PDA

View Full Version : Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been denied access to the United Kingdom


Tombreaper
10-02-09, 18:19
Geert Wilders has been denied access to the United Kingdom, for fear that his presence may threaten civil order and 'civil harmony'.

(Yeah right)

'Great Britain is sacrificing freedom of speech,' said Wilders. 'You would expect something like this to happen in countries like Saudi Arabia but not in Great Britain. This cowardly act by the British government is a disgrace.'

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2009/02/breaking-wilders-not-allowed-into-uk.html

What are Western European countries afraid of? Freedom of speech?

Reggie
10-02-09, 18:21
Is he known for being particularly right wing or something? some background would be nice for everyone. :)

Tombreaper
10-02-09, 18:25
Is he known for being particularly right wing or something? some background would be nice for everyone. :)

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

He is best known for that anti-Islam movie: Fitna.

Punaxe
10-02-09, 18:28
Some background: Geert Wilders has been a very strong speaker against the Muslim faith as it is practiced today, and has released a movie illustrating his point. He is currently on a tour with this movie, Fitna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)). I suppose he had planned to show this in the UK, where it has now been denied as it was when he wanted to show it at the European Parliament earlier.
Currently, a lawsuit is under way against Wilders for hate speech, based on him likening the Quran to Mein Kampf, on Fitna, and on other things he has published outside of parliament. Earlier, the attorney general had decided not to prosecute him, but under the pressure of the Muslim community (this has quite literally been stated), they do now.

Personally I do not think Wilders has been careful enough in his sayings and doings, and it all should be allowed under the right to freedom of speech. I am very anxious to what the court's final ruling would be on the lawsuit I mentioned, although it'll probably take years before we get it. I feel it would define "freedom of speech" for us in the Netherlands, and may turn out to take away the Netherland's status as one of the most free nations in the world.

nightwishgirl84
10-02-09, 18:29
No surprise there.
I'd ban him too, oh wait, I live in Holland *fails* :cen:

Mad Tony
10-02-09, 18:30
It's a shame, since he didn't actually do anything wrong. Perhaps it's for his own safety? I hear he's been getting death threats.

Punaxe
10-02-09, 18:31
It's a shame, since he didn't actually do anything wrong. Perhaps it's for his own safety? I hear he's been getting death threats.

They say it would disrupt the public order, and they fear of Muslim protests... Even though he has been invited by parliament itself.

Reggie
10-02-09, 18:37
I'm gonna fence sit on this one but to add to the freedom of speech/thought/politics issue in the UK. The Daily Telegraph Website had this today:

Church of England votes to ban clergy from joining BNP
(British national party, far-right wing)

Clergy will be banned from joining the British National Party after the Archbishop of Canterbury called on the Church of England to "name names" in the fight against racism.

By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 6:52PM GMT 10 Feb 2009

http://1.2.3.9/bmi/www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01293/synod_1293556c.jpgChurch of England General Synod meeting Photo: Geoff Pugh

The governing body of the Church of England, the General Synod, voted overwhelmingly to follow the lead of the police and bar ordained priests, trainees and lay staff from becoming members of racist political parties, specifically including the BNP.
It will require discplinary rules for vicars to be rewritten, and some critics claimed the move could still breach human rights and trigger employment tribunal cases because the BNP is a legal organisation.
Others warned that far-right parties could get around the rules by changing their names, or by claiming their members are merely supporters rather than official members.
However the vote was carried by 322 votes to 13, with 20 abstentions, amid claims that the BNP is trying to promote itself as a Christian group, and fears that there are "racist undertones" in the Church that leave ethnic minorities "scandalously under-represented" among clergy.
In 2004, the Synod affirmed that voting for a racist party is "incompatible with Christian discipleship" while since 2006 candidates for positions in the priesthood have been screened for racist attitudes.
However Vasantha Gnanadoss, a lay member of the Synod and a civilian employee of the Metropolitan Police, put forward a motion that the Church should follow the policy adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2004 and ban specifically its employees from joining groups that contravene race equality policies including the BNP.

[click to read more] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4582683/Church-of-England-votes-to-ban-clergy-from-joining-BNP.html)
I will say that I didn't agree with what felt like a witch-hunt against the BNP members who's names were released.

Punaxe
10-02-09, 18:42
^ I do believe it is a (constitutional?) right that you do not have to tell anyone where your political affiliations lie?

Tombreaper
10-02-09, 18:42
They say it would disrupt the public order, and they fear of Muslim protests... Even though he has been invited by parliament itself.

I don't support Wilders, but I think he still didn't cross any border.

Reggie
10-02-09, 18:46
^ I do believe it is a (constitutional?) right that you do not have to tell anyone where your political affiliations lie?

I believe so. It changed after the old tradition of a show of hands for elections was phased out in favour of a private ballot and being allowed to keep your political leanings private. However, there's no doubt that privacy is under threat these days and that article effectively shows a sign of this ending.

We have a constutional monarchy and the Chruch of England is its religious arm effectively. So when the Archibishop starts to urge everyone to 'name names' we're looking at a serious threat to political privacy.

Mona Sax
10-02-09, 19:00
^ Reminds me a lot of the HUAC... which is a place no free society should ever go again. I'm all against racism, and I don't think hate speeches have any place in a civilized environment, but this is way too much. Thought police, anyone?

Reggie
10-02-09, 19:03
^That's an accurate observation. The whole Maracthyism era was quite a scary one to study in history and I'm of the same opinion as you. I don't like extremism but there's a certain mark that shouldn't be overstepped.

Goose
10-02-09, 19:06
I think its more in the interest of safety that he isnt coming, goes back to Channel 4's Dispatches: undercover mosque, the police's first reaction was to blame C4's editing, as they had spent ages trying to get the islamic population in that area on there side, they didnt want anything pushing them away, like the arrest of islamic extremism preaching clerics.

Phys
10-02-09, 19:07
Goddamn I've said it before and I'll say it before.... Our government is a mess. I wish Gordon Brown would just .... leave.

Tombreaper
10-02-09, 19:11
I think its more in the interest of safety that he isnt coming, goes back to Channel 4's Dispatches: undercover mosque, the police's first reaction was to blame C4's editing, as they had spent ages trying to get the islamic population in that area on there side, they didnt want anything pushing them away, like the arrest of islamic extremism preaching clerics.

Well yeah, that's the point

Both the UK and The Netherlands aren't Islamic Republics or something, and know we adapt again.

Shame.

rickybazire
10-02-09, 19:12
With you there Phys. Just everything keeps going wrong. Time for a fresh start.

I think Geert Wilders has also been denied access for his own safety. If he comes into the UK, because of that anti-Islam thingy, followers of Islam may harm him in some way.

Reggie
10-02-09, 19:23
Goddamn I've said it before and I'll say it before.... Our government is a mess. I wish Gordon Brown would just .... leave.

Or hold a general election. Seriously, we never elected him, we elected Tony Blair on promises that Brown has totally gone back on. We've become less democratic.

raiderfun
10-02-09, 19:55
Ewww, pro-jew ? Nope, sorry, no regard for me. That movie had caused so many troubles, such film shall not be published. I think what the British government did is right, I wholeheartedly support this :tmb:

OMG, I laughed so hard after reading his wiki page :vlol:

Catapharact
10-02-09, 20:03
Ewww, pro-jew ?

You and I seriously need to have a talk one of these days so I can drill some sense in that thick cranium of yours! *Wacks you.*

As for the rest: Huh... Here I thought the majority of this forum population was against extremism of any kind. Wilders is a total tool whose very preception of Islam would show just how much he actually knows about the religion. His little movie is nothing more then an enticement and a statement of hate; He actually had the gall to compare Islam of Nazi-ism! Oh yeah, I am sure he had no intention of it being a statement of hate.

I am glad he got denied access. Not only that, he should be stripped of his post as an MP and jailed for spreading hate message under the guise of "factual research."

Mad Tony
10-02-09, 20:07
Ewww, pro-jew ? Nope, sorry, no regard for me. That movie had caused so many troubles, such film shall not be published. I think what the British government did is right, I wholeheartedly support this :tmb:

OMG, I laughed so hard after reading his wiki page :vlol:What is your problem with Jews? I thought you wouldn't like him because he was anti-Islam, not because he was pro-Jew.

Pan
10-02-09, 20:11
^ I do believe it is a (constitutional?) right that you do not have to tell anyone where your political affiliations lie?

it's also a human right

And as for the anti-semitist - shame on you!

raiderfun
10-02-09, 20:16
What is your problem with Jews? I thought you wouldn't like him because he was anti-Islam, not because he was pro-Jew.

Indeed, I do hate him because he's anti-Islam, but then again, when I read THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Views_on_Israel) part and the following one as well) , which are very offensive, things have only got confirmed to me. And for me, pro pro-jews are the only ones who can critisize Islam until this degree.

(And to answer your question, I do not have any problem with Jews at all, I only dislike those zionists, or the ones who support war... ) ;)

Love2Raid
10-02-09, 20:20
Don't give a **** about that guy.

The Brits made a wise move to keep the trouble out of their country. That's all I have to say.

Mad Tony
10-02-09, 20:21
Indeed, I do hate him because he's anti-Islam, but then again, when I read THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Views_on_Israel) part and the following one as well) , which are very offensive, things have only got confirmed to me. And for me, pro pro-jews are the only ones who can critisize Islam until this degree.

(And to answer your question, I do not have any problem with Jews at all, I only dislike those zionists, or the ones who support war... ) ;)Well why didn't you say pro-zionists then?

raiderfun
10-02-09, 20:24
Well why didn't you say pro-zionists then?

Okay as you want, but pro-zionists is in my mind is a pro-jew who lives in Israel, and this one is not Jew nor living in Israel. But if you want me to change the term, that's fine :)

Bye for now :wve:

Tombreaper
10-02-09, 20:37
Indeed, I do hate him because he's anti-Islam, but then again, when I read THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Views_on_Israel) part and the following one as well) , which are very offensive, things have only got confirmed to me. And for me, pro pro-jews are the only ones who can critisize Islam until this degree.

(And to answer your question, I do not have any problem with Jews at all, I only dislike those zionists, or the ones who support war... ) ;)

Hate will eventually kill you, you shouldn't hate.

I don't read nothing offensive in that Wikipedia text.

There are a lot of non pro-jew people critizing the Islam, well, the Quran.

The Old Testament is a strange book, but the Quran is even stranger.

Encore
10-02-09, 20:40
I'm just curious, how can one be against discrimination and hatred towards other religions and at the same time support a guy who likes to promote those exact same feelings...

Dark Lugia 2
10-02-09, 21:33
I'm just curious, how can one be against discrimination and hatred towards other religions and at the same time support a guy who likes to promote those exact same feelings...

Exactly what I was thinking! :p

I hope (but doubt) most people know that his film is just his message of hat, and is untrue. I find it annoying and insulting that its referred to and taken as a film of discovered truth or something. :/ And that its even allowed to be released, let alone have its own tour o_o

raiderfun
11-02-09, 13:12
Hate will eventually kill you, you shouldn't hate.

I don't read nothing offensive in that Wikipedia text.

There are a lot of non pro-jew people critizing the Islam, well, the Quran.

The Old Testament is a strange book, but the Quran is even stranger.

You won't probably find those retorts offensive since you are not muslim, but when you are attached to your religion and start suddenly reading/hearing some absolute fake informations that were invented in order to diminish and destroy the reputation of Islam, then that hurts you and makes you furious. But that worship of Israel and hatred of Islam is ridiculous. BTW, he said : 'I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam'. and suggested that Muslims should : “tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands” because it contains 'terrible things' and that Muhammad would “in these days be hunted down as a terrorist”
and : "The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order."[25] He has also referred to Mohammed as "the devil" and : "fascist book"

I don't care of what he thinks, what I do not accept is that he publishes his own-modelled film to influence the world. ;)

And Tombreaper, why do you say the Quran is a strange book ?

Mad Tony
11-02-09, 13:21
I'm just curious, how can one be against discrimination and hatred towards other religions and at the same time support a guy who likes to promote those exact same feelings...Are you refferring to me? I don't support Geert Wilders, but I do think it's unfair that he's been denied access to the United Kingdom. Then again, it probably would endanger public security because there could well possibly be violent protests or riots by Muslim extremists if he was let into the country. Personally I can't see why the Muslims who insist on sending this guy death threats can't jusrt prove him wrong by protesting against him in a peaceful manner.

raiderfun
11-02-09, 14:01
Are you refferring to me? I don't support Geert Wilders, but I do think it's unfair that he's been denied access to the United Kingdom. Then again, it probably would endanger public security because there could well possibly be violent protests or riots by Muslim extremists if he was let into the country. Personally I can't see why the Muslims who insist on sending this guy death threats can't jusrt prove him wrong by protesting against him in a peaceful manner.

I don't think that such acts need to be protested in a peaceful manner, this guy has martyred a divine holy religion, which counts 1.5 billion muslims, and his aim is to spread his movie and wrongly influence people as much as possible . Peaceful protests won't even be considered for him. I'm sure he would have a worse reaction if someone was to critisize his faith/civilization/origins, etc.

And he doesn't need to know that he is wrong, he already knows that he invented a colossal mess :)

Mad Tony
11-02-09, 14:42
I don't think that such acts need to be protested in a peaceful manner, this guy has martyred a divine holy religion, which counts 1.5 billion muslims, and his aim is to spread his movie and wrongly influence people as much as possible . Peaceful protests won't even be considered for him. I'm sure he would have a worse reaction if someone was to critisize his faith/civilization/origins, etc.

And he doesn't need to know that he is wrong, he already knows that he invented a colossal mess :)But the whole point of his movie is to show that he thinks Muslims are violent. The absolute worst way to react to that is to be violent, since you're just proving his point.

raiderfun
11-02-09, 15:31
But the whole point of his movie is to show that he thinks Muslims are violent. The absolute worst way to react to that is to be violent, since you're just proving his point.

Indeed yeah, unfortunately. They are smart enough so they find such hints to trap them. He really reminds me of Madonna, she did the same thing, and got threatened to death by some people. Why can't they stand aside ? Are they obliged to seek and circulate problems ? This world is SO confusing !

Punaxe
11-02-09, 18:38
(...) I don't care of what he thinks, what I do not accept is that he publishes his own-modelled film to influence the world. ;) (...)

How is that? What he did is make a selection of things that have happened and things that are in the Qu'ran, and put them in a video. A pick-and-mix from the reality is what happens every day, in movies, in documentairies, in news papers, in books. Just that one particular selection doesn't favour your own opinion, is not reason enough to disallow it from being published. Neither is the expectation that some will be insulted.

Wilders does not fight against the Islam itself, he fights against those things he illustrates in his movie. I doubt any of you would disagree that the events and verses in Fitna are something we want to have praised in this world.

Catapharact
11-02-09, 19:12
Wilders does not fight against the Islam itself, he fights against those things he illustrates in his movie.

If only that were true... Sadly, it isn't. He has continusouly given speeches upon the whole religion as a vessel of hate. He has always condemned the entire Muslim collective as extremists. To compare the entire religion to like likes of Hitler's regime... I don't know if there is a greater statement of hate out there; Considering that fact that Muslims actually gave Jewish refugees a home when they were Exiled from Spain...

The man is a tool; Period.

Punaxe
11-02-09, 19:45
If only that were true... Sadly, it isn't. He has continusouly given speeches upon the whole religion as a vessel of hate. He has always condemned the entire Muslim collective as extremists. To compare the entire religion to like likes of Hitler's regime... I don't know if there is a greater statement of hate out there; Considering that fact that Muslims actually gave Jewish refugees a home when they were Exiled from Spain...

The man is a tool; Period.

A "vessel of hate" wouldn't be a far-off analogy: the extremist forms he fights against are indeed nurtured on the basis of Islam and supported by verses in the Qu'ran. I feel the same about likening the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, which he is now prosecuted for - I would agree there are indeed certain similarities, most notably the justification of exterminating non-[somethings].

Catapharact
11-02-09, 19:49
A "vessel of hate" wouldn't be a far-off analogy: the extremist forms he fights against are indeed nurtured on the basis of Islam and supported by verses in the Qu'ran. I feel the same about likening the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, which he is now prosecuted for - I would agree there are indeed certain similarities, most notably the justification of exterminating non-[somethings].

Then I must say you are mis-lead upon your interpertation of the Holy Book, which only solidified the case that Islam-o-phobia is not only a valid problem, its a RAMPANT one. Which only makes me even more grateful for the British government to step in like they did and do the right thing in stopping interpertations like his on grounds of nothing more then hate mongering.

dutch TR fan
11-02-09, 19:52
It's a shame, since he didn't actually do anything wrong. Perhaps it's for his own safety? I hear he's been getting death threats.
o believe me he's getting lot's of death threads,and i know it i live in Holland.
Its realy s shame

Punaxe
11-02-09, 19:55
Then I must say you are mis-lead upon your interpertation of the Holy Book, which only solidified the case that Islam-o-phobia is not only a valid problem, its a RAMPANT one. Which only makes me even more grateful for the British government to step in like they did and do the right thing in stopping interpertations like his on grounds of nothing more then hate mongering.

I can't deny my information on Islam is fairly one-sided, but there is no way a viewpoint from any other side can justify those things portrayed in Fitna, or any forgiving interpretation is possible of those verses - or would you say otherwise?

Catapharact
11-02-09, 20:00
I can't deny my information on Islam is fairly one-sided, but there is no way a viewpoint from any other side can justify those things portrayed in Fitna, or any forgiving interpretation is possible of those verses - or would you say otherwise?


a) Nearly ALL of the interpertation in the "Fitna" were taken OUT OF CONTEXT. Mr. Douche didn't even take the enitre passage into account usually; Just selected lines. That is not an interpertation... Certinaly not even an attempt at one.

b) More then half of the attrocities that he showed in his little biography are CULTURAL based practices. I swear people just don't want to see the difference but then again that's not religion's fault; That's just the fault of an over-eager crowd looking for a scape-goat to focus their frustrations on. Hmmm, I wonder where that kind of behaviorism went totally towards an extremist end in history I wonder...

Punaxe
11-02-09, 20:15
a) Nearly ALL of the interpertation in the "Fitna" were taken OUT OF CONTEXT. Mr. Douche didn't even take the enitre passage into account usually; Just selected lines. That is not an interpertation... Certinaly not even an attempt at one.

b) More then half of the attrocities that he showed in his little biography are CULTURAL based practices. I swear people just don't want to see the difference but then again that's not religion's fault; That's just the fault of an over-eager crowd looking for a scape-goat to focus their frustrations on. Hmmm, I wonder where that kind of behaviorism went totally towards an extremist end in history I wonder...

And what context is it then, that justifies those events and sayings?

It is not us who associate such acts of horror with Islam, it are the practioners themselves, by making clear for what reasons and in what mindset they commit them.
From what I understand from various sources and most of all the way Islam is practiced in the West, they bring their culture with them. Sure, you could strictly keep it separated, but Islamic religion brings with it Sharia law and the cultural practices it stimulates. These practices, as they say themselves, are based on Islam.

Catapharact
11-02-09, 20:26
And what context is it then, that justifies those events and sayings?


Example:

Mr. Douche presents his argument in his little movie that Islam promotes violence since it clearly gives you the right to harm anyone if they have the intention to harm you for instance. He argues that its what extremists use as their backbone for their operations.

Well Mr. Douche forgot to go upon the rest of the passage: "Fight in the name of God but never commit aggression for verily, God does not favours aggression towards your fellow man." Killing civilians IS aggression since it the extremists as for instance are targeting the segment of the population that has had been branded non-combatants and therefore aren't part of a given conflict.

It is not us who associate such acts of horror with Islam, it are the practioners themselves, by making clear for what reasons and in what mindset they commit them.

Uh-uh, the general public associates CULTURE with RELIGION. Two extremely different things. Should I interpert the Mormon practice of Poligamy as the baseline for Christian teaching itself? God I hope no one out there does that.

From what I understand from various sources and most of all the way Islam is practiced in the West, they bring their culture with them. Sure, you could strictly keep it separated, but Islamic religion brings with it Sharia law and the cultural practices it stimulates. These practices, as they say themselves, are based on Islam.

The Sharia law in the West has ONLY worked on grounds as an ARBITRATION system. They are only a source of counciling upon which a decision is rendered. The state law still has power over it and a civil ruling can be overturned on that grounds.

Its not a hard concept to realize. I don't think anyone out there is that thick headed to not understand that.

Tombreaper
11-02-09, 20:29
The man is a tool; Period.

Wilders is NOT a tool.

Punaxe
11-02-09, 20:36
Fact remains that verses are being used to justify acts of horror. Why should we take it into context, if they clearly don't do so either?

Fact also remains that Islamic associations in the West are pushing for Islamic aspects to be introduced into society, the arbitration courts being a good example of how they are succeeding in this.
I disagree with your notion of Islamic culture and religion being so different from each other: see how one would be hard-pressed to separate Christian religion from the Western culture in the Middle Ages. This may not be the case in all societies, but it is in some, and the fear is that it will reach us, and in doing so, nurture even more extremism. I cannot say this is an irrational fear.

Catapharact
11-02-09, 20:40
I cannot say this is an irrational fear.

It is perfectly so an irrational fear when the given statement of facts and interpertation targets a group of people under the guise of factual and logical decliration when infact the arbirtration system does not do anything to effect the judicial system other then give another means of arbitration that can be overruled by civil law.

I can say the same thing about Wilders and how his misinterpertation is threating to turn a civil society into mob mentality targeting a given belief system on nothing more then misinterpertation. Hence people like him need to think twice before they spew out there vile, misinformed vomit as facts.

Punaxe
11-02-09, 20:53
I think you are missing some points, but suggest we leave it. I have given my opinion which I know many share with me, and I disagree with your arguments against this opinion in those cases where they do get the point. I feel no need to correct you or repeat myself.

raiderfun
11-02-09, 20:54
How is that? What he did is make a selection of things that have happened and things that are in the Qu'ran, and put them in a video. A pick-and-mix from the reality is what happens every day, in movies, in documentairies, in news papers, in books. Just that one particular selection doesn't favour your own opinion, is not reason enough to disallow it from being published. Neither is the expectation that some will be insulted.

Wilders does not fight against the Islam itself, he fights against those things he illustrates in his movie. I doubt any of you would disagree that the events and verses in Fitna are something we want to have praised in this world.

Nope, he already said that he hates Islam, thus, what does Islam have to do with extremism/terrorism ? It's not because some terrorists known to be muslims have commited atrocities that he'll have to blame a whole religion. He has completely misinterpreted facts of the Quran as he wished.

Punaxe
11-02-09, 21:04
Nope, he already said that he hates Islam, thus, what does Islam have to do with extremism/terrorism ? It's not because some terrorists known to be muslims have commited atrocities that he'll have to blame a whole religion. He has completely misinterpreted facts of the Quran as he wished.

What Islam has to do with Islamic extremism I think doesn't need explaining.

It is true that in some of our mosks, such extremism has been preached. It is true that we see significant correlation between Islamic religion and crime, even more significant when we consider the crime of a terrorist nature. It is true that people of Islamic religion do the worst at adapting to our society.

Wilders is not blaming Islam itself - regardless of whether he hates it or not. He is giving his solution to the problems mentioned above. His solution aims to silence extremism. Perhaps his idea of "tearing out half of the Qu'ran" is radical, and perhaps he does take a one-sided view, but every problem that any society faces should be open to discussion.

Love2Raid
11-02-09, 21:09
What Islam has to do with Islamic extremism I think doesn't need explaining.

It is true that in some of our mosks, such extremism has been preached. It is true that we see significant correlation between Islamic religion and crime, even more significant when we consider the crime of a terrorist nature. It is true that people of Islamic religion do the worst at adapting to our society.

Wilders is not blaming Islam itself - regardless of whether he hates it or not. He is giving his solution to the problems mentioned above. His solution aims to silence extremism. Perhaps his idea of "tearing out half of the Qu'ran" is radical, and perhaps he does take a one-sided view, but every problem that any society faces should be open to discussion.

He is certainly failing in that aspect.....

raiderfun
11-02-09, 22:02
What Islam has to do with Islamic extremism I think doesn't need explaining.

It is true that in some of our mosks, such extremism has been preached. It is true that we see significant correlation between Islamic religion and crime, even more significant when we consider the crime of a terrorist nature. It is true that people of Islamic religion do the worst at adapting to our society.

Wilders is not blaming Islam itself - regardless of whether he hates it or not. He is giving his solution to the problems mentioned above. His solution aims to silence extremism. Perhaps his idea of "tearing out half of the Qu'ran" is radical, and perhaps he does take a one-sided view, but every problem that any society faces should be open to discussion.

Mosques do not even need to preach extremism, Islam is the best religion to egg on peace. And many of those who commited terrorist attacks were brainwashed or had justified reasons.


He is certainly failing in that aspect.....

Indeed ! He is only going to spread disaster and controversy and make things worse . Freedom of speech must have limits. Such film can have a tremendous impact on people.

Ward Dragon
12-02-09, 03:35
You won't probably find those retorts offensive since you are not muslim, but when you are attached to your religion and start suddenly reading/hearing some absolute fake informations that were invented in order to diminish and destroy the reputation of Islam, then that hurts you and makes you furious.

If you're so sensitive about religious slights, then why do you post antisemitic crap like this?

Ewww, pro-jew ? Nope, sorry, no regard for me.

And then here:

I don't think that such acts need to be protested in a peaceful manner, this guy has martyred a divine holy religion, which counts 1.5 billion muslims, and his aim is to spread his movie and wrongly influence people as much as possible . Peaceful protests won't even be considered for him. I'm sure he would have a worse reaction if someone was to critisize his faith/civilization/origins, etc.

Mosques do not even need to preach extremism, Islam is the best religion to egg on peace. And many of those who commited terrorist attacks were brainwashed or had justified reasons.

You basically say you support violent protests and some terrorism is justified, then you say that Islam will bring peace. If you fail to see the hypocrisy, then I think you are brainwashed.

Tyrannosaurus
12-02-09, 03:54
Mosques do not even need to preach extremism, Islam is the best religion to egg on peace. And many of those who commited terrorist attacks were brainwashed or had justified reasons. Like 72 virgins in heaven? There's a problem with Islamic morality when everything becomes conditional and there are no absolutes. Islam condemns sucidie, except when it is in defense of the faith. I have read a few articles by Islamic apologists which explicitly state this. Unfortunately, such a stance is easily used to justify terrorist acts.

Indeed ! He is only going to spread disaster and controversy and make things worse . Freedom of speech must have limits. Such film can have a tremendous impact on people. In other words, freedom of speech is okay so long as you don't criticize Islam. Not exactly the kind of sentiment that a mature and tolerant society which values pluralism would have, but it's entirely what we'd expect in a Muslim country. If Islam is above criticism, then it's become elite, and we aren't living in a society where church and state are seperate. There is, of course, a world of difference between criticism and hate speech, but such subtleties tend to get lost on people.

raiderfun
12-02-09, 16:59
If you're so sensitive about religious slights, then why do you post antisemitic crap like this?

Where did you see me posting antisemitic crap like you said ? I have only stated the truth about him, he invented new facts of the Quran like no one else before. Since when has ever the Quran asked for terrorism or suicide ? He has completely misunderstood and misinterpreted verses of the Holy Book.


You basically say you support violent protests and some terrorism is justified, then you say that Islam will bring peace. If you fail to see the hypocrisy, then I think you are brainwashed.

And why would those who pretend to be muslims go and commit suicide attacks everywhere in the world randomly like that? They have their reasons. When I said justified attacks, I meant that they were done for certain specific reasons, let's take the example of the 7/7 bombings in London, what was their goal ? People didn't accept that GB helps the US to fight against Iraq and Afghanistan, which are already in very bad situations. Hence, these people did not have the choice so it was their only way to act and defend themselves. Today, the major scapegoat is Islam, people have been protesting peacefully countless times, but no one cares. It's always the same, it's always the strongest that opresses the weak, and the innocents cannot defend themselves, so their only solution is to commit such act. I don't mean that I support terrorism, but I wish I could only find a fair solution or defense that would convince people. The media are unfortunately very biased and very hardlined towards Islam, and everything in the west is up-side-down, which let people have very negative views on Islam. I suppose it is only those who have muslim friends who can say otherwise. So, do you suggest any solution ? :)

Like 72 virgins in heaven? There's a problem with Islamic morality when everything becomes conditional and there are no absolutes. Islam condemns sucidie, except when it is in defense of the faith. I have read a few articles by Islamic apologists which explicitly state this. Unfortunately, such a stance is easily used to justify terrorist acts.

In other words, freedom of speech is okay so long as you don't criticize Islam. Not exactly the kind of sentiment that a mature and tolerant society which values pluralism would have, but it's entirely what we'd expect in a Muslim country. If Islam is above criticism, then it's become elite, and we aren't living in a society where church and state are seperate. There is, of course, a world of difference between criticism and hate speech, but such subtleties tend to get lost on people.

72 what ? :yik: I have never heard of this :pi: :vlol:

Mad Tony
12-02-09, 17:13
When I said justified attacks, I meant that they were done for certain specific reasons, let's take the example of the 7/7 bombings in London, what was their goal ? People didn't accept that GB helps the US to fight against Iraq and Afghanistan, which are already in very bad situations. Hence, these people did not have the choice so it was their only way to act and defend themselvesThis is sickening. 52 innocent people were killed deliberately by cowardly mass murderers. How can that ever be justified?

raiderfun
12-02-09, 17:18
This is sickening. 52 innocent people were killed deliberately by cowardly mass murderers. How can that ever be justified?

How about the tens of thousands of dead in Iraq and Afganistan ? :)

Mona Sax
12-02-09, 17:19
People didn't accept that GB helps the US to fight against Iraq and Afghanistan, which are already in very bad situations. Hence, these people did not have the choice so it was their only way to act and defend themselves.
I don't see how slaughtering innocent people could help protect anyone. It's always the same crap - everybody claims to want peace, but nobody's willing to lay down their arms.

You want to put an end to violence? Get rid of your own violent leaders and preachers. Don't wait for somebody else to make the first step (a wonderfully effective tactic, as Israel and Palestine keep demonstrating over and over again), do it yourself. You know what I see when I look at the Middle East? I don't see Jews and Muslims, oppressors and oppressed, right and wrong. All I see is the same stupid hatred and ignorance on both - all - sides.

Mad Tony
12-02-09, 17:21
How about the tens of thousands of dead in Iraq and Afganistan ? :)But they weren't actually specifically targeted. You still haven't answered my question though, how can a mass murder like the London Bombings ever be justified?

Forwen
12-02-09, 17:28
raiderfun, you never fail to render me speechless. If it isn't the thoroughly one-track opinion then it's at least the sheer lack of logic that lies beneath it. Do tell me more about this wonderful world you believe in.

raiderfun
12-02-09, 17:29
I don't see how slaughtering innocent people could help protect anyone. It's always the same crap - everybody claims to want peace, but nobody's willing to lay down their arms.

You want to put an end to violence? Get rid of your own violent leaders and preachers. Don't wait for somebody else to make the first step (a wonderfully effective tactic, as Israel and Palestine keep demonstrating over and over again), do it yourself. You know what I see when I look at the Middle East? I don't see Jews and Muslims, oppressors and oppressed, right and wrong. All I see is the same stupid hatred and ignorance on both - all - sides.

I agree with you in the sense that those attacks won't help. But what do you mean exactly by getting rid of the preachers and violent leaders ?

But they weren't actually specifically targeted. You still haven't answered my question though, how can a mass murder like the London Bombings ever be justified?

I am absolutely against those attacks, but I have already answered, they did not accept that GB helps the US to fight against Iraq and Afghanistan. But I agree with Mona in the sense that those attacks/bombings would only worsen the situation. But the question is : do muslims have a way to defend themselves without violence ? And do not forget that thousands of innoncents are killed there :)

Mona Sax
12-02-09, 17:34
But what do you mean exactly by getting rid of the preachers and violent leaders ?
Just that - tell them to go to hell. Don't put anybody in office who tells you to fight people who don't agree with you.

Mad Tony
12-02-09, 17:36
I am absolutely against those attacks, but I have already answered, they did not accept that GB helps the US to fight against Iraq and Afghanistan. But I agree with Mona in the sense that those attacks/bombings would only worsen the situation. But the question is : do muslims have a way to defend themselves without violence ? And do not forget that thousands of innoncents are killed there :)There are other ways of protesting about something you don't like. If they really wanted to "die for Allah" and all that, they could've at least gone and done that in Iraq or Afghanistan. After all, that's what they were "protesting" about.

Archetype
12-02-09, 18:07
I Think they should just let him do it tbh

Cochrane
12-02-09, 19:18
But the question is : do muslims have a way to defend themselves without violence ?
No, that's the wrong question. These violent actions did nothing to defend muslims, did they? If you look at Iraq and Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, or Israel and Palestine every other day, you'll find that such attacks are frequently used as pretense to start more violence against muslim-dominated areas.

And do not forget that thousands of innoncents are killed there :)
If that's the way we are talking about them then yes, I would rather forget about them. They did not die so that others would have a justification to start attacks on more innocents. If you are against killing innocents then you should be against killing all innocents, no matter how many or what religion.

Edit: Back to the original question: I disagree with Wilders, but I don't think that he should be denied entry into the UK for this reason. If he truly crossed a line (I think he might have, but I didn't follow his work enough to truly know) and insulted people or endangered public safety then he should be tried and, if found necessary, sentenced. Just making an administrative decision, however, is a dangerous precedent when freedom of speech is concerned. I also think the UK should stop the habit of requiring border controls for lawful EU citizens, but that's a different topic altogether.

Goose
12-02-09, 20:22
How about the tens of thousands of dead in Iraq and Afganistan ? :)

Are you serious? The people who did 7/7 were British through and through, they had problems like drink and gambling, killing infidels was there way to become martyrs and get laid with 72 virgins, nothing else. No hidden virtue to there crime. The dead civilians in iraq and afghan have the heroic Islamic jihadi's hiding in there houses to thank for that.

To say that Islamic extremism is cultural rather then religious doesn't really work, Total Submission to Allah means just that, TOTAL submission in every aspect of life.

Cochrane
12-02-09, 20:44
Alright, that's something else I'm having an issue with: Sure, Islam can be interpreted in that way. But then, so can Christianity. The spanish inquisition, the crusades, witch hunts, the Troubles in Ireland - there is no lack of examples where christian believes (or disagreement about them) were used to start and continue violence. Truth of the matter is that all religions can be and have been used as a pretext for very, very bad behavior. I have no reason to believe that Islam is any worse in this area than any other religion.

Archetype
12-02-09, 20:53
Alright, that's something else I'm having an issue with: Sure, Islam can be interpreted in that way. But then, so can Christianity. The spanish inquisition, the crusades, witch hunts, the Troubles in Ireland - there is no lack of examples where christian believes (or disagreement about them) were used to start and continue violence. Truth of the matter is that all religions can be and have been used as a pretext for very, very bad behavior. I have no reason to believe that Islam is any worse in this area than any other religion.


Its distorting the message.

Most of the time that you'll find is that its not the religion itself, but the people in high ranking positions who seek to fulfill their own desires.

Goose
13-02-09, 10:16
The spanish inquisition, the crusades

The spanish inquisition was called the spanish inquisition for a very good reason, it was spanish..... but i agree there vision, like that of the nazis was well off anything religious.

The crusades is a touchy subject, especially in Britain, anyone with half a brain can see the islamic caliphates invasion of Byzantine was the catalist, and that a full scale christian invasion of Jerusalem (not Egypt, Trans Jordan, Philistine or comically enough, even byzantine) was a VERY limited response, infact, the Quran never mentions Jerusalem once, odd that people from the arab world flocked to a holy war that took place in a location that is still discussed by realist muslim scholars to this day as to whether it has ANY Islamic significance.

If anything, the Jews were the ones in tears throughout the crusades, certainly not the muslims.

I think its important that people actually watch Fitna before making there mind up though, remember he is a politician, and the movie doesn't break any laws, something politicians are very mindful of. Its on Google video, i would add the link, but im not sure it the footage is suitable for general chat. I dont believe it gives the correct message, but Islamic extremism is definatly something worth publicizing in the UK, as we definatly have a problem with it.

raiderfun
13-02-09, 12:04
Just that - tell them to go to hell. Don't put anybody in office who tells you to fight people who don't agree with you.

I agree with that, but after all, the strongest will always still take control.

There are other ways of protesting about something you don't like. If they really wanted to "die for Allah" and all that, they could've at least gone and done that in Iraq or Afghanistan. After all, that's what they were "protesting" about.

That's ridiculous. Jihad is something that HAS NOTHING TO DO with terrorism, again, those are ignorant who misunderstand the messages in the Quran. :rolleyes:


If that's the way we are talking about them then yes, I would rather forget about them. They did not die so that others would have a justification to start attacks on more innocents. If you are against killing innocents then you should be against killing all innocents, no matter how many or what religion.

LOL, obviously, I am against killing innoncents from any side, what I don't accept is unfairness ;)


Edit: Back to the original question: I disagree with Wilders, but I don't think that he should be denied entry into the UK for this reason. If he truly crossed a line (I think he might have, but I didn't follow his work enough to truly know) and insulted people or endangered public safety then he should be tried and, if found necessary, sentenced. Just making an administrative decision, however, is a dangerous precedent when freedom of speech is concerned. I also think the UK should stop the habit of requiring border controls for lawful EU citizens, but that's a different topic altogether.

Yes, but it would be already too late, people do already anticipate reactions/reviews/critics , this is why they take measures, which is the case now with the British government. If anyone wants to watch the film, he only has to look for it on the net, it's not that difficult, but imposing such gross offensive movie would only cause troubles, and I'm sure everyone is aware of this.

Are you serious? The people who did 7/7 were British through and through, they had problems like drink and gambling, killing infidels was there way to become martyrs and get laid with 72 virgins, nothing else. No hidden virtue to there crime. The dead civilians in iraq and afghan have the heroic Islamic jihadi's hiding in there houses to thank for that.

To say that Islamic extremism is cultural rather then religious doesn't really work, Total Submission to Allah means just that, TOTAL submission in every aspect of life.

Allah never asked for terrorism, he asked for the Jihad, which has nothing to do with terrorism. People do unfortunately confuse between the two.

The spanish inquisition was called the spanish inquisition for a very good reason, it was spanish..... but i agree there vision, like that of the nazis was well off anything religious.

The crusades is a touchy subject, especially in Britain, anyone with half a brain can see the islamic caliphates invasion of Byzantine was the catalist, and that a full scale christian invasion of Jerusalem (not Egypt, Trans Jordan, Philistine or comically enough, even byzantine) was a VERY limited response, infact, the Quran never mentions Jerusalem once, odd that people from the arab world flocked to a holy war that took place in a location that is still discussed by realist muslim scholars to this day as to whether it has ANY Islamic significance.

If anything, the Jews were the ones in tears throughout the crusades, certainly not the muslims.

I think its important that people actually watch Fitna before making there mind up though, remember he is a politician, and the movie doesn't break any laws, something politicians are very mindful of. Its on Google video, i would add the link, but im not sure it the footage is suitable for general chat. I dont believe it gives the correct message, but Islamic extremism is definatly something worth publicizing in the UK, as we definatly have a problem with it.

http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=122683 :wve:

Goose
13-02-09, 12:10
Allah never asked for terrorism, he asked for the Jihad, which has nothing to do with terrorism. People do unfortunately confuse between the two.


That wasnt your original post though was it, you said the 7/7 terror attacks were a direct result of Iraq and Afghanistan, they werent, they were a direct result of pathetic individuals trying to get a nice after life with loads of gash.

Im not sure why you linked me to a thread from last march, the movies not even shown there, and this is entirely about that movie, as Geert was heading to the uk for its showing.

I suppose, to be truely honest, Geert doesn't have a valid point at all. Afghanistan and Iraqs civilians, and insurgents, are all VERY lucky, the only reason they are not all dead is because of the western infidels public opinion. Britain and America have enough military might between them to wipe out every Muslim country in the world twice over, Iraq and Afghanistan would be small quarrel in a different world that had our power. A simple push of the button would solve it, then all we need is to take any oil and natural resources that pleases us. Imagine if the Nazis had won world war two, would they tollerate an insurgency? The people who dropped V2 bombs on london?

Its kind of cute in a childish sort of way that the insurgents believe allah is keeping them alive. Very odd.

Catapharact
13-02-09, 12:20
The crusades is a touchy subject, especially in Britain, anyone with half a brain can see the islamic caliphates invasion of Byzantine was the catalist, and that a full scale christian invasion of Jerusalem (not Egypt, Trans Jordan, Philistine or comically enough, even byzantine) was a VERY limited response, infact, the Quran never mentions Jerusalem once, odd that people from the arab world flocked to a holy war that took place in a location that is still discussed by realist muslim scholars to this day as to whether it has ANY Islamic significance.

Oh? The Byzantium invasion happened CENTURIES before the invasion at Jerusalem. The Pope in question at the time used Jerusalem as a policitcal scapegoat; Nothing more. It didn't matter that Muslims has resided in Jerusalem for hundereds of years and had allowed open passage to other faiths to practice their given religions... Oh no! It was a clear case of extremism and everyone knows it.


To say that Islamic extremism is cultural rather then religious doesn't really work, Total Submission to Allah means just that, TOTAL submission in every aspect of life.

Submission to Islam also requires you to have an open view of the world and to deal with worldly problems through acceptable peaceful means. The concept of Jihad only comes in through the idea of self-defense... Nothing more. Jihand was only truly innitated during the crusades. There is a huge difference between conquest and Jihad.

Goose
13-02-09, 12:35
Oh? The Byzantium invasion happened CENTURIES before the invasion at Jerusalem. The Pope in question at the time used Jerusalem as a policitcal scapegoat; Nothing more. It didn't matter that Muslims has resided in Jerusalem for hundereds of years and had allowed open passage to other faits to practice their given religions... Oh no! It was a clear case of extremism and everyone knows it.

Constantinople fell in the 1400's? The actual byzantine army fell mid way through the crusades (think Vlad the impaler), im not sure whos told you it fell hundreds of years before, there certainly confused with battles, rather then victories. The crusades were a direct result of Byzantine sending a message to the pope demanding help defending its borders. The invasion of Israel was mostly about the Muslim turks seeking power and blocking or killing pilgrims.



Submission to Islam also requires you to have an open view of the world and to deal with worldly problems through acceptable peaceful means. The concept of Jihad only comes in through the idea of self-defense... Nothing more. Jihand was only truly innitated during the crusades. There is a huge difference between conquest and Jihad.

The islamic caliphate was designed to be global, not just a few countries in the middle east. If Jihad was self defense, why encroach on christiandom following the lead of Muhammad during the 600's?

Catapharact
13-02-09, 12:44
Constantinople fell in the 1400's? The actual byzantine army fell mid way through the crusades (think Vlad the impaler), im not sure whos told you it fell hundreds of years before, there certainly confused with battles, rather then victories. The crusades were a direct result of Byzantine sending a message to the pope demanding help defending its borders. The invasion of Israel was mostly about the Muslim turks seeking power and blocking or killing pilgrims.

You are confusing the Turkish expansion with the crusades. I think you have the timeline mixed up. The Turkish expansion came way later on AFTER the Crusades and that was the pinnicle point of the expansion of the Ottaman empire. Yes there were a few battles associated and incorpoated in the later crusades but the innitial point of the Crusades happened way before the 1400s (think the people's crusade, the Horns of Hattin and Richard's attempt.)


The islamic caliphate was designed to be global, not just a few countries in the middle east. If Jihad was self defense, why encroach on christiandom following the lead of Muhammad during the 600's?

What they declared was not Jihad. They didn't even mention the term "Jihad." Just because a region in question has an Islamic foundation doesn't mean that secular decisions upon conquest and expansion aren't made. That's one thing people really do need to get it and get it good. The expansion happened due to military and tactical reasons; Reasons which I particularly do not believe in.

Goose
13-02-09, 12:52
You are confusing the Turkish expansion with the crusades. I think you have the timeline mixed up. The Turkish expansion came way later on AFTER the Crusades and that was the pinnicle point of the expansion of the Ottaman empire. Yes there were a few battles associated and incorpoated in the later crusades but the innitial point of the Crusades happened way before the 1400s (think the people's crusade, the Horns of Hattin and Richard's attempt.)

Nope, Byzantine was being attacked by Muslim turks before the crusades began, the pope was first asked for help in 1075, the first crusade happened a couple of decades later. I mentioned the 1400's for your benefit, if byzantine existed then, it certainly didnt fall centuries before the crusades did it....



What they declared was not Jihad. They didn't even mention the term "Jihad." Just because a region in question has an Islamic foundation doesn't mean that secular decisions upon conquest and expansion aren't made. That's one thing people really do need to get it and get it good.

So if violent domination isnt part of Islam, why was pagan persia, egypt, even southern france and Morroco invaded and conquested? Even if it wasnt called Jihad, it was still religious expansion, somthing the Taliban are demanding to this day.

Catapharact
13-02-09, 12:59
Nope, Byzantine was being attacked by Muslim turks before the crusades began, the pope was first asked for help in 1075, the first crusade happened a couple of decades later. I mentioned the 1400's for your benefit, if byzantine existed then, it certainly didnt fall centuries before the crusades did it....

By your own logic, do you not see the flaw in this reasoning? What do Turks have to do with Saracen occupants of Jerusalem? Here is another prime example of disassosiation and linkage. The pope did not target Jerusalem for any given tactical reason at all. If anything, Acre would have been a better spot of defense rather then Jerusalem. But guess what; He focused ALL his attention on Jerusalem for Political Scapegoating.


So if violent domination isnt part of Islam, why was pagan persia, egypt, even southern france and Morroco invaded and conquested? Even if it wasnt called Jihad, it was still religious expansion, somthing the Taliban are demanding to this day.

The expansion for the most part were a success because the pagan population at the time themselves weren't happy with the given prospects of their own cultural wellbeing and a signifant portion of them JOINED in with the Muslim armies. Some of the attrocities under pagan rule were horrendous. First borns were being burried alive in ritualistic cerimonies, etc. etc. This is where I emphisize again the difference between cultural and religious practices.

Goose
13-02-09, 13:06
By your own logic, do you not see the flaw in this reasoning? What do Turks have to do with Saracen occupants of Jerusalem? Here is another prime example of disassosiation and linkage.

Who do you think was in the seat of power in Jerusalem till 1917? The Muslim turks were from Central Asia (turkmenistan), not eastern Europe.


The expansion for the most part were a success because the pagan population at the time themselves weren't happy with the given prospects of their own cultural wellbeing and a signifant portion of them JOINED in with the Muslim armies. Some of the attrocities under pagan rule were horrendous. First borns were being burried alive in ritualistic cerimonies, etc. etc. This is where I emphisize again the difference between cultural and religious practices.

Persias scientific evolution was bought to a halt, Mesopotamia was literally taken back to the dark ages. Not really a success, besides, Islam had some practices of its own that were, and in some cases still are just as horrendous.

Catapharact
13-02-09, 13:11
Who do you think was in the seat of power in Jerusalem till 1917? The Muslim turks were from Central Asia, not eastern Europe.

It was a combined seat of council in that region. So in that assosiation, Britain should have been invaded by Muslims because they have had every right to chase down the Knight's Templar.


Persias scientific evolution was bought to a halt, Mesopotamia was literally taken back to the dark ages. Not really a success, besides, Islam had some practices of its own that were, and in some cases still are just as horrendous.

If anything, the Islamic astronomers, Mathmaticians and Chemists that expanded their given fields much later on in the SAME region under Islamic control brought in much more prosperity in the region. Lets not compare the dark ages of Europe with the brief period of problem within mesapotamia. That region came on its feet upon its own. Europe needed outside help to get back on its feet.

What do you think promted the renissance to happen?

Mr.Burns
13-02-09, 13:15
While I find this conversation quite facinating (I really do), it's a tad off topic.

Goose
13-02-09, 13:22
It was a combined seat of council in that region. So in that assosiation, Britain should have been invaded by Muslims because they have had every right to chase down the Knight's Templar.


Not really, the knights templar were French, we never had esoteric orders in England (Britain didnt exist, we hadnt invaded Scotland or Ireland at that time)only foreign trading bases, the knights of christ were the Templars (french), Teutons (German) and the Malta's (cypriots).


If anything, the Islamic astronomers, Mathmaticians and Chemists that expanded their given fields much later on in the SAME region under Islamic control brought in much more prosperity in the region. Lets not compare the dark ages of Europe with the brief period of problem within mesapotamia. That region came on its feet upon its own. Europe needed outside help to get back on its feet.

What do you think promted the renissance to happen?

Alot of 'Islamic astrology' was in the Dead sea scolls and the old testament to begin with, written by Jews. The majority of Koranic science and information was taken from conquered civilizations.

The cabala was much closer to modern theories then anything the Koran or old testament had to offer.

The Renaissance wasnt an advance, it was a look at what classical civilisation had done before, and a revival of there original path. Somthing the middle east, with the exception of Israel, UAE, and Saudi arabia, with the west's backing, has not grasped.

Ward Dragon
13-02-09, 15:59
I just watched the video on google to see what all the fuss is about. Assuming that the quotes from the Quran are accurate and the videos/news headlines are genuine, then I really don't see how this video could be classed as "hate speech." These events did happen and the people in the video did say these things, so how is it hate speech to report on it? And, more importantly, nowhere in the video did Wilders call for violence against anyone so I don't see what the problem is. Banning him from the country, violently protesting, calling for his death, etc. only makes his video stronger because it makes it look like the excerpts he found are representative of the entire Muslim population. I think it would be better for everyone if no one advocated violence and if the points in the video were discussed and debated about. I believe wholeheartedly in freedom of speech and I absolutely do not think someone should be censored just because their views are unpopular and especially not because of fear over violent retribution for what the person said.

Mad Tony
13-02-09, 16:05
I'm having a change of opinion on this. I don't think it's right at all that he was banned from the country, because it's just letting the Muslim extremists win.

Goose
13-02-09, 16:10
These events did happen and the people in the video did say these things, so how is it hate speech to report on it? And, more importantly, nowhere in the video did Wilders call for violence against anyone so I don't see what the problem is.

Thats why theres a good debate about it, he's no fool, his movie doesn't break any rules.

Odd that they ban him, but allow people like this to take my taxes.
http://culturelegenocide.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/british-muslim-protest4.jpg

But unfortunately, its not that clear cut. Muslims who deserve to be here musnt be tarnished with the same brush.

Ward Dragon
13-02-09, 16:18
But unfortunately, its not that clear cut. Muslims who deserve to be here musnt be tarnished with the same brush.

Exactly. Banning Wilders and trying to silence him only makes it seem to the general public like the government is afraid that all Muslims are like the protesters in your picture.

Catapharact
13-02-09, 19:16
Not really, the knights templar were French, we never had esoteric orders in England (Britain didnt exist, we hadnt invaded Scotland or Ireland at that time)only foreign trading bases, the knights of christ were the Templars (french), Teutons (German) and the Malta's (cypriots)

The knights used old Briton as camp sites for decades; Especially during the crusades. They had prompted the use of these sites to expand inwards only in a given time did they were opted out the church itself.



Alot of 'Islamic astrology' was in the Dead sea scolls and the old testament to begin with, written by Jews. The majority of Koranic science and information was taken from conquered civilizations.

The cabala was much closer to modern theories then anything the Koran or old testament had to offer.

No actually Islamic text finds its similarities more with the Mediterranian region; Specifically classical Greece. With the exception of texts that prompt the mentioning of angels. That is all.

The Renaissance wasnt an advance, it was a look at what classical civilisation had done before, and a revival of there original path. Somthing the middle east, with the exception of Israel, UAE, and Saudi arabia, with the west's backing, has not grasped.

No, it was a collaboration with the West in expansion and yes... reflection of ancient teachings and revival but only with the help of the teachings and discoveries of Islamic scholars and scientists that things did turn for the better.

The reason why many of the Middle Eastern nations hasn't grasped that concept is because they almost have this feeling of being "pushed" towards different ideas; Not letting them eventually take them in upon themselves.

more importantly, nowhere in the video did Wilders call for violence against anyone so I don't see what the problem is. Banning him from the country, violently protesting, calling for his death, etc. only makes his video stronger because it makes it look like the excerpts he found are representative of the entire Muslim population.

If that is true then I could give you exerpts from famous Islamic scholars who give peaceful sermons in mosques and have constantly rebuttled against other given ideas only to be labled by the douchebag followers of Wilders as "extremists" and these guys made no mention of 9/11 or the like yet Wilder's little speech prompt them to call upon the disintergration of the Islamic religion and Muslims.

So either Wilders gives a public announcement that he does not condone these actions taken by his lankies or things will turn for the worse and somehow, it would become acceptable to desicrate holy texts like the Quraan.

And no, I do not support violent protests and would gladly see that the riot police end them.

Goose
13-02-09, 19:50
The knights used old Briton as camp sites for decades; Especially during the crusades. They had prompted the use of these sites to expand inwards only in a given time did they were opted out the church itself.


The knights used England as a trading base, there retreat was Scotland, which wasn't to friendly with England in those days. But thats not the point, like you said it was under a combined council, so the armies from Turkmenistan traveling to Byzantine would have been a caliphate decision.



No actually Islamic text finds its similarities more with the Mediterranean region; Specifically classical Greece. With the exception of texts that prompt the mentioning of angels. That is all.


Islamic texts reflect what was taken from the middle east, every discovery or philosophy in the civilised world was there at that time, Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek after Alexander the greats campaigns, Roman, Indian, Chinese and Egyptian. It was all there for the taking, claimed under the caliphate.


No, it was a collaboration with the West in expansion and yes... reflection of ancient teachings and revival but only with the help of the teachings and discoveries of Islamic scholars and scientists that things did turn for the better.

The reason why many of the Middle Eastern nations hasn't grasped that concept is because they almost have this feeling of being "pushed" towards different ideas; Not letting them eventually take them in upon themselves.


I wouldn't say things are bordering 2nd world in some countries because they don't like to be pushed on, Iran under the Shah was extremely successful, but was dragged down thanks to the Islamic revolution and the Iraq war.



If that is true then I could give you exerpts from famous Islamic scholars who give peaceful sermons in mosques and have constantly rebuttled against other given ideas only to be labled by the douchebag followers of Wilders as "extremists" and these guys made no mention of 9/11 or the like yet Wilder's little speech prompt them to call upon the disintergration of the Islamic religion and Muslims.


Remember, that in the west, any 'scholar' who preaches that a woman should be lashed for being raped, or a woman should be imprisoned for being in a coffee shop with a man she's not married to is an extremist. Even thinking that amputating a thief's hands is ok is extremism to westerners.

Saudi Arabian clerics on the whole, are very extreme in western eyes.