Slashdot Mirror
Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film
h4rm0ny notes the furor over an anti-Islamic movie due to be released on the Web in the next week. After Pakistan disrupted YouTube worldwide over an interview with right-wing Dutch MP and filmmaker Geert Wilders, Network Solutions, acting as host as well as registrar, has suspended Wilders's site promoting the 15-minute film "Fitna" (a Koranic term translated as "strife"). The site now displays a notice that it is under investigation for possible violations of NetSol's acceptable use policy. According to the article the company's guidelines include "a sweeping prohibition against 'objectionable material of any kind or nature.'" The article describes the site's content before NetSol pulled the plug as a single page with the film's title, an image of the Koran, and the words "Coming Soon." No one but Wilders has seen the film to date. The Dutch government has distanced itself from the film, fearing Muslim backlash. A million Muslims live in The Netherlands. Wilders's party, which controls 9 of 150 seats in the Dutch parliament, was elected on an anti-immigration platform.
So, being SubGenius myself and rather abhorrent of any and all religions, does anyone else think that I can get NetSol to close down any and all religious websites that they currently host?
No? Me either, but hey, it'd be fun to try.
Hi, I don't give a fuck about some dutch movie. Now, back to the..uh..musliming.
Do we even need to see the movie to learn anything about Muslims? As far as I'm concerned these actions speak for themselves.
My only concern is that Network Solutions is so quick to censor their customers over something so trifling as an (anti-) religious statement. I have kept my domains at NSI for over a decade just because I was too lazy to move them to a better registrar, but in light of this they are losing my business immediately.
PS Please don't think I have anything against Islam exclusively. I was raised as Catholic, and I find that religion for more reprehensible. It's not that I'm anti-religion per se... I am merely anti war-mongering, fear-mongering, child molesting, brain washing, suicide bombing, etc.
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view. They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
Nothing much interesting but if you follow one of the 'see also' links there's an old video interview where he talks about his views on Islam.
reilgion>?
Christians and Jews make convenient targets. Hindu and Buddhist would too. It is only the Islam religion that gets these kinds of consessions. Thats because they respond unreasonably and brutally.
Nice going you cowardly asshats.
"It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
No, but they do go on psychological warfare, going apeshit at other religions for no good reason. Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims. They all do it.
As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists. I'm talking about the majority. If you want to go down that route, the AmEvs took a developed nation's army into two (three if you include pakistan) nations for the sole purpose of teaching them our own point of view. Same idea as what the suicide bombers are doing, is it not?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Now replace the same word with "Catholicism". Then "Buddhism". Then "Liberalism". Then Conservatism"...
Censorship over mere ideals? Sucks no matter what angle you view it from.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Don't know about USA, but here in Europe Christians killed all male civilians (including young boys, all unarmed) in city of Srebrenica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_genocide), Bosnia, in 1994 only because civilians were - guess what - Muslims. It happened thanks to namely UN-appointed Holland troopers let Serbian terrorists go to city they were supposed to protect. UN declared it to be a genocide, first in Europe since WWII.
839*929
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.
No, I guess they just go regular bombing.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
This is not surprising coming from NetSol. NetSol will shut down hosting and even lock down domain names if enough pressure is put on it, without anything even resembling a court order to do so. Anyone holding Internet property through NetSol that is even remotely controversial or that is threatened by hostile entities seeking to shut it down should move expeditiously to a different host and registrar.
I'm offended by any material served by Network Solutions. Hence all their customers are in violation of the terms of service, so they should all be shut down.
How many complaints does it take to shut down a site? Let's pick one at random, and get it shut down. Then pick another...
"Same with the Jews and same with the Muslims" because if you belong to a group you are the group, right? i better get me a group quick
-- arstchnca
--
Someone made a film that consists entirely of Muslims protesting violently to stupid shit all over the planet? I'd say 15-20 minutes of film showing nothing but angry violent Muslims protesting stupid shit should be enough to paint them as stupid, to the point that anytime they protest anything the entirety of the rest of the world would laugh at them.
... well downright antisocial. As such I have less than zero respect for the god of a group of people that want to kill anyone that disagrees with them.
Seriously, not all Muslims are violent. Not all Muslims protest everyone else that does anything anywhere in the world that does not affect them. This whole 'insult to Islam' business is as out of control as political correctness in the US. We should start hanging signs up everywhere that state "Sharia Law not legal here" ()
The non-Muslim part of the world should be posting that loudly and proudly... to the point that ordinary Muslim peoples are ASHAMED of their violent militant Muslim friends. When other Muslims tell them to STFU and sit down perhaps the rest of us can stop worrying about stepping on the toes of Muhammed, prophet or otherwise.
No, I do not for an instant believe that Christians or Jews are any better. All the BS about Mr Gibson's movie was stupid. The crap about The Davinci Code was idiotic. The bruhaha about 'The last temptation of Christ' was ignorant. All of these religious groups that are claiming sacred right to this and that and feel they are being insulted actually need to adhere to the words in their books. Oh, but that's the problem... they think they are. Well, for all their 'righteousness' the have surely fucked this planet up.
If you feel insulted, take it as a reason to ponder for a few moments how well you live your religious beliefs. If you think I left your religion out SMACK!! You too can go ponder your religious beliefs. If when you are finished you still find that you are right to be intolerant of other people's belief systems I have a friend with a gun store and plenty of single use bullets. Use these to massage your temples and all will begin to get better in the world.
Personally I'd like to see more people making fun of ALL religions. ALL of them. If your god is almighty and doesn't want anyone to make fun of them, or tell jokes about them, or in some way portray them in ways that you don't like... well, then I suggest your god come right on down here to little old Earth and tell me about it in PERSON. I will not accept the likeness of his mother on a piece of burnt toast or a water stained wall as a sign. I will not accept that a human prophet speaks for an ALL POWERFUL god. If your god does not want me to draw cartoons or make films, he can come down and explain it in PERSON.
Perhaps that is the problem? god doesn't come down and explain things in person so when there is a challenge to god's authority religious zealots have to act before someone points out that there god is not much good at protecting his image, never mind the feeble lives of his followers?
If that makes you wonder about god... good. I do not want to believe in anything or entity whose supporters are so violent, militant, dogmatic, ignorant, disrespectful, hateful and
Yes, I know that only a small group of people hijack religion to server their militant causes. My point is that others of whatever faith should be rising up to stop such people from ruining their otherwise good intentions.
Final point is that when good people let bad people ruin their faith and do nothing to stop it, it denigrates all of them. Where are those Muslims that renounce violence? Where are the Muslims that renounce suicide bombings? Why did the Iranian vigils after 9/11 get no real news airplay?
Thanks to all the high profile religious people in the world, Atheism is the fastest growing set of beliefs in the Western World, if I can say it that way.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Time out there dude.
Lets be clear about something. Most muslims, as in an overwhelming majority, don't want to have anything do do with violence. Unfortunately, it only takes one small group to do some pretty horrendous stuff.
Note also, that most muslim violence is directed against other muslims.
Yes there is a problem with poor levels of education, and also that religious leaders can spin any old line of bull and have it believed in its entirety by large numbers of muslims, but if we are to be honest, christians do the same thing quite often, especially some of the christianity 2.0 people. Ok we don't do the suicide bomber thing, but again, neither do the vast, vast majority of muslims, many of whom are just folk. Once again, most suicide bomber attacks are directed against muslims.
What's really going on, in my opinion, is a muslim civil war, orchestrated by powerful people who'd rather like it if only their flavour of beliefs were allowed, oh, and that they be rich and control the entire muslim world. We should butt out and let them solve their own problems.
And I would say...they aren't Christians. There is nothing in the Bible that gives them leeway to do what they did. However, the koran specifically tells Muslims to kill infidels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm02UAgEJFs&NR=1
Until the formation of the Nation of Israel, the Jews weren't in any position to engage in the listed activities. Now...now they use a *real* army. And instead of terrorists, they have an intelligence service.
The christians haven't been so limited. But they still prefer to use real armies and real intelligence services.
Do you think it's really about religion? It's US vs THEM. Any "us" you pick. It's not the power that corrupts, it's the immunity to consequences. Peer pressure helps. Riots used to be common after a high school team lost it's game. Now it's less so, as the local community is less supportive. (They've got professional teams to watch on TV.)
This violence *is* common in muslim countries, but not only muslim countries. It's probably related to polygamy, where the less successfully aggressive males are denied all access to women. (Look for an increase of this in China in the coming decades. Different reason, but the number of male children is far higher than the number of females.)
All THAT said, yes, the Koran explicitly encourages violence against the non-muslim. Read your bible. It does the same thing. Less so in the new testament, but the christians have, if anything, been more violent than the jews. This probably dates back to the christians out-competing the mithraists for dominance of the Roman Empire. Ever since then christians have had considerable conventional military power in their hands.
There is only one "religion" that has arguably decreased the amount of violence and that's Buddhism. Even there, it's dubious. One could argue that the violence just became secular. (OTOH, the various schools of hand-to-hand combat were developed because the secular authorities felt it necessary to prevent the Buddhist sects from forming their own armies, so they made it illegal for monks [or peasants] to carry weapons.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You hit the nail on the head. This guy is flamebaiting. And everybody who bites is making things a bigger deal than they actually are.
Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people take him seriously, politically. It's one thing to want to get attention for important issues. It's quite another thing to make an issue where there hardly was one and act like a total ass just to get attention. This guy is a troll, and, fortunately, more and more people are seeing that.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
American Evangelicals don't go suicide bombing anyone that disagrees with their point of view.
No, just an abortion clinic or two. They're too cowardly to blow themselves up with it.
They also don't call for the execution of cartoonists that portray Jesus disrespectfully...
No, but they've come pretty close.
What?
Got any stats to back that up, or are you just pulling opinions out of your ass?
Here's a suvey of "moderate", American muslims. If these are the opinions held by Muslims who have lived in, and, theoretically, been further liberalized by exposure to our society, how do you think the rest of the Muslim world would answer these questions?
That's not how I recall events.
What I heard that happened was that the Dutch UN soldiers were in Srebrenica, lightly armed and not authorized to open fire. They radioed for back-up from the other UN (and NATO?) forces, but got nothing.
It must have been terrible being one of these soldiers: knowing it is your duty to protect these people, but not allowed to open fire, and not receiving back-up, despite supposedly having allies nearby. Supposedly, they got the medals in recognition of that.
The medals certainly weren't pinned on them in a move by the politicians to save their asses. Far from trying to save their asses, the whole Dutch government resigned is response to a report about the incident.
Maybe it is my national pride (I am Dutch - and, as many Dutch, I have little national pride, but I do have some) that is being injured here, but I don't think it's fair to blame it all on the Dutch. Sure, it's convenient; the Dutch were there, so it's all their fault. But the Dutch weren't there alone: this was a UN mission, and so it was ultimately the UN and everybody who was there that failed. Yet I hear nothing about that. It's only the Dutch who are getting the blame.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Some asshole(s) took their dissatisfaction with the link in my sig to the University's administration... It being a university, rather than a commercial enterprise, I was merely forced to add an obvious disclaimer, that the views on the page are my own, rather than the school's...
Curiously, my request to see the complaint itself was denied on the ground, that there would be no way to preserve the anonymity of the complaining party(ies)... Any lawyers out there willing to file a FoIA-request on my behalf (the school is a government institution)?
These attempts to use the legal system and/or bureaucracy to shut the unpleasant views down are a welcome change from killing fellow country-men to make a point — as is happening in Iraq. But if anybody is hoping to score sympathy-points doing it, they are doing it all wrong...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
As you can read on the wikipedia page you linked, the dutch were hopelessly outnumbered (400 lightly armed soldiers vs 1k-2k serbs with tanks and morters). The dutch troopers weren't given the mandate, the manpower, the reinforcements or the air-support required to fight back.
I wouldn't know what I would have done in their place, and I hope I never will know. Either way, it shames me that the dutch and the UN were this toothless faced with genocide right under their noses.
This sig is intentionally left blank
As some of you might remember, in 2004 a well-known writer director and supplier of social criticism, Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a radical islamist, because he spoke out against aspects of islam that he felt were barbaric. Although you could call me a leftist, I vehemently support Wilders, because he's defending our right to speak out against religion where other politicians pussy out. Simply put, I'd like to be able to go on TV or write a column that talks about women's rights in the middle east without getting shot on my way to work the next day.
See, I wouldn't have a problem with his 15 minute film if he...
if he said what you wanted to hear instead of what you don't want to hear.
That's what censorship is. That's also why we have free speech protections in the USA -- because speech that everyone wants to hear doesn't need protection. It's only the "flamebait" and other stuff that someone might disagree with that needs protection.
Believe it or not, there are a ton of Christian terrorist groups.
Let's see:
KKK - (Burned, bombed, decapitated) They claimed it was their god given right. Slave owners did the same
Army of God - (Use deadly force to blow up abortion clinics)
Nagaland for Christ - Terrorist attacks against Indian Army (the largest demacracy in the world)
Tsar Lazar Guard - First uniformed Christian "militia" group. Classified by NATO as a terrorist organization
God's Army -a Christian revolutionary group in armed rebellion against the military government of Burma.
National Liberation Front of Tripura - Ethnic cleansing and bombings
North Ireland Terrorism - Long before arabs started it, the protestants were bombing the catholics
Lord's Resistance Army Lord's Resistance Army - Torture, Rape, use of child soldiers
the list goes on....I remember the October group or something in Greece had a large christian motive against the orthodox church, also that armenian group that bombed several masks in turkey and killed 3 university students (anti islam christians). Chstrian god is the same as islam, and so is there history and modern acts of terrorism. theres a ton in south america, you just don't hear about them becuase u live in a pro-christian country where a recent survey indicated that Gays were hated less than atheists...http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/24/atheists-hated-more-than-gays-muslims-all-other-groups.htm
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Is this AFTER the Muslims came in and killed anyone not Muslim that was a male and then threw out the rest of the families in the street so a "true Muslim" could live in the house? A very good friend of mine got the honor of living in a "public" park for a year while she and her daughter tried to flee to the U.S.A. So, you had tons of "anyone not Muslim" being killed or forced out of their homes, most of which were and are Christians. Some of those Christians united and fought back. Christianity does not promote this and actually con dims this action.
I will say that generally people that hate each other tend to use religion as a motivating factor to get people to rally around their cause and war. I can't speak for Muslims, but Christians, specifically Catholics are opposed to almost any war. The last Pope (John Paul II) who lived through WWII and saw many horrible things even mentioned that it was ok to fight in a war but he had never seen an instance of a time when it was warranted. This coming from a man who saw Hitlers army crush Poland and kill many innocent people. Granted there are many different sects of Christianity and I will concede that almost every religion has their weird splinter groups, but the VAST majority of Christians (and I bet Muslims) do not promote violence in any way. Just the opposite they promote peace, sometimes at the sacrifice of their own lives.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
I did read what you wrote. You said: "Ask most moderate or 'peaceful' Islamists how they feel about the Americans or Danes getting killed, and they'll typically have a look of satisfaction. I'd consider it an overwhelming majority that are not against violence, as long as it's perpetrated against non-muslims."
"they'll typically have a look of satisfaction" - how do you know? Have you had the chance to ask most moderate Muslims? Of course not - there are thousands of them. So you are stating how a lot of people you don't know will definitely react. To my mind, that is equal to speaking for them.
"I consider it an overwhelming majority..." - what gives you the authority to make this judgement? If you said "I imagine it might be an overwhelming majority", you're just expressing your opinion and that's your right. But the way you phrase it, right after a positive assertion that Muslims are satisfied with American/Danish deaths, suggests that you are stating a fact, not a totally unfounded opinion.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
A hate crime has to have SOME criminal element to it. If I say 'Muslims suck', I made a blanket statement, but to even think of elevating it to a crime is absurd. Now, I can run around all day spouting blanket staments, and eventually people will learn that I am acting like a crackpot and have nothing important to say. (Example, Twitter). That is punishment enough.
To start deciding that unpopular content is a crime in itself is the first step in the end of free speech.
I've seen some of the cartoons, I have not seen the film. The cartoons are tasteless, they are not criminal.
You know...for such a 'minority' of muslims....you sure can see a lot of them in the streets of the middle east, cheering suicide bombers, jumping and flaying about, with guns in hand in the streets on the tv.
I see so many of them on tv in various places of the world, behaving in such a manner, I have a hard time believing it is just a few on the 'fringe'. It seems to be pretty prevalent.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
....As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant....
Yes as irrelevant as all the changes to freedom after Sept 11. The terrorists want to take our freedoms. They will institute sharia law wherever they are able to become politically powerful enough to do so. They may not manage to do this here in the US, but even so we all are considerably less free now than we were before Sept 11. For their first big try at terrorizing the US and especially its government, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
All theory is gray
Sharia Law is a "hate crime" against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals. Who's the real "hate criminal" around here?
>north
You're an immobile computer, remember?
My wife was in the Dutch military at the time (not on that mission), and what she heard from her colleagues that actually were on that mission confirms your story. It really was a shitty situation.
Here's a whole load
Make no mistake, the resurgence of *any* religion is the end of progress or people toward freedom. All religion is about control. All religion is about hate. All religion is about making the peasants suffer in quiet while they dream of a better after-life.
Anyone that believes in a "religion" that professes non-sense like heaven or an after-life without any supporting real and verifiable proof is an idiot. Sorry to you believers, but you are fools of the worst kind and your belief or your support of such beliefs supports those who are far more radical than yourselves.
Anyone who gives any money of any kind to a religious based charity is just as guilty as the religious terrorists themselves.
You may say this is harsh, you my think this a troll or intolerance, but anyone who has studied history or current events will be forced to admit that all money spent by religious charities or missionaries, regardless of the stated purpose, is done for the single purpose of expanding the influence of the religion. Conversion by the sword, the destruction of central american cultures by "christian missionaries," the push against science in education, the push of christian doctine into U.S. law, islamist censors, etc.
You are all guilty, so stop whining. Being tolerant of any religious doctrine in the public sector simply invites more abuse of human rights. There's no half way, you either reject religion outright or you become a subject of it.
"Hama Rules" were the only viable response to Muslim terrorism.
When guerillas swim among their supporters like the proverbial fish in the sea, one must dry up the sea. In an era of unconventional war, so-called "war crimes" are actually the proper response. We conveniently forget all the "war crimes" the Allies committed to win WWII, and the post-Nuremburg fetish for imposing laws only on our own side isn't getting us anywhere.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Ridicule of a religious belief or political persuasion is NOT a hate crime. I consider myself an agnostic science-is-religion libertarian - you can make fun of my beliefs all day long, draw cartoons of political leaders I respect or make jokes about those who I consider prophets (Newton, Darwin, etc.). I won't sulk around with hurt feelings or have promptings to harm anyone. Such absolute reverence to an ideology almost always ends in persecution and evil.
Further if you really feel you worship the "right" vision of God and this God is almighty why doesn't this God make a public statement and strike down such provocateurs directly? Why does this God need protection from puny humans.
Seems to me the Truth needs no local support but can stand on its own.
" negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime..."
No, it is mere insult. Insult is not a crime, except under Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.
You are invited to make all the derogatory cartoons of me you like, and of my beliefs (I'm theism-free). It bothers me not.
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition. I will not yield to demands to change our social discourse just because it is not on Islamic (or Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, etc) terms.
Your Prophet can kiss my fat white arse.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You cannot exercise the same free speech rules when it comes to politically agendized Islam. That's called intolerance. Never mind that there's about 30 countries I am barred from entry to, simply by virtue of my religion - that's just 'ethnocultural diversity'. One would think that Holland with its 300 year history of no holds barred, freewheeling liberalism wouldn't cave to a tiny minority of people promising arson and death threats, but I guess this is the new Europe. Next up - burning the collected works of Jonathan Swift.
EVERYTHING is objectionable to someone. You either close down the entire Internet, or none of it. No picking and choosing in-between.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Not to sound offensive,but your speech is exactly the reason why Muslim immigration is seen as a plague by Europeans. Everything is "hate crime" and suddenly we must go to some sort of doublespeak sensitivity training to accomodate that.
"making derogatory cartoons of what's dear to me is NOTHING but hate crime"... this sums it up *perfectly*: anything anyone wants to say that displeases you should be considered hate crime, and as such forbidden. It sounds remarkably as a first step towards state-sanctioned Sharia law.
Maybe this comment is also hate crime? Who knows. What I *know* is that I can say that Jesus liked to dress in drag and had an affair with all of the apostles while smoking a joint and nobody wlil prevent me from saying it, nor will anyone - not even he "equally bad" Christians that are used as some sort of "they did it to!" scapegoat - try to kill me. But the moment I even *draw* a depiction off Mohammed I'm an hateful bastard who must be stoped because I'm infringing someones feelings.
There are places where this sort of behaviour is law. Saudi Arabia, for example. I would recommend to people displeased with my ability to say that Mohammed was a camel-sucking homo to move there.
PS: Just to be democratic, it's also perfectly legal to say that Jupiter likes little boys and Ariadne is a slut. Fine with me.
Nowhere in the Bible is there an exhortation to do such things.
Oh really?
Matthew 10:34-39
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
or Psalm 137:8-9
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Lots more where that came from. If all this is open to interpretation, then so is the Qur'an... or no?
What?
Anonymous cowards don't need much incitement in order to send death threats to others. Religion is a good motivator for them, but hardly the only one. I was discussing instances of actual physical harm, not internet-tough-guy e-mails, or threatening letters. There's a massive difference between the two.
I show intolerance toward a ridiculous belief system which actively seeks to cause harm to others, yes. Just like in WW2 I would have shown intolerance toward Nazis and Shintoists, and just like I'm still intolerant of Marxists and Maoists. While I'm sure there are plenty of nice Nazis, Shintoists, Marxists, Stalinists, and Muslims, there's no escaping the fact that the beliefs which they espouse must either be fought against or submitted to. There's no halfway point. And if you think we should be coddling intolerant ideologists, you need to have your head examined.
Yes, you're a typical google-scholar: research a quote, spit it out in a forum, and pretend that you've just settled a 3,000 year old debate.
FYI, a major problem with Islam is that, in order to deal with discrepancies in the Koran, Muslim "scholars" have decided to asses the accuracy of their scriptures based on the order in which they appear, with the more recent portions superseding the older ones. In other words, if earlier in the history of the Koran it said to live in peace with all "people of the scripture", but then later on it says to "kill all infidels or make them submit", then the later phrase wins out. Unfortunately for everyone involved, it's the earlier portions of the Koran which are the peaceful ones, while the latter portions deal with Mohammed's Jihad against everyone and everything.
I guess you missed the part of my comment where I said I wasn't religious. Big surprise there - you're obviously only seeing what you want to see.
I don't really give a damn what "god" has to say on the subject. If you are unwilling to pass judgement, then you are a fool on whom the gift of a brain was clearly wasted.
Speaking as a Discordian myself, I approve of people of all religions getting their panties in a twist and trying to blow each other to smithereens. It's exciting fun and makes for fantastic television. It would go against my beliefs to take any of these religious websites down. I therefore find it necessary to declare a counter-Fatwah on you! Double double neener neener to you, good sir. And all that.
Onward Christian Soldiers,
Onward Buddhist Priests.
Onward, Fruits of Islam,
Fight till you're deceased.
Fight your little battles,
Join in thickest fray;
For the Greater Glory,
of Dis-cord-i-a.
Yah, yah, yah,
Yah, yah, yah, yah.
Blfffffffffft!
Chaos is everywhere - the Goddess reigns supreme. =)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
It's interesting to see who you are calling 'brown shirts'. Mister Wilders is a lot more than plain 'anti-immigration'. One of the authors of his program is a self-declared follower of Carl Schmitt, the lawyer who doctored legal aspects of Hitler's 'coup' in 1933 in Germany. However, after writing the party-program this Bart-Jan Spruyt left, and later called it a shame that Wilders movement wasn't joined by the likes of Eerdmans (who's vague about any tendency to racism) and Pastoors (who is openly racist). Again later he called Wilders movement 'panic conservatism' and accused them of having a fear-driven natural tendency to fascism. One of Carl Schmitt's central dogma's is that politics needs an all-encompassing enemy. In case of Schmitt that turned out to be Jews, and Wilders has picked Moroccan moslims as his target of choice. I'd say Wilders PVV is as racist as the NSDAP in 1919. His target is different, but his ways are eerily similar.
This demonstrates the problem with allowing private organizations to serve as the gateway to the network. The nets, like the roads, should be a public resource; otherwise, they're going to be filtered by the views and fears of those entities providing access.
This is a perfect example: Network Solutions is in no way the author of, or the sponsor of, this content, but they will filter it because they don't want to be another target of violent factions of Islam or hordes of politically correct, censorship-minded people / investors. So the site is censored. Today it is someone speaking out against superstition and violent social coercion; tomorrow it may be a site against the drug war, or one against the war in Iraq. Or one that speaks out against your local school board. Or one that promotes Catholicism over Protestantism.
Personally, I think access-provider censorship is the kind of behavior the FCC really ought to be watching for, if they were really looking out for us. But of course, they aren't. They're watching out for corporate interests. And of course, Network Solutions is a corporation.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Heh. The thing is, most of us aren't really Christians any more either. Or at least not what it used to mean.
E.g., most people self-proclaimed as Christians think that the Christian thing to do is respect other people's religions, and believe that a nice guy is a nice guy, and will go to heaven anyway. Even the Catholic church nowadays came up with the "Anonymous Christian" doctrine to that effect.
That used to be a major heresy, namely that of Pelagius. Those are (according to at least one interpretation) the "snakes" that St Patrick drove out of Ireland.
So, yes, the Christian thing to do would be to say that if you're a Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or were born on an island somewhere and never even heard of Christ, you're a monster in the eyes of the Lord and will fucking burn in Hell for eternity. Serves you right. Only by Christ can you be saved, and if you never even heard of him, well, tough beans for you.
But when someone goes and says that, pretty much 99% of the "Christians" are revolted.
E.g., most "Christians" nowadays believe that Jesus was the son of God, as in, really, a different person. That was the doctrine of Arius and the early church and Byzantine Empire fought hard to drive _those_ heretics off the continent.
Since I've already mentioned St Patrick, that's what the clover is supposed to symbolize: the three are _one_. It ended up a badge and the symbol of those believing just that, against those who insisted that the 3 are really separate entities.
E.g., tolerating other religions? Heh. That's why the early Christians were thrown to the lions, ya know? The Romans weren't opposed to your worshiping whoever the heck you want, and accommodated a large number of other religions. But they had laws against you telling other people that their gods are false. Well, ok, only the official Roman gods. You can worship this Jesus guy all you want, but don't go upsetting people by telling that Jupiter or Sol Maximus are false gods and they'll burn in hell for worshiping them. You know, because it's not nice, and it makes people upset.
Look at all those martyrs in your religious calendar, and the better half of them got killed for being insensitive arseholes towards other people's religions. We're honouring their memory for... being bigotted, intolerant, insensitive arseholes. Puts it into perspective, IMHO.
E.g., nowadays we think that the old Tridentine Mass was mean and insensitive, because used to call the Jews "faithless" and contain a prayer that they too are converted to Christianity. Excuse me? That's what the other half of the martyrs are honoured for. We _honour_ people for going to various kings and chieftains and telling them just that: your religion is false, your gods don't exist, and you'll freakin' burn in Hell unless you join _our_ religion. You're _supposed_ to think that you must convert everyone else. To save their souls, you see.
Etc.
What am I saying? I guess that most people proclaiming themselves Christians, aren't any more. You may identify yourself as Catholic, or Orthodox, or Protestant, but chances are you're not.
And probably if you wanted to really be one, you'd find that occasionally at odds with being nice and open minded.
And it gets funnier when the easy-going, open-minded, we-can-all-get-along "Christians" berate the others for not being Christian enough. No, chances are they _are_. _You_ aren't. If you were, you'd genuinely believe that God hates Muslims and Jews for being, well, non-Christians, and that he'll roast them alive for eternity for just that. Maybe he didn't explicitly say you should kill them, but, you know, it's only one step to inferring that. And maybe he won't be that happy if you go and help them print their islamic stuff or carry it on your servers.
We had _crusades_ based on that inference, and
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You saw it on TV? Wow, it must be representative of the whole Middle East then.
Network solutions are considering taking down this site, because they take Muslims seriously.
Why do they take Muslims seriously?
Because Muslims are standing up seriously for what they believe. They fight, they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs.
That's the only thing that matters. Your values cost only as much as you are willing to pay to defend them.
Look at our history since Bush took power. He steadfastly stomped out the very rights you are so eager to cry for in every post on YRO.
What did you do? What did you do to deserve your rights? You ancestors who fought against British with arms in hands did deserve their economical freedom.
What did _you_ do to deserve your rights?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
If I wrote a book saying 'kill the Muslims' and outlined specifics on how to do it, that would be a hate crime. I'm clearly inciting violence.
If I draw a cartoon or write a book depicting Muhammad or Jesus or Moses or Buddha as a terrorist, I have not committed a hate crime. I personally wouldn't do something like that, because I don't believe it, but I will defend the right to be able to do it.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right. I will never condone removing that right for something as petty as avoiding insulting someone.
Militant Buddhists have raised a little Hell in Sri Lanka, burning down Christian churches and whatnot, but we don't really hear much about it because it's not white Christians who are dying. Western media does tend to ignore conflicts where the victims aren't lily white. Heck, look at the war coverage in Iraq. Depending on whose numbers you go by, over a hundred Iraqi civilians have died for every American soldier, but who makes the news nine times out of ten? There are, sadly, many more examples in Africa, such as Rwanda. Genocides nearly on the level of the Holocaust go almost completely unreported. But, I digress. My point was that Buddhism can be twisted towards the ends of violence like any other religion, even if it's tenets are somewhat more pacifist. It's the followers that matter, not the religion.
Although Christianity has mellowed out somewhat, it is still used as a tool of intolerance and violence from time to time. The Bible really does contain some rather contemptible passages. The Koran and Torah are no different, since they all come from the same roots. It's strange that religions which share a common root harbor more hatred for each other than for completely alien religions.
Islam, as a religion, is fundamentally no more violent than any other religion out there. At present, however, some of it's followers are. Yes, I did just say that. Jesus can be portrayed as a exhibitionistic homosexual pedophile on prime-time TV (e.g. Family Guy and Stewie's encounter) without too much fuss but, if some Danish cartoonist draws Muhammad, the death threats start flying. This isn't because all Muslims are violent, but rather, because a rather significant subset of them are. In today's society, any organization, religious or otherwise, should be open to public criticism and even satire. Currently, Islam ranks up there with Scientology when it comes to a complete inability to laugh at themselves. That just isn't healthy and needs to change. Those few violent Muslims out there need to learn that they're actually doing Islam a disservice by standing up for it in such disgraceful ways.
As for the West's part, I really don't think we're doing Islam any favors by censoring anti-islam speech. If followers of Islam want to move beyond their current "suspected terrorist" status and find wide acceptance, Muslims *everywhere* have to learn to suck it up and take it when their religion is criticized or satired. If they can show they can shrug off an insult or take a joke then Muslim populations in Western countries might start to find acceptance easier to come by.
Network Solutions has no problem with Hizbollah
http://english.hizbollah.org/index.php
WHOIS:
https://my.mirahost.com/order/viewwhois.php?domain=hizbollah&ext=org
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
What you're saying is if you insult enough people it's a hate crime.
It's not.
No they aren't. If someone kicked the shit out of you for being a muslim, that would be a hate crime.
Again, no, it is not a hate crime. Making unjustified negative statements about a group of people may be morally wrong, but it is not a hate crime.
I suggest you do a little research on the meaning of "freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech must include the right for someone to say something that you find reprehensible, or it means absolutely NOTHING.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Geert Wilders is someone that got this far in politics by feeding on fear and hate.
The man is dangerous and should be ignored, not shut down.
Is anyone tries to shut him up, it will cause publicity.
And we know there's no such thing as bad publicity in politics.
I agree NetSol has very little business in taking down his site, but
I just wish the people would see the man for the windbag he really is.
(a few years ago, we had someone running for government with an agenda slightly like Wilders.
The man got shot (by an 'animal lover', the irony) and they continued the party in his name.
Strangely enough, that empty shell of a party even got into power.
Unfortunately, very few people in that party actually had any knowledge of politics.
Yes, chaos ensued...)
Now, quite some time later, the exact same thing is happening -again-...
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
Islam, which does not tolerate a wide variety of other Free Speech.Shenanigans my good man. The canons of Islam are no more nor less ridiculous than those of any other major religion. Just as Richard Dawkins points out that "Christian morality" cannot possibly come from the bible, "Muslim intolerance" is also a myth.
Which is not to say that there isn't something barbaric going on in the Muslim world. Could it have something to do with the average income of Muslims being about 1/7 of incomes in the west? Could it have something to do with the west often financing those of their leaders that are fascist strongmen like Musharraf, Hussein, the Shah of Iran, and Suharto?
I've deployed to the richest Muslim societies on the planet, and seen the best they can do under the guidance of your oppressive, barbaric, pseudo-Nazi superstition.If you are referring to Saudi Arabia, let's talk about Aramco, through which American money has supported the rule of the House of Saud and the Wahibbist's grip on Saudi society for decades. Dontcha think that would piss some people off, particularly those who live under that regime without profiting?
No, Islam itself is not the problem. It's economics and politics that are the source of this era of Muslim weirdness. This is definitely not a case of we are better than them, it's a case of, boy we are lucky we weren't born in one of those countries.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Censorship is immoral. I have not viewed the film, nor do I plan to view the film; but I will make an effort to find and download this film. Censorship is IMMORAL!!!!!
I will do (nearly) anything to promote ANYTHING (in regards to visual, oral, or verbal representations) in regards to media that ANYBODY finds to be questionable, immoral, illegal, unethical, etc.)
Fight the good fight Slashdotters! Make an effort to download only things that are illegal!
As for suicide bombing, it's totally irrelevant. You're talking about a minority of extremists.
When the extremists regularly kill people, they can get what they want. If moderate voices publicly disagree with them and stand up to them, the extremists can just kill the moderates, can't they?
So the extremists get their way until someone stops them -- presumably by killing them. If no one ever stops them, then ultimately, they simply win.
Killers might be a lot of things. One thing killers aren't is irrelevant.
Yes, the mission was poorly planned and organized, and far outside the capabilities of the DUTCHBAT. But it's not as though they even "did what they could." Many soldiers surrendered their positions and (unfired) weapons to the Serbians when asked and walked back to their base unarmed. Those who didn't abandon their posts stood idly by to watch as civilians were raped, maimed, and murdered (OK, a few had the foresight to make photographs or video recordings, which helped get countries such as the US involved and eventually settle the conflict.) The commander of the Dutch mission had been videotaped enjoying coffee and chitchat with Serbian militia leaders the previous day. None of this gels with the Dutch self-image as a bastion of human rights and respect for international law, however, so no one in the Netherlands likes to talk about it and I'm not surprised that you're so poorly informed.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/3619543/_Wilders_slaat_aanbod_af__.html?p=14,1 in Dutch
http://canadianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/03/wilders-declines-offer-from-muslim.html in English
So apperently the Muslims in the Netherlands are willing to show it if they can see it upfront to make sure it contains no legally libel content.
Nice to see that the Muslims are more willing and open then a US based company when it concerns free speech.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
[i]It must have been terrible being one of these soldiers[/i] It sure must have. Especially the ones who assisted the Serbs in separating the men from the women. And the CO Karremans who exchanged gifts with the Serb CO Mladic, while a mile down the road the genocide was being perpetrated. It must have been terrible for them, terrible. [i]the whole Dutch government resigned[/i] Yeah, about two weeks prior to a scheduled change-of-government. Talk about an empty gesture. I am dutch too and I am deeply ashamed of the cowardly way our military behaved over there. I cannot blame the soldiers, but at least the officers should have shown more of a backbone, or if they thought they were given an impossible order to defend the area they should have resigned before the shit hit the fan.
Christians? The perpetrators grew up in the good old Communist Yugoslavia, where the state religion was Atheism and no career growth was ever possible without it. Who are you calling Christian, a Communist party functioner and then Serbian president Milocevic? Or an army general Mladic thought to order the massacre, who reported to the Communist party during all his career? Or the Scorpions security forces officers, no less loyal to the Communist party?
Killed because they were Muslim? Sorry, no: the Yugoslavian war was territorial, not religious. Even the article that you cite admits that: "a fierce struggle for territorial control... ensued among the three major groups in Bosnia: Bosniak, Serb, and Croat.". And let's not forget that the Serbs were war victims just as much as the Bosnians; both suffered because they lived in a particular area, not because they were going to a particular church.
The last but not the least, using a tragedy as a pretext for flawed thesises like "Christians bad, Muslims good" (replace the confession names any way you wish) is, IMHO, not exactly ethical. More on attempts to capitalize on the Srebrenica events can be found, e.g., in a recent review Using War as an Excuse for More War.
Geert Wilders has visited Israel. He even worked in a moshav. He has met Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, among others, in Israel, both of whom had a positive view of him. Wilders even planned to move to Israel once. He seems to be quite sincerely pro-Israel. So it's not as simple a you say.
As a dutch colored guy, I would be assumed to not be a fan of Wilders (the guy that made said movie that no one has seen yet)... and that's true, in fact, if I didn't have half a brain, I'd probably go out and punch that guy as hard as I can in the face because he's advocating seperation and instead of working together, advocates hate and stigmatizing all people that aren't white as criminals.
But I don't... I severely despise everything he stands for, yet I will fight for his right to say so. Even if the movie is offensive and inflamatory (and no one has seen it yet), I think if we ban this or any other speech, it's not just bad for "free speech" but mostly, a threat to an open society. I think his kind would never have gained the support if we would all allow him to say whatever stupid things he wants. When it's not allowed to talk about it, all good reasons against it aren't heard either. I say, let's view his inflamotory, hatefull movie and laugh about / discuss it.
That said... I really fear what will happen to him, cos we can't really expect a guy that's so full of **** and so much in the public spotlight to *not* get some crazy muslim to kill him... I mean, I hope it doesn't happen and just degrades to another "Jan Maat", but if he does get killed (and he's really working hard to make that a reality) his views will only be adopted even more... and he will have gained more support in death than he ever could in life...
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
Islamophobia is no different than anti-Semitism and if anti-Semitism is hate crime, so is Islamophobia.
Great. Anti-Semitism is not a crime. I can hate all the Jews I want because they are Jewish and I've committed no crime. So you are asserting that Islamophobia is also not a crime. I agree. There is no crime in hating you for your religion. There is no crime in insulting you because of your religion. There is no crime in making fun of your religion and your religious figures. There is no crime in any of that, so you agree that it shouldn't be prevent for anyone to do that to any religion, including yours. That's the core of the Freedom of Speech, to say that which everyone hates and thinks is wrong.
Making negative blanket statements about 1.2 billion VERY VERY diverse Muslims on Earth is also hate crime...
That makes you a terrorist. You want to make a crime my ability to speak my mind. I hate you. Not because you are Muslim. Not because you are a radical (and you are, despite your claims, or you wouldn't want to make it illegal for people to speak their minds about any subject). I hate you because you are claiming to be renouncing violence, yet stating that you want the State to enforce, through violence (the only way to enforce a law, including those against "hate crimes") when you are unable or unwilling to use violence yourself. Not only are you a spineless coward, but you are a hypocritical spineless coward. Oh, and please note, I didn't insult your religion. Whatever religion you had or didn't have is irrelevant to your condemnation of violence, followed by your support thereof. It is the ignorant hypocricy that I hate, and anyone that displays it with such vigor in a public forum is worthy of my disdain.
Learn to love Alaska
Really... it takes some seriously pathological disingenousness to compare that single incident to the hundreds of incidences of Islam-approved-and-sponsored suicide bombings.
To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation, which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Mohammed, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. What does being modified have to do with it? Even without being modified, the Koran is (like the bible) self-contradictory. Read it some time.
"Jihad" is a word which, like many words, can have multiple meanings. I could explain this to you in my own words, but Mr. Sookhdeo did an excellent job of addressing this fallacy, so I'll let him speak:
Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed's own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da'wa (mission).
Muslims base all of their morality on the behaviour and commandments of Mohammed. His words and actions play a much bigger part in their belief system than any other words in the Koran. So, considering his conduct, is it any wonder that the majority of Muslims interpret the primary meaning of "Jihad" to be violent warfare?
O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard
More important than the words, though, is the accepted interpretation in the Islamic world. It is a well established fact that Muslim nations punish Apostasy with death. It is also evident, from numerous examples in the real world, that wherever Muslim's are in the majority, they force Islamic religious rules on everyone, regardless of religion (or lack thereof). Finally, it's been established through numerous polls that even the majority of Muslims in western nations feel that Islamic law takes precedence over the laws of their host nations. That's a hell of a frightening pattern.
If you run into a Lion in the middle of the plains, you have two options: be afraid and try to protect yourself, or be friendly and try to shake his hand. Regaurdless of whether the lion is hungry right now, only one of those responses is logical.
Ah, I see the problem here: you're quite literally retarded. I'm sorry. I hope you lead a full and happy life, despite your handicap.
Nuts to them. If you can only insult 1/6 of the world population at once you're not even trying.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
That was not my interpretation of the cartoon at all. Perhaps it was the author's interpretation and intention. I don't know. But perhaps not and I am personally inclined to think not. Any writing or work of art is necessarily interpreted by the reader or viewer often times in ways the author did not even consider.
My thought upon seeing the cartoon was not that it was intended to depict Muhammad as a suicide bomber but to show that many Muslims must think of him as one since they justify their suicide bombings in His name. In other words, the cartoon is not intended to show the author's thoughts about Muhammed but to show what the author thinks radical Muslims must be thinking about Muhammed.
Consider an equivalent work of art for Christianity: The Piss Christ. At first glance it is disgusting that my religion's most important prophet, the one we consider to be no ordinary prophet but actually god in the flesh, is depicted defiled in a jar of urine. But the artist succeeded in making a very profound statement with the work, namely that the actions of some christians are tantamount to pissing on the image of Christ. Was this the artist's intention? I don't know. To me it seems the guy just likes vulgarity for the sake of vulgarity and he may not have had any deeper meaning for it other than wanting to take a picture of a jar of urine and call it art. That said, I am not alone in interpreting the work as a statement not against Christ but instead against those who would use his name to justify their bad actions.
There was, inevitably, a huge media uproar regarding this work of art. But no bombs went off. No cars or houses were burned. No one fired off rockets. No one threatened the artist's life and if someone had he would have been arrested. In fact, the biggest uproar and the real meat of the story was not so much that the artist created it. After all, we live in a free society and this artist's speech is protected by the first amendment. No, the meat of the story was that this artist was actually paid by the U.S. government to create it! Some argue that because of "separation of church and state" the government has violated that very same amendment by producing (or rather paying to produce) this work.
I would not be one of them though. Our constitution, in the first amendment, does not say "separation of church and state" as many like to claim it does. What it does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and continues "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." To me the text is quite clear and quite specific. It's actually the latter half of the first part that applies in this case: "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The artist can very easily claim that he is exercising his religion by creating this work and thus congress can do nothing to prohibit it.
In the end nothing was done and some number of people have used it as a starting point for philosophical thought. Those who view the Piss Christ purely as an example of anti-Christian hate do so to their own detriment. Likewise those who view the Muhammad cartoon as an example of anti-Muslim hate do so to their own detriment. Think about it.
God be with you.
I think anybody should be free to practice whatever religion they like, as long as they don't harm anybody else or infringe on anybody else's right. But we cannot let Muslim fundamentalists attempt to dictate what can and cannot be said about Islam. To me, there is nothing holy about Mohammed or the Koran, and I have the right to pick it apart and criticize it any way I want to, even if it is offensive to Muslim.
What's ironic about the Muslim position is that Muslims say incredibly offensive and blasphemous things day after day. For example, Muslims deny that Jesus is the son of God and died for the sins of humanity; it is difficult to imagine something more blasphemous and offensive to say to a Christian. Let's not even talk about all the flag and effigy burning, and all the vitriol, these people are heaping on the West.
Muslims have gotten used to living in countries where their own religion dominates all public life and all speech. We cannot allow their censorship and attitudes to spread to the rest of the world. The ability to criticize and offend other religions is an integral part of free speech and religious freedom.
As more and more information is popping up. It is even worse.
A dutch critical research news program (Noorderlicht from the VPRO)
is still trying to get all secrets uncovered
What has popped up till now is that 3 major powers from NATO blocked all actions.
(read US, France and england)
This is information the minister of defense has released in the program.
This is information the dutch secret service has uncovered afterwards
The major forces in NATO actually wanted the serbs to take the enclaves, this as they were impossible to maintain.
They hoped that after people would have been relocated all would calm down.
They would take a certain number of deaths as acceptable.
How wrong they were.
When the slaughter started it was too late to stop it.
This is also the reason why Mladic is still not arrested.
They have had many opportunities, especially the French.
But there actions have or being blocked or Mladic was informed ahead.
There are radio recordings of it.
The problem is, Mladic knows too much
information that is not allowed to be going public.
My opinion, They (US/Englnad) made a deal with Mladic.
He took the enclaves, but he did not have his military/militia under control.
But I can be wrong.
I wonder if it was planned by Mladic.
It is just a very sad episode of history.
And maybe one day the truth will come out.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
Reasonable? Apparently you already have made up your mind that it will be an '[...] inflamatory, hatefull [sic] movie', whereas you even state no one has seen it yet. So it is a bit hypocritical to say such a thing. And the fact that you are afraid that 'some crazy muslim [will] kill him' already points out a problem with said group when it comes to accepting critique.
I am Dutch too and despite not agreeing with everything this guy says, I have also been delving into religion and mythology long enough and experience enough in the Middle East personally to know he makes very valid points.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
I don't know if you're posting this excerpt in support of their actions, or merely providing interesting information. But I'll make some comments on the quoted paragraphs.
Whilst I empathise with their desire to disassociate themselves from the beliefs of this politician, their statement that they are "against censorship" is not compatible with their activities of spreading disinformation and drowning out of the original message.It's only bias and double standards that allow them to think they are not trying to censor the original movie. Their defence against that charge, if you look at it logically, is merely that they aren't completely successful in censoring the movie, not that they aren't trying to do so! And whether or not they are successful is a point of debate. After all, I tried to download what I was told was the movie, to find that it was an archive of pirated music. I personally avoid pirating music as I don't agree with it and now I find myself torrenting the bloody stuff. You can imagine that I resent being lied to.
If these groups wish to counter the message of the film, then they should produce a commentary to the film that addresses the points within it. If they can do this, then they will more successfully undermine the politician's beliefs and convince people of their case. If they can't do this, then they do not have an argument against what he says. Preventing people from seeing the film by whatever method is still censorship. Do I need to expand on what is wrong with that?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
"Lot's of Dutch folks are very upset about the young firebrand politician Wilders, and wish he'd go shut up and go away. So, they are planning a googlebomb, to in the hopes of undermining the exposure the film Fitna receives."
Just because of this, I will now watch the movie, even though I had no plans to previously.
I wish people trying to censor other people would shut up and go away.
There's a slight chance the film will not be inflammatory and hateful (quit the ad hominem sic please, we're all Dutch here.) There is very little chance that certain religious groups will not be offended at all.
I think the GP deftly avoided the blanket statement you fell for: "certain groups." Just like with Theo van Gogh (for the rest of the world: a cinematographer who made a short film about women's rights under the Koran and was killed by a crazy Muslim) there will be crazy folks with an axe to grind.
About the validity of Wilders' points, I'm sure we can find good sides to every person. I also think that the Netherlands as a nation is worse off with this clown in our parliament. The man is one-issue (rest of the world: the issue being "there are too many foreigners in the Netherlands.") He's trying to instill fear in the Dutch people, fear of the Islam and of foreigners in general. There's a word for it: xenophobia. In a multi cultural society like ours, xenophobia is a bad thing.
In this Saturday's Volkskrant, there was a large piece about all kinds of Islamic groups in the Netherlands, like the LBM (Landelijk Beraad Marokkanen / National Morocan Society) actually and actively defending the Dutch government and society by sending messages to Islamic "hot zones" explaining our stance in the matter, telling them how well integrated they are, how many mosques there are in the Netherlands, etc. The piece is titled "We're not Denmark," an unfortunate title for a text that communicates openness, referring to the Mohammed cartoons.)
Of note is the anti-movement on Youtube: people posting short films saying sorry, titled "Fitna by Geert Wilders", in the hope that a search for the film will yield only apologies.
As a white Dutch guy, I'm proud of our multi cultural roots, and our multi cultural society. If Wilders wants to make "valid points" he is free to do so but not as part of our parliament. I think it's very unfortunate that he's getting so much attention, especially from abroad. People tend to think that he represents all of Holland, which is very far from the truth. This is not good advertisement for our nation.
To the muslim invasion. Once again, we can stop people from insulting muslims, but let fly the attack web sites on Christanity. It's insane.
Again I urge any of you that are currently buying into this 'peaceful' religion BS to do some research.
Unlike Christanity, where the ten commandments apply to dealings with everyone, Islam's versions of the commandments only apply when dealing with other Muslims. Think I'm lying? Good. Don't trust me. Don't trust the muslims. Go read it for yourself. It's there in black and white in the Koran.
EK
I know that my country holland was one of the most liberal countries in the world and proud of amsterdam being the gay capital.
Now dutch teachers are afraid to discuss homosexuality in class because muslim kids take offence, violently.
Teachers are afraid to teach about the holocaust because of the reaction from muslim kids.
Islam is tearing this country apart because for far too long everyone has tried to cover up any problems. The really bad part is that if this had been dealt with from the beginning their wouldn't be a problem, but now an entire generation of muslim kids has grown up who think they got the right as a minority to dictate how the country should be run.
Make no mistake, some muslims want to introduce Sharia law into this country and are deadly serious about this.
The problem is not the religion itself, we got other extremists here, but the fact that nobody dares to stand up to it.
There is a small religious party that does not allow women to be elected. They are condemned, but when a muslim group suggests that it should be okay to marry at 14, all the powers that be shit their collective pants for fear of offending.
Wilders and others are the voice of the people who are sick to death of this cowardly behavuour and no longer want the problems ignored.
The sad fact is that muslims extremists simply aren't dealt with the same as other extremists and this had led to problems. Take the riots in france, now says that catholics had done the rioting, would the world have been nearly as apologetic? What if it had been blacks? No.
Wilders says a lot of things, but mostly people hear someone who finally is showing a backbone. Don't think Wilders is alone, the socialist SP is riding on the same wave of resentment against how the mainstream has been doing business.
the current goverment only exist because Pim Fortuyn got killed. If he had lived he might well have had the largest party. Wilders is a lot more extreme and people know this, but they hope that he will force the major parties to finally do something and not just bury their heads in the sand.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What is ridiculous is that it isn't the film that people are concerned about - it is the reaction of some section of the Muslim community.
I live in the US - we have tons of nutty, racist or homophobic groups running around. Some make news, but never on this scale. Why not? Because whatever negative things may be said about 'Americans' one thing we as a nation do reasonably well (not perfectly, but reasonably) is let asshats speak. Then we ignore them, and they generally fade into the woodwork. A Few examples:
- Nation of Islam. Hasn't gotten much bigger over the last 40 years, despite all the hoopla when Louis Farrakhan calls whites 'Blue eyed devils' or such from time to time.
- A tiny church in rural Arkansas (I believe) that pickets the funerals of dead servicemembers because they believe god is allowing US soldiers to die because America tolerates Gays and Lesbians. No kidding. Point and laugh, they get media attention, but no one takes them seriously, except as a bunch of asshats.
The big deal here is not some (alleged) wingnut politician and a 15-minute film - it is the anticipation of a few million oversensitized Muslims (note: I am not saying *all* muslims are oversensitised, I am saying some are) rioting and killing each other and a few innocent bystanders in reaction to a film that in the grand scheme of things makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. Oh, except the people who get mauled by the rioters.
Freedom of speech is about being able to speak your mind without fear of censorship or 'undue' consequence - i.e., being murdered for said speech. I submit a part and parcel of that freedom is the freedom to ignore anothers' freely-made speech, or respond with your own. To those Muslims who may be offended by this film (which no one has as yet seen):
1. Make your own film. Blaspheme Christianity, Judaism, Atheism, etc. as you see fit. Watch as the rest of the world refrains from rioting and killing people over it.
2. Prepare a point-for-point rebuttal of the films' key themes and arguments once you see it. Upload the rebuttal to Youtube. Observe how people will listen to you and consider what you have said.
3. Ignore this film when it is released. See how fast is falls off the memetic map.
In the US, unlike Europe, speech that is controversial or even factually wrong is allowed, unless it is actually defamatory toward a person. You can't say someone is a prositute unless you can back it up with proof, but you may publicly deny the holocaust here all you like, in print and in person. The US also has more Jews than Israel. You might expect then that such denial would be a big deal, right? Wrong. The only media coverage of holocaust denial we really see here is when some idiot who writes a book on it goes to Germany and gets arrested for holocaust denial, or an occasional overwrought member of B'Nai Brith crying in the media about antisemitism and pointing to three pointy-headed rednecks in rural Nebraska who have a pro-Nazi website set up, thus gaining the neo-nazis more media attantion than they ever would have received had BB never said anything about them at all.
I'll go out on a limb and further state that despite the fact that we have a frightening number of 'new Earth' creationists here and American secondary education is terrible, asshats who deny the holocaust are vanishingly few and of no importance in the American media environment. Yes, you can tell the 'big lie' over and over, but it only sticks if you can make it stick by removing competing messages. In a truly free-speech environment, lies can't survive over the long-term or gain real traction because more people are concerned with truth than with lying (we can debate exactly what proportion, but it only takes >50% for truth to eventually win).
Take the 'free speech' lesson from us, oh enraged Muslim masses. It is far more effective to say 'Eh. She/he is an asshat. Ignore them.' The Asshats will go away, and pretty quickly at that. Paying attention to them, though, will make them breed like roaches. Or trolls.
Free speech should not be undermined just because some religious people are overly sensitive to any criticism to their beliefs. All beliefs must be subject to questioning - especially those held close to the heart. Stiffling free speech is the beginning of the downfall of any society. No religion (Islam, Christinality, Judaism) is above criticism and the pursuit of truth. If their religion has merit, then there should be nothing to fear.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I am consistently amazed by the rights that people, particularly Americans since this is where I reside, think they have. It used to amuse me. Then it saddened me. Now it frightens me to see the "false rights" that people want defended. They include, but certainly are not limited to:
;-)
1. Freedom from being offended.
- I've actually heard people who think that offending a person audibly is equally punishable as assaulting a person physically. When I tried to argue this idea, they kept yelling "It's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's the same F---ing thing."
2. Freedom _from_, not _of_, religion.
- It's arguable (as are all things regarding religion http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion#Usage_notes ), but everyone has a religion. (Religion as in a person's believe _regarding_, not necessarily in, deities.) So, just because you are an atheist, you don't have a right to total isolation from religion. Although I sympathize at how annoyed you must be.
3. Constitutional right to vote.
- This was even spoke of recently by Barack Obama. I'm disturbed to see how many people think the U.S. Constitution affords them a right to vote. The truth is, the Federal Government only restricts the criteria that can be used for denying a person the privilege of voting. Your state's constitution may protect additional rights, but that is rarely ever spoken of. I think that it would increase voter turn out if we properly described voting as a privilege instead of a right.
4. The right to drive an automobile.
- This is certainly a privilege, not a right. It is also a privilege that is too freely granted, and too infrequently denied or revoked.
Please feel free to contribute to the list. I guess you have the _right_ to argue with it too, but why would you want to?
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the
Meanwhile, most radical islamic web sites, which explicity call for the murder of innocent civilians, continue to be hosted in the United States by other Web hosts.
[source]
And they're the only "fanatics"?
I'd consider the entirety of folks in Pajamas Media(LGF, Malkin, etc.) fanatics of an equal degree for them not even documenting much if anything towards peace. They foam at the mouth when things like this happen. The universal opinion with their walled garden is that they are not fanatics, yet foam just the same.
* Someone on Digg threatens their small (unseen) corner? Attack!
* Someone wishes to show that there are peaceful people in Gaza that would rather be uninvolved? Demonize!
* Someone points out that they're paying for oil that comes from Saudi Arabia, pointing their policy on Israel? I'm not sure, but my guess is (short of a prepared talking point in their possession) is that they'll look towards their cooperation towards the US.
* Someone amongst them misfires, and quits in shame? Attack those calling it victory!
* Someone states that they're a "one opinion" community and that restriction of opinion is good? Demonize them as a Kossack(even if they aren't)!
But that wouldn't make for good news if they showed the lives of the peaceful among the claimed fanatics. Nor would it be news to show that both protect their own communities in their own form. Digg does it by keeping them in their own corner, DKos for banning, both on open terms(to name a couple of the groups attacked).
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.