24] 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. [24]

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. [24]

I guess facts arn't fun with they disagree with GT's "sand-in-my-vagina" rants where he pulls claims out of thin air and accuses people of being anti-semetic jew hating Nazis because they have a problem with Islamic legal, cultural and religious values.

Wow..that makes sense.:rolleyes:

Oh grow up a bit. It's not spam at all..it's an article from someone who knows what he's talking about that is highly relevant to the thread that I posted it in.

I even italicized what were, in my opinion, the most important parts.

Read it or ignore it (though ignoring it doesn't make for good debates)....but stop wasting everyones time being annoying.

Pointing out C&P spam isn't half or quarter as annoying as the C&P spam itself.

Also I think it's funny that GT is spouting his usual bullshit without understanding who he's even talking about. For instance....GT claims that this guy would have no problem jumping on Jews and being an anti-semetic nazi and such....if it were popular.
.

Theo Van Gogh was prone to ranting about Jews before he hooked onto muslims as a far more promising target.....Now that this asshole has made the equivalent of "Jude Suss" you can see the similarities with that kind of thing grow....

This thread is getting boring: can't we go back to spamming Youtube links to pictures of fluffy animals?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_quran_film;_ylt=ArBhIvQVyjwIW6YyOgteUzm9IxIF


The film recycled film clips from terrorist attacks in the U.S., Spain and the Netherlands, and began and ended with one of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published by European newspapers that provoked violent protests in Islamic countries two years ago.

The Danish Union of Journalists said it will sue Wilders for copyright infringement for using the cartoon. It said the cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, did not give Wilders permission to use the image in his film, which it called "political propaganda."

He's getting sued by the people who drew the Danish cartoons, which he used twice. Seems there is some justice in the world.

Pointing out C&P spam isn't half or quarter as annoying as the C&P spam itself.
Oh settle down....it's quite normal for someone to come along and post an article for everyone to read that relates directly to the OP at hand. It's hardly spam.

Theo Van Gogh .....
How interesting...I think I'll go write it all down in my diary.

So anyway back to my point about how GEERT WILDERS is not in any way anti-semetic or a nazi or all that crap and is not just "attacking Muslims" because "attacking Jews" is out of style. :rolleyes:

So anyway back to my point about how GEERT WILDERS is not in any way anti-semetic or a nazi or all that crap and is not just "attacking Muslims" because "attacking Jews" is out of style. :rolleyes:

No hes not a Nazi, he's just acting very, very, very like them. Or very like Enoch Powell, George Wallace...that kind of rat-bag.

You base your opinion on something you haven't even seen?

Yeah. Also I have an opinion on Mao's red book, even though I've never read it. And indeed, Wilders and many of his supporters have opinions on the entire Muslim population, even though they've never met them. I would venture to say you too will judge something by a second-hand description and your own common sense as well, instead of insisting that first-hand study is absolutely necessary in all things.



There's a difference between Islamic hating being on par with anti-semitism and someone who would be ready to support anti-semitism or anti-liberty if it became popular.

Not when it's a democratic nation, and the person hating in question is a politician, whose support and power is directly correlated with numbers of followers - i.e, popularity. That is why Wilders has his hairstyle, why he does anything to get attention - the more he does, the more support he gets. As it turns out, Jew-hating is extremely unpopular, but Muslim-hating is less so. No-brainer which he would go for.

Also I think it's funny that GT is spouting his usual bullshit without understanding who he's even talking about. For instance....GT claims that this guy would have no problem jumping on Jews and being an anti-semetic nazi and such....if it were popular.

I don't claim it. Harry de Winter of de Volkskrant made the connection before I did. Not that it's a hard connection to make; I mean Jew-hating, Muslim-hating, it's all the same sickening filth.

But let's leave GT's world of fiction that only exists in and around his computer chair and enter the factual world of reality:

Mmm, if only dripping, baseless arrogance constituted a valid argument. But then if you had a valid argument, you'd have made it, instead of going on about what a loser I must be (and doing it in the third person, like water-cooler gossip by 50 year old women. Pretty pathetic, even for you.)


I guess facts arn't fun with they disagree with GT's "sand-in-my-vagina" rants

Facts are fun, whether or not they disagree with me. Your facts didn't happen to - sorry.

Your pointless, idiotic insults look more vaginal-sandy, too, than anything I've said.


where he pulls claims out of thin air and accuses people of being anti-semetic jew hating Nazis

Yeah, I didn't think you'd read a thing I said; now I'm sure you didn't.

When you're done ranting about what a fictional world I live in or how much sand is in my vagina, though, maybe you could try READING once in a while. You'd look a bit less silly, knocking down your own strawmen like that.

LiveLeak has decided to remove the video - it's not difficult to find elsewhere though.

And Wilder will be sued since he apparently used the wrong pic when portraying the killer of Theo Van Gogh.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_JysVcL3YkM0/R-xHVqNylVI/AAAAAAAAAmM/x6jtF9mcPHk/s320/salah.jpg

And watching the movie... Well, the words "propaganda", "drivel" and "out of context" comes to mind. I would say that the film fails to reach Wilders stated goal, though I do agree with him on the idea that it's up to the muslims to cut out the violent parts...

Or, in other words: *Yawn*

Oh, the graphic images makes it unsuitable for linking to on NSG.

Read it or ignore it (though ignoring it doesn't make for good debates)

Neither does running away from your own thread, I'd say...

He's had police protection since Theo was murdered but I've not seen any indication that he got extra protection for being an MP. Police protection isn't that effective against somebody who's willing (or even desperate) to die in the attack: it's largely based on deterrence, i.e. "if you shoot him then we'll shoot you back before you can get away". I don't like the man but he's got balls (for the moment anyway :p).

Well that's funny, cuz I'm told the entire Muslim population is a bunch of terrorists or terrorist supporters. Who hate poor Wilders and want him dead. Considering that if out of those, only 1% decided to make an attempt, one wonders why 10 million fanatical, dangerous Muslims haven't swarmed Wilders' meager defenses and slaughtered him. Must be his giant, blond-haired balls, I guess.

I can't believe that people got so offended and a bunch of idiots sent threats to Live leak.... its a fucking awesome website... morons..

Man. As a Muslim I'm not the least bit offended by this movie. Though this Wilders fella should be given a medal and a Tibetan visa for his epic trolling. On the whole I thought the film was more or less generally retarded. Ah well...

btw in that part where they show all the newspaper articles... one of the subtitles in the English version is Dutch lol.

I'll tell you what, if the Ayatollah puts a fatwa on Wilders, I will laugh.

*shrugs* Didn't watch it, but I can guess: "Our glorious western civilization is under attack by a horde of scimitar-wielding Saracens assaulting the very foundations of our culture and government!"

I mean, he's entitled to his opinion, but it's really kind of silly. Islamic immigration is about as much of a threat to the Netherlands as Hispanic immigration is to the United States. Hispanic immigration has been occurring for over a hundred and fifty years, and *checks* the US is still there and still working. So I think Wilders has a long, long time to wait before Holland becomes the next province of the global caliphate.

*shrugs* Didn't watch it, but I can guess: "Our glorious western civilization is under attack by a horde of scimitar-wielding Saracens assaulting the very foundations of our culture and government!"

I mean, he's entitled to his opinion, but it's really kind of silly. Islamic immigration is about as much of a threat to the Netherlands as Hispanic immigration is to the United States. Hispanic immigration has been occurring for over a hundred and fifty years, and *checks* the US is still there and still working. So I think Wilders has a long, long time to wait before Holland becomes the next province of the global caliphate.

Well, considering that Hispanics will be the majority in about 7 years, I would say that we will turn into a "little" latin America by 2040 at least.

Well, considering that Hispanics will be the majority in about 7 years, I would say that we will turn into a "little" latin America by 2040 at least.
So what, all people are essentially the same anyway.

So what, all people are essentially the same anyway.

On the surface. On the inside however, people are radically different, their values beliefs ect. For example, Canadians and Chinese are both humans, but their morals are radically different.


Edit: America will be unrecognizable in 30 years because the people values will have changed so much.

On the surface. On the inside however, people are radically different, their values beliefs ect. For example, Canadians and Chinese are both humans, but their morals are radically different.


Edit: America will be unrecognizable in 30 years.
What do you mean exactly? I'd say those Hispanics who jump the fence to America only have one 'motivation' and 'value', and that's too escape poverty.

Please explain to me the moral differences between Canadians and Chinese.

Please explain to me the moral differences between Canadians and Chinese.

If you can't tell yourself, my explaining it to you won't help.


Edit: Yeah, I almost forgot, welcome back. ;)

If you can't tell yourself, my explaining it to you won't help.


Edit: Yeah, I almost forgot, welcome back. ;)
Oh your not going cop-out of it that easy, I want to know the difference, lets say I already know and just want you to spell it out and describe the differences in your own words.

Oh your not going cop-out of it that easy, I want to know the difference, lets say I already know and just want you to spell it out and describe the differences in your own words.

Well for one example, Canada wouldn't deal with riots the way China does.

Well for one example, Canada wouldn't deal with riots the way China does.

How is that a 'culture'? That sounds like the actions of a few guys in a government to me. I think, although I am not sure, that you are getting into the trap of saying that 'Eastern' countries have an innate cultural tendency towards despotism, while 'Western' ones are free, open and democratic by nature.

I mean even if we ignore Western tyrants like Franco, Salazar, Papadopoulos, DeGalle etc you wouldn't have a point.

Well for one example, Canada wouldn't deal with riots the way China does.

That would be a difference in the governmental policies of Canada and China. Not people.

How is that a 'culture'? That sounds like the actions of a few guys in a government to me. I think, although I am not sure, that you are getting into the trap of saying that 'Eastern' countries have an innate cultural tendency towards despotism, while 'Western' ones are free, open and democratic by nature.

I mean even if we ignore Western tyrants like Franco, Salazar, Papadopoulos, DeGalle etc you wouldn't have a point.

I never said culture. You putting words in my mouth is amusing.


I'm not saying that eastern countries are more prone to violence than western countries. I myself can think of numerious examples otherwise. I'm just trying to say that different people think differently. Western countries could do somthing violent, yet perceive it in a totally different way than would an eastern country.

That would be a difference in the governmental policies of Canada and China. Not people.

Governments are made up of people yes? People elect or choose the government in many cases. The (Canadian) government reflects the values of the people yes?

Governments are made up of people yes?

But are these governments Direct Democracy? If they are, then they could be considered to be people. Otherwise, no.

But are these governments Direct Democracy? If they are, then they could be considered to be people. Otherwise, no.

I edited..

Governments are made up of people yes?

Wow, and people call me a collectivist!;) Your talking about the actions of a few individuals in a government, not the people and the culture.

Culture is not a monolithic collective consciousness which makes all it's adherents act in the same way, have the same thoughts, same values and morality. Individual people act on individual motivations and conditions specific to their own conditions.

Wow, and people call me a collectivist!;) Your talking about the actions of a few individuals in a government, not the people and the culture.

Culture is not a monolithic collective consciousness which makes all it's adherents act in the same way, have the same thoughts, same values and morality. Individual people act on individual motivations and conditions specific to their own conditions.

I answered your question by the way.

I edited..

Still doesn't change my answer. You're assuming that the governments of Canada and China are Direct Democracies and thus the government policies of both nations are thus the will of the people. Canada is a representative democracy and the "will of the people" will be subject to the interpretations of the elected officials and lobbyists. Calling Chinese government policy a reflection of the people's will to any degree is like calling Taco Bell Spanish Cuisine. Just not that authentic.

Still doesn't change my answer. You're assuming that the governments of Canada and China are Direct Democracies and thus the government policies of both nations are thus the will of the people. Canada is a representative democracy and the "will of the people" will be subject to the interpretations of the elected officials and lobbyists. Calling Chinese government policy a reflection of the people's will to any degree is like calling Taco Bell Spanish Cuisine. Just not that authentic.

I am aware China is a semi-dictatorship, which was why I said many countries. I was a tad optimistic however, it's more like "a few" countries. In any case, ALL governments represent their peoples values, ideas ect to some extent (no matter how small that extent may be).

absolutely sucks, honestly I have seen such a load of emotional propagandistic garbage, : plane runs into tower: (background sad music) :crying child:, :dead bodies on the ground:
I cringed watching it was so horrible, put that with the 'graphs' of Muslim immigration levels over the years for a nice xenophobic touch, and it's just atrocious.
Seriously you could do a Christian version of this just by replacing the crazy imams with Pat Robertson...

Dude, there's another thread on this, I KNOW you know there's another thread on this 'cause you're already in it, why on earth did you make another one?

Dude, there's another thread on this, I KNOW you know there's another thread on this 'cause you're already in it, why on earth did you make another one?

Anger.

Anger.
Couldn't you have been angry in the other thread?

And now you're angry in the original thread. Please remember that unnecessary reduplication of threads clutters the boards and reduces the front-page space available for other topics.

Also I think it's funny that GT is spouting his usual bullshit without understanding who he's even talking about.

It's his standard modus operandi: not long ago he asserted that the Mohammed cartoon were bigoted and that they were republished to further the Muslim-hating agenda of teh 3b1l C4rT00nists.

He later admitted that he'd never even seen the cartoons...

He later admitted that he'd never even seen the cartoons...
And to add a fun fact to a rather pointless discussion:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544052,00.html
'The Cartoon Must Not Be Used Against Muslims as a Whole'

Prophet Muhammad with a time bomb in his turban: That is how the film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders begins. The Danish cartoonist responsible for the drawing explains to SPIEGEL ONLINE why he wants his drawing removed.

And to add a fun fact to a rather pointless discussion:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544052,00.html

Kurt Westergaard's a good bloke: he's willing to criticise the illiberal aspects of Islam without giving support to the extreme-right camp. If Trostia considers him to be a bigot and a 'Muslim-basher' (as he apparently does) then I'm proud that he thinks the same of me.

The twenty minutes I spent reading this thread could have been spent watching the clip/movie/montage/whatever-it-was.

No regrets on that one. :)

EDIT: AgendaO7, with respect to your sig "I still forget to log onto my nation every forty days", there's now a Nation Self-Restore (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552190) feature! Praise the admins!

absolutely sucks, honestly I have seen such a load of emotional propagandistic garbage, : plane runs into tower: (background sad music) :crying child:, :dead bodies on the ground:
I cringed watching it was so horrible, put that with the 'graphs' of Muslim immigration levels over the years for a nice xenophobic touch, and it's just atrocious.
Seriously you could do a Christian version of this just by replacing the crazy imams with Pat Robertson...
No you couldnt, at least not in Europe. Fundamentalist christianity is almost non-existent here, it's certainly not any kind of political force and it's never been associated with terrorism.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13565208']No you couldnt, at least not in Europe. Fundamentalist christianity is almost non-existent here, it's certainly not any kind of political force and it's never been associated with terrorism.

IRA much?

IRA much?

Not fundamentalist christians/catholics, thanks bunches.

The videos have had to be removed from Liveleak.com (probably after some god damned islamofascists threathened the staff, gathering from what they say about it in their apology)

From livelink
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

IRA much?
Yes, the source of division was between different faiths, but it was more of an ethnic conflict than a religious one. Neither side used religious scripture to justify their actions and the IRA never once talked of creating a Catholic theocracy. The Catholic church condemned the IRA's actions. The majority of the Republic of Ireland and the religious minority of Northern Ireland that the IRA represented could have been Druid and they'd have acted the same way, their entire goal was political rather than religious.

Honestly, that's such a moronic comparison.

On the surface. On the inside however, people are radically different, their values beliefs ect. For example, Canadians and Chinese are both humans, but their morals are radically different.


Edit: America will be unrecognizable in 30 years because the people values will have changed so much.

Are you familiar with the history of America? Constant, massive immigration. The Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Chinese, the Spanish, the English, the Scandinavian, etc. America is good at this. It subsumes the immigrants, absorbs their traditions, and blends them into the great American melting pot.

Edit: America will be unrecognizable in 30 years because the people values will have changed so much.

Just like today's America would be completely unrecognizeable to someone from the 1970s, or 1970s America would be inconceivable to someone from the 1940s?

I mean, sure... values change. Culture changes. But it doesn't really change that much, unless you suggest that some kind of nuclear war or catastrophe will completely alter the minds of the survivors, if any, and strongly affect the way they bring up their children, if any.

So what about the values and motivations of "Hispanics", who originated mainly in Spain and Portugal, is exceedingly different from the values and motivations of Americans, who originated mainly in England, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, West Africa, China, and Japan? What do all of those cultures have that is diametrically opposed to in Spanish and Portuguese culture? What about the Native American cultures that blended into them both, too?

Just like today's America would be completely unrecognizeable to someone from the 1970s, or 1970s America would be inconceivable to someone from the 1940s?

I mean, sure... values change. Culture changes. But it doesn't really change that much, unless you suggest that some kind of nuclear war or catastrophe will completely alter the minds of the survivors, if any, and strongly affect the way they bring up their children, if any.

So what about the values and motivations of "Hispanics", who originated mainly in Spain and Portugal, is exceedingly different from the values and motivations of Americans, who originated mainly in England, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, West Africa, China, and Japan? What do all of those cultures have that is diametrically opposed to in Spanish and Portuguese culture? What about the Native American cultures that blended into them both, too?


I don't know if it will be worse or better. But, when hispanics become the massive majority (which I admit will be later than 2030) things are going to be very different. We'll probably all be speaking or made to speak spanish. Also, we'll most likely become, as I said before a "little" latin America.

I have no job. I wonder if I could make a career as a politician by making bad, BAD montage flicks criticizing the pseudo-threat du jour.

I don't know if it will be worse or better. But, when hispanics become the massive majority (which I admit will be later than 2030) things are going to be very different. We'll probably all be speaking or made to speak spanish. Also, we'll most likely become, as I said before a "little" latin America.

This isn't anything like the original British colonization of America: at that time, almost every individual tribe spoke a different language. There was no unified common spoken tongue. Nowadays, however, everyone in the United States speaks English. As I recall, Hispanics make up under 20% of the US population right now, and the vast majority of them speak English as well as Spanish, because in the US, you kind of need to know English to get around. Let's say there's about 5% of the US population that doesn't speak any English at all.

Of course, let's say in a hundred years, because all the other people have started reproducing at rates of under 0.75 children per family, whereas Hispanic immigrants come in at a rate of six per second, the population ratio is closer to 75% Hispanic, 25% other. Will English still remain an official language? Of course. Not all those immigrants come in at the same time, remember; those who show up in the earlier years will know at least some English, and their children will learn English at English-speaking schools, etc. Thus, they will be speaking English when the next group of Hispanic immigrants come in, and the cycle will continue: by that point, you can probably expect at least 67% of the Hispanic population to be fluent in English, and 80%+ of it to understand even basic English. Thus, there might be 10% of the US population that doesn't speak any English at all, with over two thirds of the remainder that -does- speak English being originally Hispanic.

Sure, most road signs and information and brochures and suchlike will be printed in Spanish as well as English. How is this a big deal? Children by then will most likely choose to be bilingual, sort of how you can learn just Hebrew or just Arabic if you live in Israel, but it's helpful to know both.

So I don't see the problem.

Snip.

So I don't see the problem.

TEH PROBLAM IZ TEH BROWN PEOPLEZ INVADING AND TAKING UR JERBS!!!1!

TEH PROBLAM IZ TEH BROWN PEOPLEZ INVADING AND TAKING UR JERBS!!!1!

You frighten me.

On the surface. On the inside however, people are radically different, their values beliefs ect. For example, Canadians and Chinese are both humans, but their morals are radically different.
You say that as if there is on standardised ‘Canadian morality’ that all Canadians subscribe too. Nonsense. I’m sure you could find a Chinese person and a Canadian person who shared almost exactly the same ethical views.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649269618764219.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

The Wall Street Journal:

Islam and Free Speech

By PETER HOEKSTRA

I'm... I'm agreeing with Hoekstra. That's... disturbing. In fact, it's downright yucky. I think I need a shower now.

You frighten me.

Forget it not that I was being ironic.

TEH PROBLAM IZ TEH BROWN PEOPLEZ INVADING AND TAKING UR JERBS!!!1!

Yep. If it wasn't for whinging about muslims, the same fuckwits would probably never shut the fuck up about mexicans and "blacks". Personally I hope their sisters, divorced mothers and gay relations they try to pretend are straight end up living with a good mix of both.

Forget it not that I was being ironic.

Well, this is Kontor after all. According to him all atheists are secretly in league with Muslims and the whole Korean Peninsula is under the rule of Kim Jong-Il.

It's his standard modus operandi: not long ago he asserted that the Mohammed cartoon were bigoted

As long as you're going to be clucking like a hen by the water cooler, you might as well do everyone a favor and not spread lies. It's not like I don't say stupid things occasionally, so I fail to see why you have to make up shit that I said unless you're just grossly mistaken... which might be plausible as you've shown an inability to comprehend what I write anyway.

Well, this is Kontor after all. According to him all atheists are secretly in league with Muslims and the whole Korean Peninsula is under the rule of Kim Jong-Il.

Lying appears to be what you do best. Ah well, at least you're good at one thing.

Forums...its the mutual respect that strikes you the most....

Lying appears to be what you do best. Ah well, at least you're good at one thing.

I see no lies from him.

Forums...its the mutual respect that strikes you the most....

Where does it strike you? :p

Kontor, Gauthier, GT and TAI, and anyone else who's thinking of getting a few extraneous animosities off their chest, DON'T.

The topic generates its own heat, no need to add to it.

Okay, that is a horrifying and disgusting film. I get so tired of morons who think that the Muslims who kill people represent the whole religion. Some of the greatest, most giving people I have ever met are Muslims. And Gambian. And black. (the trifecta!)

EDIT: I had to go look up some Gaelic Storm on YouTube to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

Okay, that is a horrifying and disgusting film. I get so tired of morons who think that the Muslims who kill people represent the whole religion. Some of the greatest, most giving people I have ever met are Muslims. And Gambian. And black. (the trifecta!)

Unfortunately, crap like that today is a tailor-made product. There are plenty of people out there who want to believe and get off on believing that all Muslims are terrorists who blow up and behead people who don't kneel before Allah. Wilders is merely capitalizing on an existing market.

Unfortunately, crap like that today is a tailor-made product. There are plenty of people out there who want to believe and get off on believing that all Muslims are terrorists who blow up and behead people who don't kneel before Allah. Wilders is merely capitalizing on an existing market.

I know, but that doesn't make this any less frustrating.

As long as you're going to be clucking like a hen by the water cooler, you might as well do everyone a favor and not spread lies. It's not like I don't say stupid things occasionally, so I fail to see why you have to make up shit that I said unless you're just grossly mistaken... which might be plausible as you've shown an inability to comprehend what I write anyway.

I haven't looked at the cartoons, and it doesn't really matter. And really, this is more about how the cartoonists now feel safe cuz the police bailed one of them out. "Nyah, nyah, we have police protection!" Doesn't impress me.

Fair enough, you didn't actually say the cartoons were bigoted, you just said that they were being republished as an infantile prank by the cartoonists (even though it was the editors of the publications who made the decision...)

I love the way you call me a chicken while you still don't have the courage to either substantiate or withdraw your repeated lie that I hate Muslims: I've called you on this twice (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13522028&postcount=292) already (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564977&postcount=78).

Look, this is going nowhere and doing nothing but raising both our blood-pressures. There's no need for all the insults and the back-and-forth (and I admit that some of my insults were overly aggressive, I shouldn't have posted while I was angry and I apologise for the 'specimen of humanity comment'): if I said that I hate Muslims then I swear I'll apologise for it and retract the statement; but if you've got no evidence that I do then you should do the same, deal?

I've already given one example of a post in which I explicitly denounced somebody for hating-Muslims simply for being Muslim and treating them as a homogeneous group, saying that I'd accept a Muslim who supported the foundations of liberal society as easily as I would a liberal Atheist, Christian or Jew.

If I'm the Muslim-hater you've accused me of being then it shouldn't be hard for you, but if you can't find an example of me saying I hate Muslims then you should have the decency to admit that I'm not a 'Muslim-hater' or a 'bigot' (and if you have the honesty to admit this then I'll also retract my accusations of dishonesty and any attacks I made on your character).

EDIT: Oops, I just realised that when I deleted my previous post I also deleted the example I referred to in the second paragraph, my bad. Here it is again:

Ah, so you can't dispute the facts, you're just ad hominening the poster. Good to know.

I challenged you a few weeks back to back up your repeated assertions that I'm a 'Muslim-hater' and promised that, if you could find a single post in which I said I hated all Muslims, I'd retract it and publicly apologise. You never replied. You're a damn liar and you know it.

Irony much? The offer still stands: if you either substantiate your claims or apologise for them then I'll return the favour.

Just one post of mine to saying that I hate Muslims, or just one post from you to apologise for falsely claiming that I did. That's all it'll take. Do you have the integrity to do so?

The twenty minutes I spent reading this thread could have been spent watching the clip/movie/montage/whatever-it-was.

No regrets on that one. :)

EDIT: AgendaO7, with respect to your sig "I still forget to log onto my nation every forty days", there's now a Nation Self-Restore (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552190) feature! Praise the admins!

Awesome! This is great news for disorganised people like me: have a cyber-cookie (http://trashmenagerie.com/images/CCC/Cookie.jpg). :)

Well, this is Kontor after all. According to him all atheists are secretly in league with Muslims and the whole Korean Peninsula is under the rule of Kim Jong-Il.

What? Who's been letting him read the memos from the Evil Atheist Conspiracy?

I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context? Are people trying to have us believe that were it not for people critical of Islam quoting out of context "slaughter the enemies of Allah" from the Koran, that it in reality says "slaughter the enemies of Allah....WAIT NOT ACTUALLY FORGET THAT GIVE EVERYONE HUGS AND BUNNIES!"

I mean it seems like these violents quotes are simply being let off the hook by one simple statement "taken out of context". So if one quoted the entire paragraph that had a statement "slaughter the enemies of Allah", what would the defense be then?

Statement:
In Islam, isn't Muhammad supposed to be either the perfect man or the closest thing to the perfect man? The ideal Muslim man? So then if Muhammad was going around beheading people, slaughtering non-believers and converting those who survived his warpath...simply behaving as a typical warlord of that time. Then when you translate this to the modern age, wouldn't those most violent in the name of Islam, those most in imitation of the perfect Muslim man be representing the truest branch of Islam, and not simply just a "bunch of crazies who hijacked the religion"? How could they be hijacking the religion when they are simpling following the example set by the perfect Muslim man.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

I'd welcome any answers to the above, not just from my opponents.

I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context? Are people trying to have us believe that were it not for people critical of Islam quoting out of context "slaughter the enemies of Allah" from the Koran, that it in reality says "slaughter the enemies of Allah....WAIT NOT ACTUALLY FORGET THAT GIVE EVERYONE HUGS AND BUNNIES!"

I mean it seems like these violents quotes are simply being let off the hook by one simple statement "taken out of context". So if one quoted the entire paragraph that had a statement "slaughter the enemies of Allah", what would the defense be then?

Statement:
In Islam, isn't Muhammad supposed to be either the perfect man or the closest thing to the perfect man? The ideal Muslim man? So then if Muhammad was going around beheading people, slaughtering non-believers and converting those who survived his warpath...simply behaving as a typical warlord of that time. Then when you translate this to the modern age, wouldn't those most violent in the name of Islam, those most in imitation of the perfect Muslim man be representing the truest branch of Islam, and not simply just a "bunch of crazies who hijacked the religion"? How could they be hijacking the religion when they are simpling following the example set by the perfect Muslim man.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

How is that any different than christianity?

How is that any different than christianity?
Ugh....this is exactly what annoys me. I asked a question and made a comment....both of which you ignored and started talking about Christianity. MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD ON CHRISTIANITY AND IT'S PROBLEMS.

However, because I'm a nice guy, and I hope that if I answer your question you will get back to mine, it's different from Christianity because all of the violent things are in the Old Testament, which Jesus came and preached against and came up with new creeds to follow. As Jesus was the perfect Christian man, Christians should follow him which means loving thy neighbor and treating others as you wish to be treated, ect.

That's why this is MUCH different from Christianity. But just please...answer my question and address my statement. I HATE when people ignore things and say "BUT...CHRISTIANITY"

And I'm not even a Christian.

I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context? Are people trying to have us believe that were it not for people critical of Islam quoting out of context "slaughter the enemies of Allah" from the Koran, that it in reality says "slaughter the enemies of Allah....WAIT NOT ACTUALLY FORGET THAT GIVE EVERYONE HUGS AND BUNNIES!"

I mean it seems like these violents quotes are simply being let off the hook by one simple statement "taken out of context". So if one quoted the entire paragraph that had a statement "slaughter the enemies of Allah", what would the defense be then?

Statement:
In Islam, isn't Muhammad supposed to be either the perfect man or the closest thing to the perfect man? The ideal Muslim man? So then if Muhammad was going around beheading people, slaughtering non-believers and converting those who survived his warpath...simply behaving as a typical warlord of that time. Then when you translate this to the modern age, wouldn't those most violent in the name of Islam, those most in imitation of the perfect Muslim man be representing the truest branch of Islam, and not simply just a "bunch of crazies who hijacked the religion"? How could they be hijacking the religion when they are simpling following the example set by the perfect Muslim man.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context? Are people trying to have us believe that were it not for people critical of Islam quoting out of context "slaughter the enemies of Allah" from the Koran, that it in reality says "slaughter the enemies of Allah....WAIT NOT ACTUALLY FORGET THAT GIVE EVERYONE HUGS AND BUNNIES!"

I mean it seems like these violents quotes are simply being let off the hook by one simple statement "taken out of context". So if one quoted the entire paragraph that had a statement "slaughter the enemies of Allah", what would the defense be then?

Statement:
In Islam, isn't Muhammad supposed to be either the perfect man or the closest thing to the perfect man? The ideal Muslim man? So then if Muhammad was going around beheading people, slaughtering non-believers and converting those who survived his warpath...simply behaving as a typical warlord of that time. Then when you translate this to the modern age, wouldn't those most violent in the name of Islam, those most in imitation of the perfect Muslim man be representing the truest branch of Islam, and not simply just a "bunch of crazies who hijacked the religion"? How could they be hijacking the religion when they are simpling following the example set by the perfect Muslim man.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

The same Muhammad also preached peace, tolerance, treatment of non-believers with honor and acceptance etc, etc. Logical disconnects in religion are hardly anything new.

I'd rather have religion go through evolutionary phases and weed out it's retarded bits than remain a static dinosaur. Islam has done so, albeit at a slower pace than its direct competitor due to the handicap they had in time.

People who scare monger about the doom religion and all that crap just don't want to see that it can evolve and change, focusing on the few nuts that run around while wrapping themselves up in the religion as a way of galvanizing the gullible portions of the masses.

Ugh....this is exactly what annoys me. I asked a question and made a comment....both of which you ignored and started talking about Christianity. MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD ON CHRISTIANITY AND IT'S PROBLEMS.

However, because I'm a nice guy, and I hope that if I answer your question you will get back to mine, it's different from Christianity because all of the violent things are in the Old Testament, which Jesus came and preached against and came up with new creeds to follow. As Jesus was the perfect Christian man, Christians should follow him which means loving thy neighbor and treating others as you wish to be treated, ect.

That's why this is MUCH different from Christianity. But just please...answer my question and address my statement. I HATE when people ignore things and say "BUT...CHRISTIANITY"

And I'm not even a Christian.

By your obvious emotion I would say otherwise.

By your obvious emotion I would say otherwise.
I don't think so. You don't have to be a christian to defend christianity. I'm an atheist but I consider christianity way less of a threat than islam. It certainly has less of an extremism problem.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13569435']I don't think so. You don't have to be a christian to defend christianity. I'm an atheist but I consider christianity way less of a threat than islam. It certainly has less of an extremism problem.

Half this problem is due to the fact that the West in general doesn't help when it starts feeding the persecution complex by not engaging in Islam in any meaningful fashion.

Real engagement would involve showing how false the idea of an anti-Islam persecution really is. Not just by saying empty words and then turning around and bombing predominantly Muslim countries for trumped up reasons. Nobody would believe you then. Real engagement means things like seeing to it that these people not only get an education and a decent chance at making a living, but to show that they aren't being ostracized socially either. The social melting pot if you will.

Extremism, especially those with religious influences, work because they've been taught to see their target groups as a faceless, inhuman mass. They take a specific instance of a tragedy perpetrated by one group and paint it to the entire gathering. Likewise, this sort of thing is reflected vice versa in certain groups in the Western world, and we have a few samples of those on NSG. To each side, the other is merely a cardboard representation of "The enemy", not really something they can empathize with.

Neither side of course, is really willing to see that all they're doing is perpetuating the cycle, but I suspect that they can, but would rather not because it's an uncomfortable world view to break from as you have to treat your preconditioned "enemies" as people.

Change that, and you will change a great deal of things.

I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context? Are people trying to have us believe that were it not for people critical of Islam quoting out of context "slaughter the enemies of Allah" from the Koran, that it in reality says "slaughter the enemies of Allah....WAIT NOT ACTUALLY FORGET THAT GIVE EVERYONE HUGS AND BUNNIES!"

I mean it seems like these violents quotes are simply being let off the hook by one simple statement "taken out of context". So if one quoted the entire paragraph that had a statement "slaughter the enemies of Allah", what would the defense be then?

Statement:
In Islam, isn't Muhammad supposed to be either the perfect man or the closest thing to the perfect man? The ideal Muslim man? So then if Muhammad was going around beheading people, slaughtering non-believers and converting those who survived his warpath...simply behaving as a typical warlord of that time. Then when you translate this to the modern age, wouldn't those most violent in the name of Islam, those most in imitation of the perfect Muslim man be representing the truest branch of Islam, and not simply just a "bunch of crazies who hijacked the religion"? How could they be hijacking the religion when they are simpling following the example set by the perfect Muslim man.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

O stop whining. If you'd pissed off the wrong crowd of Irish catholics, you'd be scared to piss in a pot in case it blew up in your face. The amount of violence versus the number of muslims means they're a fairly peaceable lot.

No doubt as soon as the muslim fad blows over, you'll be yammering about the mexicans.....

Fair enough, you didn't actually say the cartoons were bigoted, you just said that they were being republished as an infantile prank by the cartoonists

Uh, no, I didn't. I was commenting on the reaction of the anti-Muslim crowd cooing over how brave and dedicated to democracy they claim to be. And that was on a separate thread as well.


I love the way you call me a chicken while you still don't have the courage to either substantiate or withdraw your repeated lie that I hate Muslims: I've called you on this twice (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13522028&postcount=292) already (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13564977&postcount=78).


Gosh, you're right. There is no single post you've ever made in which you explicitly said you hate Muslims.

Same with TAI... same with New Mitanni... same with, golly, everyone!

Sadly that is quite irrelevant to what I've said.

The same Muhammad also preached peace, tolerance, treatment of non-believers with honor and acceptance etc, etc. Logical disconnects in religion are hardly anything new.

Yes, we know he did both. He brokered peace deals, and broke them. Muhammad's basic strategy, like any sheikh of his day, was "tolerate and negotiate when weak, conquer when strong." Not a very appealing premise for a religion.


I'd rather have religion go through evolutionary phases and weed out it's retarded bits than remain a static dinosaur. Islam has done so, albeit at a slower pace than its direct competitor due to the handicap they had in time.

People who scare monger about the doom religion and all that crap just don't want to see that it can evolve and change, focusing on the few nuts that run around while wrapping themselves up in the religion as a way of galvanizing the gullible portions of the masses.


They've done so? They've gone 1% of the way! Every Muslim majority nation other than Turkey treats non-Muslims as legal inferiors, second class citizens. Leaving the faith is still punishable by death in many nations. They have a long long way to go. I agree that they can evolve up, but it's not going to be easy and I really don't want my family friends caught in the way as innocent bystanders when some pseudo-medieval freak demonstrates his philosophical opposition to this evolution with a bomb or a knife.

So there is no scare mongering going on here. The Islamic world of 2108 might be a tolerant, enlightened place. But we don't live there. We live in 2008, where any perceived "humiliation" to islam is used to justify outrageous atrocities, or at least, a permanent threat of them.

This is illustrated by the difference between the two statements below:

"Any dog, under certain circumstances, might bite, but with proper training the animal will become more docile"

"If your Rottweiller doesn't let go of my leg I will kill it."

[QUOTE=The Atlantian islands;13570732]I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context?


The real problem is, some Muslims believe they are taken out of context. Others believe the opposite- the tolerant verses are the ones taken out of context. Most will go with whovever is holding the guns.

There are radical imams all over the world who hold fast to the intolerant interpretation. Many of these men have spent a lifetime studying Islam. For a westerner to decide they are wrong, merely because we wish them to be, is arrogant.

I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context? Are people trying to have us believe that were it not for people critical of Islam quoting out of context "slaughter the enemies of Allah" from the Koran, that it in reality says "slaughter the enemies of Allah....WAIT NOT ACTUALLY FORGET THAT GIVE EVERYONE HUGS AND BUNNIES!"

I mean it seems like these violents quotes are simply being let off the hook by one simple statement "taken out of context". So if one quoted the entire paragraph that had a statement "slaughter the enemies of Allah", what would the defense be then?


It depends. Often times, the violent quotes of Muhammad are quotes from Muhammad the General/Warlord. Of course on the field of battle his rhetoric and commands will be violent and bloodthirtsy. But, again, he also said to treat Jews and Christians as your brothers because they are "people of the book". Remember, illogical statements and contradictions are nothing new the Abrahamic religions.


Statement:
In Islam, isn't Muhammad supposed to be either the perfect man or the closest thing to the perfect man? The ideal Muslim man? So then if Muhammad was going around beheading people, slaughtering non-believers and converting those who survived his warpath...simply behaving as a typical warlord of that time. Then when you translate this to the modern age, wouldn't those most violent in the name of Islam, those most in imitation of the perfect Muslim man be representing the truest branch of Islam, and not simply just a "bunch of crazies who hijacked the religion"? How could they be hijacking the religion when they are simpling following the example set by the perfect Muslim man.

Im not entirely sure that Muhammad was the perfect Muslim. He was trying to become such, but he is only venerated because he is the Prophet. He however was still mortal, which in Abrahamic Religions mortal = flawed.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

Exactly, but that problem is not exclusive to religions. When there is that quote in Luke about bringing the non believers before him so he may slay them, that is not applicable to modern times at all. Its more applicable to Rome when the Christians were busy slaughtering the Pagans who refused to convert.

Remember, Christianity is about 600 years older than Islam. Religions evolves in the same way life, cultures, and states do. And 600 years ago, Christians were still stoning witches, waging the Baltic Crusades, and persecuting Jews with the Inquisition. Islam is now being forced to catch up with the religious evolution, and of course there is a strong backlash to this from conservative Muslims, just like there was and still is when Christianity began to evolve.

They've done so? They've gone 1% of the way! Every Muslim majority nation other than Turkey treats non-Muslims as legal inferiors, second class citizens."

I suggest you do some research on all Abrahamic religions past, specifically Christianity within the last 600 years. This problem is not exclusive to Muslims. Again, evolution takes time. Christianity had a 600 year head start, of course its going to look better in its current state.

Gosh, you're right. There is no single post you've ever made in which you explicitly said you hate Muslims.

Same with TAI... same with New Mitanni... same with, golly, everyone!

Sadly that is quite irrelevant to what I've said.

Not only have I never said that I hate Muslims, but on numerous occaisons I've explicitly stated that I don't, that it's wrong to treat all Muslims as one homogenous mass and I've criticised people who do so. Here's just one example:

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).

Not that I expect reality to affect your mindless flaming of course. It's obvious to anyone who takes even a cursory look at my posting history that you're a liar.

Im not entirely sure that Muhammad was the perfect Muslim. He was trying to become such, but he is only venerated because he is the Prophet. He however was still mortal, which in Abrahamic Religions mortal = flawed.

Yes, Islam does teach that Mohammed was morally perfect. The same applies to Jesus (Isa) and all other prophets IIRC.

Yes, Islam does teach that Mohammed was morally perfect. The same applies to Jesus (Isa) and all other prophets IIRC.


I dont recall reading that, but I might have passed over it.

Yes, Islam does teach that Mohammed was morally perfect. The same applies to Jesus (Isa) and all other prophets IIRC.

And from where did you get this?

I dont recall reading that, but I might have passed over it.

I've just been looking for a reference. Shia.org (http://www.shia.org/fundamental.html) says (under the title 'The Fundamentals of Islam'):

Nubuwwat - (Prophethood) - Belief in the Prophets (PBUT) of God who excel all other persons for whom they are sent for. All prophets of Allah are perfect and sinless (ma'soom). Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (PBUH&HF) is the last of the prophets sent by God and the sealer of prophets for NO more are to come, EVER!

But I've never seen it before so I don't know how reliable it is. I'm pretty sure it's true based on discussions I've had with Muslim friends in the past, but I'll have to check some books and get back to you.

And from where did you get this?

It's what I was told by Muslim friends when we discussed religion, and I think I read it in a book as well, but beyond that I'm not sure. You're a Muslim aren't you? Could you shed some light on the situation?

I'm going to bed now, but I'll try and check the thread tomorrow.

It's what I was told by Muslim friends when we discussed religion, and I think I read it in a book as well, but beyond that I'm not sure. You're a Muslim aren't you? Could you shed some light on the situation?

I'm going to bed now, but I'll try and check the thread tomorrow.

Last point: I just found this on a Muslim website (http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1176802096803&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout):

The Prophet said about himself, "Allah has sent me as messenger so that I may demonstrate perfection of character, refinement of manners, and loftiness of deportment" (Malik).

Is 'Malik' one of the authors of the Hadiths?

Last point: I just found this on a Muslim website (http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1176802096803&pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam%2FDIELayout):



Is 'Malik' one of the authors of the Hadiths?

Well, that is a passage, but I took that as Muhammad was supposed to try to demonstrate perfection, but that doesnt mean he wouldnt fail in some ways. God called on Christians to demonstrate perfect character, but we all know they always dont.


I had always read that a core tenet of Abrahamic religion was Mortal = Flawed

Well, that is a passage, but I took that as Muhammad was supposed to try to demonstrate perfection, but that doesnt mean he wouldnt fail in some ways. God called on Christians to demonstrate perfect character, but we all know they always dont.


I had always read that a core tenet of Abrahamic religion was Mortal = Flawed

It certainly is for Judaism and Christianity (although Catholicism makes an exception for Mary via the Immaculate Conception), but I was given to understand that Islam viewed all prophets as being perfect due to their role. I could be mistaken, or it could only be the majority view in the sect that my source was a member of (I think he's Sunni of some description).

Maybe I'll email one of those 'ask a Muslim' websites and see what they say.

The Prophet said about himself, "Allah has sent me as messenger so that I may demonstrate perfection of character, refinement of manners, and loftiness of deportment" (Malik).

Well, that proves it, he's full of crap. Does he also have the eyes of a ninja and the driving skills of a rally car driver? :rolleyes:

Well, that proves it, he's full of crap. Does he also have the eyes of a ninja and the driving skills of a rally car driver? :rolleyes:

Yes, but like most super-heroes he hides them behind a nerdy secret identity. Setting up the religion was just a cover for his battles against time-travelling Nazis.

It's what I was told by Muslim friends when we discussed religion, and I think I read it in a book as well, but beyond that I'm not sure. You're a Muslim aren't you? Could you shed some light on the situation?

I'm going to bed now, but I'll try and check the thread tomorrow.
So we're waiting on a repsonse to Agenda's question....

So we're waiting on a repsonse to Agenda's question....


How about this, straight from the horse's . . . mouth:

Sura 33:21:
YUSUFALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
PICKTHAL: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
SHAKIR: Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html

Sura 68:4
YUSUFALI: And thou [Mohammed] (standest) on an exalted standard of character.
PICKTHAL: And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
SHAKIR: And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/068.qmt.html

Unfortunately, that was almost effective propaganda. I'm starting to feel concerned about the future of Britain and Europe. :(

If such concern is necessary then there's a real problem with Euorpean education. It's quite simple to see through his distortion. He used exact brainwashing method that Islamic extremist uses to recruit. Why I say brainwashing, simply as he blast images and fragmented sentences without arguements to set his perspective.

The reason I ask is whenever someone post questionable and violent passage from the Koran, someone always uses "Well they've taken it out of Context!" While that may be true, the passages they quote do promote violent, but so do passages in the Bible, in fact it seems like all three Abrahamic faith has Holy Books that has passage promoting Violent for one reason or another. What makes this unique though is that these passage do allow assholes like Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals to interpret the passages as "They must destroy the West". Maybe I just feel like the violent passages in the Koran are getting a pass with the "They've taken it out of Context!" tactic.

Yes, they may produce violence but not violence against western civilisation as he distorted to be. The violence in Koran is in level with violence in fairy tales, fight against evil etc. But people who are criticising the Koran's violence's content in level as suicide bombers and other islamic radicial movements. That's where the disparity lies and also why ppl say it's taken out of context.

You know, I've actually wondered about this. What do you mean by (without any context)? I'm just curious.

He uses fragmented ideas without applying them into content. For example the red ridinghood tale, the wolf dies at the end and got killed. Then someone taking out of context would say the Red Ridinghood story promotes the killing of innocent animals but simply showing the fate of the wolf and not the procession leading up to the event.

Did the film do that?

Incidentally, what you did isn't 'taking out of context, it's just plain distortion.

Yes, from the clips I saw through CNN's interview, he really did. He may have not use the exact method with replacing points with words. Like Bin-ladin, he married Islamic values with anti-colonialism's sentiment. The Imams, in the clip, preached about conquering US and UK which is resentment for the colonisation period and not intention of Islam. When Islam was written, the very idea of colonisation wasn't even born (same with US or UK) so the Koran is not logically able to accomodate war against these futuristic issues to its relative days.

Also I think it's funny that GT is spouting his usual bullshit without understanding who he's even talking about. For instance....GT claims that this guy would have no problem jumping on Jews and being an anti-semetic nazi and such....if it were popular.

But let's leave GT's world of fiction that only exists in and around his computer chair and enter the factual world of reality:



I guess facts arn't fun with they disagree with GT's "sand-in-my-vagina" rants where he pulls claims out of thin air and accuses people of being anti-semetic jew hating Nazis because they have a problem with Islamic legal, cultural and religious values.

Wow..that makes sense.:rolleyes:

Anti-semitism is actually also muslim hating. Semite means Jews and Muslims.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13565237']Yes, the source of division was between different faiths, but it was more of an ethnic conflict than a religious one. Neither side used religious scripture to justify their actions and the IRA never once talked of creating a Catholic theocracy. The Catholic church condemned the IRA's actions. The majority of the Republic of Ireland and the religious minority of Northern Ireland that the IRA represented could have been Druid and they'd have acted the same way, their entire goal was political rather than religious.

Honestly, that's such a moronic comparison.

I just want to point out that majority muslim also condems Islamic radical movements which is quite evident in the recent Arab's conference. Many Middle East nation abstained in attendance to criticise Syria's actions.

I have both a question and a statement.

Question: If someone quotes the Koran where it says "slaughter the enemies of Allah" or whatever it was exactly in the film, why is it suddenly not a bad thing and simply taken out of context? Are people trying to have us believe that were it not for people critical of Islam quoting out of context "slaughter the enemies of Allah" from the Koran, that it in reality says "slaughter the enemies of Allah....WAIT NOT ACTUALLY FORGET THAT GIVE EVERYONE HUGS AND BUNNIES!"

I mean it seems like these violents quotes are simply being let off the hook by one simple statement "taken out of context". So if one quoted the entire paragraph that had a statement "slaughter the enemies of Allah", what would the defense be then?

Statement:
In Islam, isn't Muhammad supposed to be either the perfect man or the closest thing to the perfect man? The ideal Muslim man? So then if Muhammad was going around beheading people, slaughtering non-believers and converting those who survived his warpath...simply behaving as a typical warlord of that time. Then when you translate this to the modern age, wouldn't those most violent in the name of Islam, those most in imitation of the perfect Muslim man be representing the truest branch of Islam, and not simply just a "bunch of crazies who hijacked the religion"? How could they be hijacking the religion when they are simpling following the example set by the perfect Muslim man.

The problem is, when you get people trying to follow the lead of one of histories most succesful warlords, and apply that to the current time, what you get, are terrorists.

But is the West the enemy of Allah? The West is definitely the enemy to the anti-colonisation movement or the islamic radicalism. The distortion comes in that Koran is used to preach anti-Americanism due to political agenda, Cold War's sentiments (the Mujahadins - excuse the spelling) and anti-colonisation.
It is wrong and distorted for a person to quote "kill the enemy of Allah" if they mean attack the west and america. Koran had never mentioned any violence towards west as the book was written before colonisation. Therefore quoting this out of context benefits political radicalism and not fitting into agenda of Islam as Koran had never was written to attack America or Europe.

To show the problem clearly I will go back to the Red Riddinghood story. A person could manupilate the wolf's character of slyness, greed and deceptive character to co-relate with American activities in Middle East. So now according to the Red Riddinghood story, it gives justification to kill America but ignoring why the wolf was killed in the first place not by character but danger it produced. With this simple example, the defence would be that they don't know what they are talking about. Why? Simply,they should be saying "slaughter the enemies of islamic radicalism/slaughter the imperialist" not enemies of Allah but of course they will give a total different response from the mass which is why it is politically more beneficial to distorted to "Allah". Osama Bin-Ladin's anger with US/Europe is more colonialism related rather than religious related because he's fighting not for reasons with Islam but Middle East's power control.

They hijacked Islamic cause. Frankly, its very evident Osama Bin-Ladin and other radical movements don't care about converting the world to Islam but their own struggle for Middle East Dominance. Why I say they doesn't care about converting ppl? Because tjey only wants revenge against the West for colonisation than preaching Islam to western denizens through their demeanor. They simply using the infrastructure of Islam to their organisation's cause that's why its out of context. Islam might have a warpath's history but it has no any relation to modern colonisation concept or its hatred.

Disclaimer: It is not in my intention to compare Islam and Fairy tales but simply show how simple things like Fairy Tales can be distorted into violent preaching.