Post by: Bigjake on March 23, 2008, 10:44:42 AM
FOXNews.com
U.S. Web Host Pulls Dutch Lawmaker's Site Promoting Anti-Islam Film
Sunday , March 23, 2008
FC1
ADVERTISEMENT
A northern Virginia-based Internet host provider has suspended the Web site set up by a Dutch politician to promote his new film critical of Islam, after a spate of complaints and fears of a possible backlash, the French news service Agence France Presse reported.
Network Solutions pulled Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders' page Sunday while it reviewed whether its contents conformed to company policy forbidding offensive material, according to the report.
Over the past few weeks, angry mobs in Pakistan and Afghanistan have demonstrated against the film, which they say is as an insult to Islam.
Dutch lawmakers had urged Wilders to drop the project, fearing a repeat of the kind of protests seen worldwide following the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed protests which led to tightened security at embassies across the Muslim world.
Network Solutions said it took Wilder's site offline due to technical reasons including "excessive use of services which shall impair the fair use of other Network Solutions customers", the report stated.
The far-right lawmaker planned to make the 15-minute film available to viewers over the Internet after failing to find a distributor. Although Wilders' Web site is offline, he said Sunday that he still wants to put out the movie "on the Internet quickly," though he did not specify how, AFP reported.
Wilders told FOX News in January that he believed Western culture was better off than the "retarded" Islamic culture. He also likened the Koran to Adolf Hilter's book, 'Mein Kampf.'
Just in time too! We wouldn't want to offend those mythical "radical" Muslims.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 23, 2008, 10:45:55 AM
Lots of people will see it, don't worry.
I should also note, it's not an "anti-Islam" film, it's an anti-extreme-Islamist film. The film-maker had good reason to make it, what with Theo Van Gogh's assassination and all.
If you want to watch it, there will be plenty of places. If you don't, you don't have to look for it. But people will watch it and go jihad anyway, not understanding "free speech".
I just don't want to hear anyone saying they went and looked for it, watched it, and got offended. Nobody held their eyelids open and forced them to watch it.
Post by: S. Williamson on March 23, 2008, 12:05:36 PM
Post by: The Viking on March 23, 2008, 01:45:22 PM
... speaking of which, whatever happened to Anonymous vs. Scientology?
Anonymous commited suicide. Shot himself in the head. 18 times. With a revolver. Move along people, nothing to see here...
Post by: Tecumseh on March 23, 2008, 07:46:11 PM
The nice thing about the Web is that videos and other content are viral. The more someone tries to suppress something, the wider the distribution. Censors can only play a losing game of whack-a-mole.
Lots of people will see it, don't worry.
I should also note, it's not an "anti-Islam" film, it's an anti-extreme-Islamist film. The film-maker had good reason to make it, what with Theo Van Gogh's assassination and all.
If you want to watch it, there will be plenty of places. If you don't, you don't have to look for it. But people will watch it and go jihad anyway, not understanding "free speech".
I just don't want to hear anyone saying they went and looked for it, watched it, and got offended. Nobody held their eyelids open and forced them to watch it.
Exactly. And the idiots that are angry that someone pulled it should realize that they dont have to have it on their website if they dont want to.
Lots of people will see it, don't worry.
I should also note, it's not an "anti-Islam" film, it's an anti-extreme-Islamist film. The film-maker had good reason to make it, what with Theo Van Gogh's assassination and all.
If you want to watch it, there will be plenty of places. If you don't, you don't have to look for it. But people will watch it and go jihad anyway, not understanding "free speech".
I just don't want to hear anyone saying they went and looked for it, watched it, and got offended. Nobody held their eyelids open and forced them to watch it.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 24, 2008, 08:34:13 AM
But look who they DO register and have been for some time?
http://whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=hizbollah&tld=org
Domain ID:D849804-LROR
Domain Name:HIZBOLLAH.ORG
Created On:06-Feb-1998 05:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:07-Dec-2006 06:17:10 UTC
Expiration Date:05-Feb-2009 05:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:20739530-NSIV
Registrant Name:NO FIRST NAME NO LAST NAME
Registrant Organization:Hizbollah
Registrant Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Registrant Street2:care of Network Solutions
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Herndon
Registrant State/Province:VA
Registrant Postal Code:20172
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.570708878
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:q75sv55u4aw@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Admin ID:16826304-NSIV
Admin Name:Hussein Beydoun
Admin Organization:Hadeelnet
Admin Street1:ATTN insert domain name here
Admin Street2:care of Network Solutions
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Herndon
Admin State/Province:VA
Admin Postal Code:20172
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.570708878
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:x97ex6ej4wg@networksolutionsprivateregistration.com
Tech ID:5358805-NSI
Tech Name:Network Solutions, LLC.
Tech Organization:Network Solutions, LLC.
Tech Street1:13200 Woodland Park Drive
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Herndon
Tech State/Province:VA
Tech Postal Code:20171-3025
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.188864296
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.5714344620
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:customerservice@networksolutions.com
Name Server:NS81.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server:NS82.WORLDNIC.COM
Post by: K Frame on March 24, 2008, 08:46:55 AM
Post by: Nitrogen on March 26, 2008, 03:10:58 PM
Due to their charter to manage the root zones, they would have a hard time pulling a domain name people had a problem with. Or, they should have a problem with it. Network Solutions's has more of a problem with people registering copywrited names than domain names that point to inflammatory contect.
Now, network solutions is also a webhost. Their webhosting arm has a pretty locked down TOS; and that's what I'm guessing was suspended.
Pulling a website of the wire is easy and sometimes prudent; as a very "inflammatory" website like that can incite attacks against the infrastructure that the company might not be technically adept to handle.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 26, 2008, 10:44:50 PM
Quote
Wilders told FOX News in January that he believed Western culture was better off than the "retarded" Islamic culture. He also likened the Koran to Adolf Hilter's book, 'Mein Kampf.'
That sounds to me he's more anti-Islam than anti-"radical" Islam. But one must see the film.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 07:04:59 AM
It just shows how verses have been used. First the verse, some horrifying speeches by radical imams in their own words, on video, and the results...9/11, Madrid, with the cellphone calls of terrified victims.
And more speeches, more calls for violence, for slaying unbelievers, literal calls for blood, for "roasting flesh"...from one radical imam after another. Filmed, on shows on Saudi television, many times.
People falling from a tower. Gays on nooses before a crowd. Women being stoned. The screams of Nick Berg. Angry-eyed people doing terrible acts knowingly, killing with their own hands, with a blade to an innocent man's neck, while crying "allah akbar". A man calmly saying that Islam is the best religion, and that any who leave it must be put to death. You can see in his eyes that he believes that to the core of his soul. All to slow, sad music.
Then more calls, for Islam to dominate the world, to take over America, to do away with democracy, which they claim is un-Islamic. Their version of Islam. Their perverted, blood-soaked, burning-bodies death-cult they say is "Islam". And they're spreading, with that twisted version of it.
The question is...why are moderate Muslims allowing this to happen to their religion?
THEY are the ones who should be watching the film, and saying "No, that is not what we want Islam to be", and doing something about it.
It's a very, very powerful 15 minutes. Some scenes are very hard to take.
Post by: roo_ster on March 28, 2008, 11:33:24 AM
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The film makers pretty much just let the "radicals" speak for themselves.
Post by: johnster999 on March 28, 2008, 11:44:24 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The film makers pretty much just let the "radicals" speak for themselves.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The film makers pretty much just let the "radicals" speak for themselves.
Already taken down due to threats. Too bad.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 11:56:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The film makers pretty much just let the "radicals" speak for themselves.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The film makers pretty much just let the "radicals" speak for themselves.
Already taken down due to threats. Too bad.
Well, that's ironic. BTW, the watched count on liveleak was way over 2 million before they pulled it. And yes, LiveLeak says that their staff has received serious threats. Once again, the radicals prove they're not violent by threatening violence over a film that shows them doing violent stuff.
Thing is, it didn't say anything. It let acts speak for themselves. And yet people are being offended by someone showing the acts, not by the deplorable, heinous, inhuman acts themselves.
Says a lot, I think. If the people so busy being offended instead directed their ire at the people committing those acts, there would not be a reason for that film to exist, because those acts would not have happened.
Post by: johnster999 on March 28, 2008, 11:59:30 AM
http://www.liveprayer.com/fitna.cfm
I know nothing about the host site or it's content.
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 28, 2008, 12:07:04 PM
Here is the link:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The film makers pretty much just let the "radicals" speak for themselves.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
The film makers pretty much just let the "radicals" speak for themselves.
Already taken down due to threats. Too bad.
It's up as of 2:00 pm Pacific time. It is preceded by a warning page due to its "mature" content.
-Jack
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 12:14:50 PM
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5319286232991263415&q=fitna+english&total=83&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
"Can't stop the signal..."
But no, it's no longer up on LiveLeak. This is the official statement from their management:
Quote
Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.
Who in the British press did what now?
And the price was too high... That just makes me sad, angry, a whole lot of things.
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 28, 2008, 12:40:12 PM
But no, it's no longer up on LiveLeak.
Hmmm, perhaps I was watching a cached copy without realizing it. Drat.
Quote
And the price was too high... That just makes me sad, angry, a whole lot of things.
Indeed. We'll see how long it lasts on Google.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 28, 2008, 12:45:44 PM
Post by: Angel Eyes on March 28, 2008, 02:36:38 PM
It's up on Youtube as well.
And BitTorrent.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 04:18:15 PM
Methinks that "free speech" is code for "I approve of the message" in this case.
If anyone were to post anti-semitic garbage videos regularly in the name of "defending free speech against oppressive European laws that ban this and jail people for speaking their minds!", I think we would all recognize that sham explanation for what it was.
This isn't about free speech-this is about spreading hatred towards Muslims.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 05:40:50 PM
Quote
This isn't about free speech-this is about spreading hatred towards Muslims.
Did you actually watch it ?? It's not a forgery like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Or the Blood Libel. Are you saying that all the footage is Photoshop'd ?? The words/quotes are not real ??
I have no problem with Islam. As long as it leaves me the hell alone. But Radical Islam (aka Convert or Die) must be stopped.
And if the members of that community do/say nothing to stop it, then it must be stopped from without.
I will not be a dhimmi nor will my children live under dhimmitude.
So SiS quit bicthin' at us, and go yell at/get your co-religionists to knock-it-the-hell-off.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 08:28:29 PM
It's a bit weird-this is the same thing as a grossly anti-semitic film. Yet when those come out, no one rushes to air them in the name of "free speech."
Methinks that "free speech" is code for "I approve of the message" in this case.
If anyone were to post anti-semitic garbage videos regularly in the name of "defending free speech against oppressive European laws that ban this and jail people for speaking their minds!", I think we would all recognize that sham explanation for what it was.
This isn't about free speech-this is about spreading hatred towards Muslims.
Methinks that "free speech" is code for "I approve of the message" in this case.
If anyone were to post anti-semitic garbage videos regularly in the name of "defending free speech against oppressive European laws that ban this and jail people for speaking their minds!", I think we would all recognize that sham explanation for what it was.
This isn't about free speech-this is about spreading hatred towards Muslims.
Did you even WATCH it?
DID. YOU. WATCH. IT?
If not, then shut the hell up.
If you spent ONE percent of the effort you spend being offended at showing the violence...if you spent that one percent FIGHTING the insane violence done in your religion's name, the film would not exist!
Because there would be no source material! The film is nothing but video, recent video, of recent radical Muslims' hateful speeches before crowds, calling for death and destruction of non-Muslims, and the actual death and destruction that came about. And, ironically, the same radicals who perpetrated that violence have now threatened violence upon those who dare show it.
There IS a problem. Yes, there's over a billion Muslims. Most of them are peaceful. But at least one million of those believe in a perversion of it that's a death-cult. That number is spiraling upwards every single day, and will, if unchecked, consume the whole as a united front. Because, to be blunt, the larger whole is sitting on its behind being offended instead of putting out the wildfire. Your religion is being consumed from within by a virulent, blood-soaked hate that wants to change the whole thing from a religion of peace to a joyless religion of war and horrible, evil acts. And you don't want to see it. You want to be offended at people who point that out.
This film was, more than anything else, a wake-up call to peaceful Muslims showing what is being done in their name. Watch it, or shut up.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:25:34 PM
Do you watch every anti-semitic film that circulates the net just to confirm to yourself that it's actually anti-semitic trash?
The produce is a frothing at the mouth Muslim hater. He is no different than the people who spout garbage about Jews and Judaism.
And of course, as I predicted, this isn't about free speech. You agree with his views and his agenda, which is why you are reposting this Muslim-hating propaganda.
So why all the window dressing of "free speech", when that's not really the reason you are spreading this material?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 09:27:19 PM
Shut up. I'm sick of your excuses. Watch it, just watch it, or you have nothing to whine about.
Why aren't you HALF as offended at things like Nick Berg getting his head sawed off by people chanting "allah akbar", which was done IN YOUR NAME?
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:28:18 PM
Quote
This isn't about free speech-this is about spreading hatred towards Muslims.
Did you actually watch it ?? It's not a forgery like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Or the Blood Libel. Are you saying that all the footage is Photoshop'd ?? The words/quotes are not real ??
I have no problem with Islam. As long as it leaves me the hell alone. But Radical Islam (aka Convert or Die) must be stopped.
And if the members of that community do/say nothing to stop it, then it must be stopped from without.
I will not be a dhimmi nor will my children live under dhimmitude.
So SiS quit bicthin' at us, and go yell at/get your co-religionists to knock-it-the-hell-off.
I hate to break it to you, but holocaust denial and "zionist conspiracy" films rarely use "faked" footage as well. Real life footage does not a reasonable film or point make.
The very fact that you are talking about being a "dhimmi" illustrates just how distorted and bizarre these films and propaganda pieces are. Who is out there claiming, much less even remotely coming close to achieving, to want to make "dhimmi" out of the world? I have no idea where that claim comes from-certainly not from the terrorists, who rarely have anything to say about the religious status of their victims (most of their victims are Muslim anyway, but hey....facts don't matter when you've got propaganda, right?).
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 09:28:45 PM
DID
YOU
WATCH
THE
MOVIE
??
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:30:43 PM
You didn't watch it, SS.
Shut up. I'm sick of your excuses.
Why aren't you HALF as offended at things like Nick Berg getting his head sawed off by people chanting "allah akbar", which was done IN YOUR NAME?
Shut up. I'm sick of your excuses.
Why aren't you HALF as offended at things like Nick Berg getting his head sawed off by people chanting "allah akbar", which was done IN YOUR NAME?
Why aren't you as offended by hatred spewed towards Muslims as you are at hatred spewed towards other religions?
I am deeply repulsed at murder. But what's happening on this thread isn't murder-what's happening here is the reproduction of Muslim hating propaganda.
That's why I'm saying something about Muslim hating propaganda. Your attempt to turn this into a thread about Nick Berg, when it clearly has nothing to do with his killing, only illustrates that you are refusing to own up to your own actions.
If you're upset about murders, you should target the murderers. Reproducing hate speech against Muslims does not one thing about the killing of innocent people; it just reproduces hate speech, period. No amount of pointing the finger at murderers will change the fact that this is what you are doing.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 09:31:43 PM
He covers his ears and goes "LA LA LA" when we say that there is no propaganda, only video of radicals chanting for violence before crowds, and the results of those calls to violence, with the cries of the victims.
THERE IS NO FREAKING PROPAGANDA. The film-maker let the radicals show themselves! That's all!
Again.
THERE IS NO HATE SPEECH in the film, except for that coming out of the mouths of the radical imams! NONE!
Keep denying. You're making yourself look like an enabling fool, SS. Nothing more.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:32:03 PM
SiS,
DID
YOU
WATCH
THE
MOVIE
??
DID
YOU
WATCH
THE
MOVIE
??
No-and I didn't read any of David Irving's books either, because I knew who David Irving was.
Do you refuse to condemn anti-semitic propaganda books until you've read them? Or does the fact that a frothing at the mouth anti-semite wrote them serve well enough for you to condemn that kind of garbage? It does for me-and the same applies for frothing at the mouth Muslim-haters.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 09:32:29 PM
Maybe you should watch the movie. Then come lecture us about "Hate" speech.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:34:23 PM
Here's a good comment by the Dutch PM on the clown who made this film:
http://www.rabat.um.dk/fr/menu/LAmbassade/Actualites/DanishPrimeMinistersDeclarationOnGeertWildersStatements.htm
Quote
I strongly condemn Geert Wilders condescending statements about Muslims. I find these expressions extremely offensive. They are so insulting that I wish to hear no group in Danish society referred to in such a manner in the public debate.
Edit:
To make the point more clear-what you are demanding is the equivalent of demanding that Jews read "Mein Kampf" before writing it off as garbage. To be sure, there is intellectual value in picking apart propaganda works...but it is absolutely unreasonable to reject all those who condemn it based on the producer alone. This is truly one of those cases where the author's actions and statements alone are enough to ignore the product.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 09:35:26 PM
Again, why don't you watch the movie and THEN give us your opinion about it.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 09:36:07 PM
I've read Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. No I haven't read Mr Irving's book, hence I will not comment on it until I've read it.
Again, why don't you watch the movie and THEN give us your opinion about it.
Again, why don't you watch the movie and THEN give us your opinion about it.
Simple answer.
He can't handle the truth.
Nothing in the movie but a collection of videos of the radical imams themselves, of their followers, what they call for, what they want.
It's easier to deny and pretend it doesn't exist. SS is going to be surprised someday when they come for him, too, for making a mistake and not being "Islamic enough".
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:36:35 PM
I've read Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. No I haven't read Mr Irving's book, hence I will not comment on it until I've read it.
Again, why don't you watch the movie and THEN give us your opinion about it.
Again, why don't you watch the movie and THEN give us your opinion about it.
I'm glad you did read Mein Kampf-but are you saying that no one can write it off as anti-semitic trash without having read it?
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 09:38:09 PM
That's the Dutch PM's Statement on Mr. Wilder's comments, NOT on the actual Film in question.
Why don't watch the movie, or can't you handle the truth ??
Post by: Manedwolf on March 28, 2008, 09:40:38 PM
And it's too important for that. The fact that violence has been threatened against LiveLeak staffers for showing the film only validates what it shows.
If you want to comment on the film, watch the film. Even moderate Muslims who have seen it have commented that it's not bad like they thought. It's not anti-Muslim. It shows the horrible things being done by the perversion of Islam. It's a wake-up call.
Some people don't want to wake up. Oh well.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:41:41 PM
SiS,
That's the Dutch PM's Statement on Mr. Wilder's comments, NOT on the actual Film in question.
Why don't watch the movie, or can't you handle the truth ??
That's the Dutch PM's Statement on Mr. Wilder's comments, NOT on the actual Film in question.
Why don't watch the movie, or can't you handle the truth ??
Again, for the same reason I don't watch each film produced by Nazis just because some Nazi says "oh, but you haven't seen that documentary! That one proves there was no holocaust!"
The authorship speaks for itself-it is not necessary to review every piece of hate speech to know that it is hate speech. Geert Wilders is a Muslim hater. He is no different from the anti-semites in his country who spout this crap about Jews. He targets Muslims instead.
Watching his film and then concluding that it's a good account of Muslim society is like watching a film by an anti-semite, and then concluding that what you saw was a truthful and valuable account of Jewish life. It is simply ridiculous-these films have absolutely zero value as far as honest study is concerned. Their sole place is in the realm of propaganda-and when hating Muslims is popular, such films are taken seriously....just like anti-semitic trash was taken seriously in the past.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 09:42:07 PM
I read Mein Kampf for the same reason I read Marx & Engels and a bunch of Soviet Military theory when I was an Army Officer. So that I could better understand the enemy.
Since I'm Jewish, I thought it might be nice to know what drives others to hate us so much.
Until you watch the movie, your comments carry no credibility here.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:45:22 PM
If you want to comment on the film, watch the film. Even moderate Muslims who have seen it have commented that it's not bad like they thought. It's not anti-Muslim. It shows the horrible things being done by the perversion of Islam. It's a wake-up call.
Some people don't want to wake up. Oh well.
Some people don't want to wake up. Oh well.
No-it's just that Muslims and reasonable people rightly recognize this for what it is: propaganda. A film put out by a guy who makes his living spouting conspiracy theories about Muslims and agitating for a ban on the whole religion is not a good source to go to for honest, unbiased evidence concerning Muslims. This is obvious.
If you had something that was reasonably professional and put out by someone who at least tried to appear interested in research and study, that would be worth discussing. But it's simply absurd to waive your fists and demand that Muslims watch garbage put out by a rabid anti-Muslim, and then to say "OH LOOK! Thye DON"T WANT THE TRUTH!!!!!" when we rightly refuse to waste our time with it.
A film by a Muslim hater on the internet is not even close to a starting point for finding information about Islam that is worthy of discussion. That is why I am refusing to watch it, not because I'm secretly worried that MP Goldmember is making something "too close to the truth."
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 09:48:06 PM
SiS,
I read Mein Kampf for the same reason I read Marx & Engels and a bunch of Soviet Military theory when I was an Army Officer. So that I could better understand the enemy.
Since I'm Jewish, I thought it might be nice to know what drives others to hate us so much.
Until you watch the movie, your comments carry no credibility here.
I read Mein Kampf for the same reason I read Marx & Engels and a bunch of Soviet Military theory when I was an Army Officer. So that I could better understand the enemy.
Since I'm Jewish, I thought it might be nice to know what drives others to hate us so much.
Until you watch the movie, your comments carry no credibility here.
That is a laudable goal-but you aren't reading the product of Muslims to understand them. Reading Mein Kampf to understand the Nazis makes perfect sense. And watching Fitna is a great way to understand Geert Wilders.
But what you are doing is watching Geert Wilder's film, and then claiming that it gives understanding about Muslims. That would be like reading Mein Kampf and then claiming you know something more about Judaism...which is ridiculous, obviously.
See the distinction? If you want to talk about what Wilder's film tells us about one Dutch politician, great. But you and Manedwolf are claiming that this film tells you something about Islam...which is more like claiming that Mein Kampf has valuable insights into Judaism than it is claiming that there is value in reading Mein Kampf to understand the evils of Nazism.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 09:59:07 PM
"Since I think it's propaganda, it must be, even though I haven't seen it."
You just keep on apologzing for the all the hideous things your co-religionist do in your name. Then act real freakin' surprised when the backlash hits.
You might want to watch it, just to see what your own co-religionist are saying/doing in your name. Or are you afraid to ?? It might hit a little to close to home. You might have a harder time excusing the "excesses" if you were to see what is being done in the name of your religion.
Quote
it's just that Muslims and reasonable people
Yep, reasonable. That's why they're rioting and and calling for his death.
Yep, Jews and Catholics also rioted when "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ" came out. Oh wait, no they didn't. They grumbled and wrote letters to the editors. But no-one was killed and a death warrents weren't issued by the Pope or any Rabbi's. Nor do Scorsee or Mel Gibson live in fear of being killed by some relgious zealot seeking his way to "paradise".
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 10:02:50 PM
Quote
But what you are doing is watching Geert Wilder's film, and then claiming that it gives understanding about Muslims.
Since you have not seen the film, your comment/analogy is completely wrong.
I've seen the footage of the Allies liberating Nazi concentration camps. Since the Nazi's didn't make those films they must be false, nicht wahr ??
Here's a spoiler on the film.
Mr Wilders doesn't say a word. It's all clips of imam's and other Muslim/Islamic leaders/people doing and talking. Yes, yes, yes, I know. "It's all taken out of context."
Until you watch it, your words mean nothing.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 10:10:27 PM
Quote
But what you are doing is watching Geert Wilder's film, and then claiming that it gives understanding about Muslims.
Since you have not seen the film, your comment/analogy is completely wrong.
I've seen the footage of the Allies liberating Nazi concentration camps. Since the Nazi's didn't make those films they must be false, nicht wahr ??
Actually, you brought up a good point-I decided I should see the film to help better understand the hatred of Muslims and the propaganda campaign against them, and I just watched it.
And no, your analogy about footage of the camps is not even close in comparison. This was a 20 minute screed with random quotes, cheesy music, and videos spliced in of brutal murders and some guy speaking like a psycho here or there. A video of a concentration camp is proof that speaks for itself. A video of some clown with a sword with the notation that it was on Saudi Arabian TV (you know, the Saudi TV that no Muslim gets to vote on?) is not the same thing.
Seriously, did you watch this thing and think "ah, there's a good documentary piece on Muslims...lots of info"
Because I saw a screed with no names, a few subtitles, and then an ominous chart of the growing number of Muslims in Europe...with the obvious ugly subtext that somehow "the numbers need to be reduced, comrades!"
So let's recap this:
20 minute film including:
1. Not even names of most of the people featured.
2. Less than one minute soundbites from each.
3. Highly charged videos of crowds doing who knows what, with cheesey music in the background.
4. An appeal to cut down the number of Muslims in Europe because it is growing too fast.
That is different from anti-semitic propaganda how? And in what sane world is this a starting point for gathering information on Islam?
This was Mr. Wilder's propaganda piece, pure and simple. It is a badly done screed with soundbites, a crappy soundtrack, and extreme gore mixed in to evoke an emotional reaction. There is really not a single ounce of material in that piece that would contribute to an honest and unbiased discussion of Islam and its role in the world, for any time period or place.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 10:15:03 PM
Yep, Jews and Catholics also rioted when "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Passion of the Christ" came out. Oh wait, no they didn't. They grumbled and wrote letters to the editors. But no-one was killed and a death warrents weren't issued by the Pope or any Rabbi's. Nor do Scorsee or Mel Gibson live in fear of being killed by some relgious zealot seeking his way to "paradise".
Again, if someone wanted to do a selective film only targeting Jews, this could easily happen. Imagine if someone just took clips of the radical riots in Jerusalem, where yeshiva students burned cars and stabbed/stoned anyone they suspected of being gay or supporting the gay rights parade...or if they videotaped a Kach meeting where the participants regularly carry signs that say "Exterminate all the Arabs and Blacks"...and then posted that to you as a "troubling insight into the world of radical judaism."
I think you would be more than within your rights to write that off as total crap, and as the product of anti-semitism. Which it would be.
But you don't apply the same standard to Muslims, apparently...how come?
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 10:21:27 PM
Quote
Seriously, did you watch this thing and think "ah, there's a good documentary piece on Muslims...lots of info
Who said I was gathering information about Islam ?? I learned more about Islam by sponsoring a Saudi Officer in my Officer Basic Class and talking with some of the truck drivers who worked with me. This film is about Radical Islam. I don't hate Muslims, unless and until they try to kill/convert me.
What you don't get is that until YOU take back your religion from the "Kill all the Infidels" nuts, your religion is going to viewed with skepitcism and fear. Or do you believe that Islam must rule the world ??
This is Funny:
Quote
you know, the Saudi TV that no Muslim gets to vote on
Can you name me some Islamic countries were Muslim's get to vote ?? Iraq and Afghanistan don't count, 'cause if it wasn't our Imperial Storm Troopers over there, Saddam and the Taliban would still be getting 99.9999999% of the vote.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 10:24:27 PM
Quote
This film is about Radical Islam. I don't hate Muslims, unless and until they try to kill/convert me.
Okay, answer this question please: If this film is about radical Muslims, why did he end with a chart showing the growth in total number of Muslims in Europe?
And why was there not a single Muslim shown who wasn't connected to violence?
Don't be silly-this film was obviously intended to attack all Muslims.
Quote
What you don't get is that until YOU take back your religion from the "Kill all the Infidels" nuts, your religion is going to viewed with skepitcism and fear. Or do you believe that Islam must rule the world ??
There's nothing to take back because they don't have it in the first place. Sorry, but Bin Laden does not own Islam-there is nothing to take from him because he doesn't have any such claim in the first place.
I recognize that terrorism will cause people to hate my religion-just like money caused many people to hate Jews. But the fact that this hatred is predictable does not make it right.
Or do you think that because Bin laden is bad, therefore, all Muslims must be held accountable for it?
Quote
Can you name me some Islamic countries were Muslim's get to vote ?? Iraq and Afghanistan don't count, 'cause if it wasn't our Imperial Storm Troopers over there, Saddam and the Taliban would still be getting 99.9999999% of the vote.
Yes-they get to vote in Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. They also get to elect local governors and their own judicial officials in Singapore. Which is one of the reasons why all of those countries aren't run by bizarro-land nuts; they get some measure of choice (or at least did, at some point, in the case of Pakistan.)
It is the height of hypocrisy to take the statements of a monarchy whose sole ally in the world is the United States and then to blame all Muslims in the world for it-but that is exactly what this film did by relying almost exclusively on Saudi media productions.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 10:34:13 PM
But it wasn't Blond Haired Blue Eyed guys named Sven who flew planes into the WTC, or attcked the USS Cole or blew up a Disco is Bali.
It wasn't guys with a thick brogue and names liek O'Sullivan and Murphy who attacked our embassy's in Africa, or attacked the do-gooders handing out food in Somalia.
Quote
if they videotaped a Kach meeting where the participants regularly carry signs that say "Exterminate all the Arabs and Blacks
When Kach runs a county that is developing/has the bomb, then it's a problem. In the meantime, I'll denouce and repudiate everything Kach stands for and work against them. In fact Kach is banned in Isreal from running for the Knesset (in which Arabs have elected representatives) because it's a racist organization. Tell if either the same is true in Muslim countries ?? (Freely elected Jewish representatives in the legislature and organizations that call for the deaths of non-muslims banned from running for office.
Have one set of standards there SiS. You can't have one for the Christians/Jews/West and another for the Muslims. Everyone gets Free speech or no-one gets it. Everyone gets Freedom of Religion or no-one gets it. You can't hold the west to a higher standard then what you willing to accept from your co-religionists.
Post by: De Selby on March 28, 2008, 10:41:04 PM
Quote
I'm not advocating anything.
Yes, but the film includes info about the total number of Muslims in Europe why? Because it's about all Muslims.
Quote
It wasn't guys with a thick brogue and names liek O'Sullivan and Murphy who attacked our embassy's in Africa, or attacked the do-gooders handing out food in Somalia.
True-and it wasn't black guys or Arabs with turbans who marched millions of people into gas chambers in Europe. But that is hardly reasonable grounds for insinuating something about white people or Europeans, and it is equally unreasonable to insinuate something about all Muslims in the same way.
Quote
Tell if either the same is true in Muslim countries ??
Well, it is true in Iran, where there are freely elected Jewish members of Parliament. But they don't call for killing-they're supportive of their own country.
In any case, on the one hand, you recognzie that Muslims have no voice in running these oppressive governments. But then on the other hand, you want to hold all Muslims accountable for the behavior of those same governments? How does that work?
Quote
You can't have one for the Christians/Jews/West and another for the Muslims. Everyone gets Free speech or no-one gets it. Everyone gets Freedom of Religion or no-one gets it. You can't hold the west to a higher standard then what you willing to accept from your co-religionists.
Wait, are you arguing that because there are radicals in Saudi Arabia who hate Judaism, therefore, it is illegitimate to criticize hate speech against Muslims anywhere in the world?
I have no idea how that can be made sense of, if it is what youa re saying. I am holding one standard here-every religion gets respect enough to have me write off hate-speech against it.
What's your position on hate speech against religions? If some Muslim does it against another religion, is it okay to do it to Muslims? If that's your attitude, you'll end up behaving exactly like the people quoted in this video. I'd rather be better...wouldn't you?
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 10:46:48 PM
Quote
Sorry, but Bin Laden does not own Islam-there is nothing to take from him because he doesn't have any such claim in the first place.
Quote
Or do you think that because Bin laden is bad, therefore, all Muslims must be held accountable for it?
When Bin Laden or some other wacko group does something bad, the Muslim world partly cheers loudly and the rest is silent. Silence indicates at least tacit approval. I have yet to hear any prominent or the vast majority repudiate terrorist/bad actions/comments.
Again Bin Laden isn't being aided by guys named Maurice or Francois. He not hiding in caves and and being guarded by guys named Pedro and Juan.
I'll answer you're question:
Quote
Okay, answer this question please: If this film is about radical Muslims, why did he end with a chart showing the growth in total number of Muslims in Europe?
For the same reason we in the US grouse about illegal immigration. Our culture is being overrun by by people who refuse to adapt/assimilate to their new country. When I lived in Germany I adapted to their laws and culture, I didn't make Germany adapt to me.
Now you get answer my previously asked questions. Do you think that Islam should rule the world ??
Do you believe that I should be free to worship (or not worship) my G_d as I see fit ??
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 10:57:17 PM
Quote
What's your position on hate speech against religions? If some Muslim does it against another religion, is it okay to do it to Muslims?
I'm for freedom of speech. In fact swore an oath to Protect and Defend everyone's right to it. You want to talk bad about other religions and call for the extermination/liquidation/deaths of "non-believers" , be my guest. You'll be very suspect in my eyes, but I will defend your right to say it. But the minute you go from talk to action, then that same oath requires that I stop you, even if I have to kill you to prevent you/make you stop.
However it's not hate speech to play the tapes of Muslims speaking against other religions/ethnicies and then acting on it.
Sorry but "That film is Hate Speech" doesn't fly.
I guess that's the difference between us. I'm willing to lay down my life to ensure that you can speak freely and worship as you choose. You're also willing to lay down my life to ensure that I can't speak freely nor worship (or not) as I choose, unless I agree with you and follow your religion.
Post by: Scout26 on March 28, 2008, 11:10:46 PM
Quote
True-and it wasn't black guys or Arabs with turbans who marched millions of people into gas chambers in Europe. But that is hardly reasonable grounds for insinuating something about white people or Europeans, and it is equally unreasonable to insinuate something about all Muslims in the same way.
Yep, but is was a lot of "black and white" guys that defeated those who marched those millions into th gas chambers. It was also Europeans that have effectively outlawed/banned neo-nazi's and repudiate any and all of their activities. Close to the same thing here in the US. Yep you can be a neo-nazi but half of your Sturmabteilung is going to be FBI informants, if not actual FBI agents.
IIRc The German Chancellor was in Isreal recently http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3520679,00.html Gemany continues to pay for it's past, not only monetarily, but also politically and emotionally.
Post by: S. Williamson on March 29, 2008, 09:32:31 AM
What was that thing I posted some time ago about opposing sides pissing on the same electrical fence?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 29, 2008, 09:39:48 AM
What was that thing I posted some time ago about opposing sides pissing on the same electrical fence?
So in other words, don't discuss a very serious matter because one person is deliberately misrepresenting the film instead of discussing its content, hoping to get the thread shut down?
Yes, that's precisely what SS wants. He's pulling a CAIR.
You also might be interested to know that the UN released a statement that amounts to handwringing pleas for nonconfrontation, basically, "don't make the sociopaths angry again or they'll kill us all".
I'm having no part of that.
Post by: S. Williamson on March 29, 2008, 09:54:14 AM
This isn't a discussion.
You assume that the opposition is rational.
Due to the opposition's inflexibility, I question its rationality... as I question yours.
You are attempting to have a discussion with what, at its core, is a wall.
If I were to come across a Ph.D in quantum physics having a "serious" discussion with a wall concerning the fact that matter is 99.9...% empty space and thus he should be able to pass through the wall without opposition, you know what I'd do?
Same thing as I'm doing here. Roll my eyes and keep walking.
His argument is rational, and it makes sense.
But that doesn't mean it does a bit of good.
Post by: De Selby on March 29, 2008, 10:12:06 AM
I guess that's the difference between us. I'm willing to lay down my life to ensure that you can speak freely and worship as you choose. You're also willing to lay down my life to ensure that I can't speak freely nor worship (or not) as I choose, unless I agree with you and follow your religion.
Wait a second here-let's get clear on this point. I am 100 percent behind people having the freedom to post whatever they want and to speak their minds.
That doesn't mean I have to approve of or reproduce their work. And this is a thread that reproduces and approves of this material, not a thread designed to support it against a non-existent challenge to free speech.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 29, 2008, 10:15:07 AM
And this is a thread that reproduces and approves of this material, not a thread designed to support it against a non-existent challenge to free speech.
Error. You bent your own logic so much that it became recursive. Divide by zero.
Please insert another quarter and play again.
Post by: johnster999 on March 29, 2008, 11:08:11 AM
Soft and somewhat sad music plays in the background throughout.
Verses from the Koran are displayed and read on screen.
Islamic Imams and clerics are displayed from various parts of the Islamic world, shouting out sermons of violence, execution and world domination. Their words and tone are very clear and require little interpretation. Convert or kill everyone and take over the world is the overall theme, along with the usual condemnation of Jews, Christians, gays, the USA, etc.
Striking is how well their sermons dovetail with the actual verses cited. We can argue all day how such verses should be interpreted, but it's clear that the featured clerics interpret them just as the filmmaker argues.
Imagery from the 9-11 attacks and other bombings are shown in conjunction with the verses and sermons in order to draw the parallel between word and deed.
Scenes of executions are shown including a particularly disturbing one in which a woman is shot in the head for something she did against Islamic law.
Toward the end of the film, imagery of Mosques and other structures are shown in Europe. Statistics of Muslim population and it's growth in Europe over the last few decades is shown.
In conjunction with this, clerics in Europe are shown echoing much of the same anti-western sentiment shown earlier in the film. They state rather clearly that they intended to take over Europe and do not currently respect the laws of traditions of their host countries. They assert that Islam is the valid law governing Muslims everywhere, not the laws or customs of any host country.
The film finishes up with written statements of the filmmaker imploring his countrymen and others to resist the rise of Islamic power in their countries.
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2008, 04:50:44 AM
Geert's version of Surah 8 v. 60:
Quote
Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering
to strike terror
to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
to strike terror
to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
Quote
[8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.
[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
- http://www.submission.org/ (Submission will get a reaction all of its own I expect)[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
So Geert snips the verse to get what he wants. He also ignores the next verse, which puts a slightly different spin on it all. Quote mining perhaps?
Geert's version of Surah 4 v. 56
Quote
Those who have disbelieved our signs,
we shall roast them in fire
whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them
that they may feel the punishment
verily Allah is sublime and wise
we shall roast them in fire
whenever their skins are cooked to a turn, we shall substitute new skins for them
that they may feel the punishment
verily Allah is sublime and wise
Quote
Allegorical Description of Hell
[4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
[4:56] Surely, those who disbelieve in our revelations, we will condemn them to the hellfire. Whenever their skins are burnt, we will give them new skins. Thus, they will suffer continuously. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.
Ah, so it's a description of hell. Like the eternal torments predicted for unbelievers elsewhere. More quote mining.
Geert's version of Surah 47 v. 4
Quote
Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers,
smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them
bind a bond firmly on them
smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them
bind a bond firmly on them
Quote
[47:4] If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.
The worst example of quote mining yet. He gives us no indiction that he has snipped the quote up, he ignores the war context and ignores the advice about ransoming or releasing captives instead choosing to highlight the captives part. Not looking good for Geert so far.
Geert's version of Surah 4 v. 89
Quote
They but wish that ye should reject the faith
as they do and thus be on the same footing as they,
so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah
But if they turn renegades, seize and kill them whenever ye find them
and take no friends or helpers from their ranks
as they do and thus be on the same footing as they,
so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah
But if they turn renegades, seize and kill them whenever ye find them
and take no friends or helpers from their ranks
Quote
[4:89] They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.
That all looks quite different to Geert's version. Translations are what they are, but snipping up a translation to achieve an effect is what I suspect has been done here.Let's take a look at 4:90
Quote
[4:90] Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives. Had GOD willed, He could have permitted them to fight against you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.
How bloodthirsty. Taken together those two verses look like part of a set of rules on who you can fight and when, especially when pertaining to those who 'turn against you'. Geert's version of Surah 8 v. 39
Quote
Fight them until there is no dissension
and the religion is entirely Allah's
and the religion is entirely Allah's
Quote
[8:39] You shall fight them to ward off oppression, and to practice your religion devoted to GOD alone. If they refrain from aggression, then GOD is fully Seer of everything they do.
Probably two very different translations, and they bear no apparent relation because of what should now be obvious as quote mining.
Quote
Now the Islamic ideology has to be defeated.
Stop Islamisation
Stop Islamisation
Well, that was interesting. I hope questions have been raised about Geert's intentions based on his quote mining. Propaganda is most effective when it mixes truth (no-one denies the existence of radical Islam or terrorist actions carried out in its name) with half-truths (the quotes above) with a dash of fear mongering which is what the graphs representing the muslim population are solely intended to do.
Post by: LadySmith on March 30, 2008, 05:12:51 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 30, 2008, 08:05:31 AM
Quote
I've put the Quranic quotes in as Geert did in the film and as they are found in an authorised translation on the internet
[/size]Authorized by whom?
And I notice you entirely discounted all of the horrible things the radical imams were calling for? THEY are the ones who have been interpreting the Koran in those ways, picking verses to use to suit their agenda, and using it to legitimize their inhuman behavior! Geert isn't the first one to say those verses those way...that's how the radical imams and terorrists scream them to their violent followers as they declare jihad!
You entirely missed the point of the film.
Apparently you also missed the burning of the producer in effigy and a mob in Pakistan and elsewhere calling for his immediate death, to prove how nonviolent they are. And ignored that LiveLeak took it down because of death threats against their staff.
Just can't figure out why Europe is so eager to bow and scrape, to tolerate intolerance and make excuses for it, instead of declaring, loudly, "If you wish to live in Western civilization, you will abide by Western civilization's rules." Guess Madrid, the Underground, a bus, an airport entrance and a bunch of innocent girls being honor killed every year weren't enough.
Oh well.
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2008, 11:45:02 AM
And I notice you
Geert
and terorrists scream them to their violent
film.
bow and scrape,
declaring, loudly,
you will
Madrid a bus
Oh well.
Geert
and terorrists scream them to their violent
film.
bow and scrape,
declaring, loudly,
you will
Madrid a bus
Oh well.
For the sake of others - what I have done there is no less a hatchet job than Geert has done.
The point Geert was making was that there are inflammatory verses in the Quran (a book he has compared to Mein Kampf) and that he thinks that Muslims should rip them out.
However, he is not honest enough to present those verses in their entirety. He presents us with snippets of a text, something that we should know is an attempt to manipulate us.
There are points to be made about radical Islam, but they should not be made in a context of highlighting increasing numbers of muslim immigration whilst only portraying radical Islam and not the rest of mainstream Islam. This is an old trick, and a vile one.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on March 30, 2008, 12:46:18 PM
Manedwolf,
Do you watch every anti-semitic film that circulates the net just to confirm to yourself that it's actually anti-semitic trash?
The produce is a frothing at the mouth Muslim hater. He is no different than the people who spout garbage about Jews and Judaism.
And of course, as I predicted, this isn't about free speech. You agree with his views and his agenda, which is why you are reposting this Muslim-hating propaganda.
So why all the window dressing of "free speech", when that's not really the reason you are spreading this material?
Do you watch every anti-semitic film that circulates the net just to confirm to yourself that it's actually anti-semitic trash?
The produce is a frothing at the mouth Muslim hater. He is no different than the people who spout garbage about Jews and Judaism.
And of course, as I predicted, this isn't about free speech. You agree with his views and his agenda, which is why you are reposting this Muslim-hating propaganda.
So why all the window dressing of "free speech", when that's not really the reason you are spreading this material?
would that be a very windy version of "no i didn't watch it"?
Post by: De Selby on March 30, 2008, 07:15:37 PM
Manedwolf,
Do you watch every anti-semitic film that circulates the net just to confirm to yourself that it's actually anti-semitic trash?
The produce is a frothing at the mouth Muslim hater. He is no different than the people who spout garbage about Jews and Judaism.
And of course, as I predicted, this isn't about free speech. You agree with his views and his agenda, which is why you are reposting this Muslim-hating propaganda.
So why all the window dressing of "free speech", when that's not really the reason you are spreading this material?
Do you watch every anti-semitic film that circulates the net just to confirm to yourself that it's actually anti-semitic trash?
The produce is a frothing at the mouth Muslim hater. He is no different than the people who spout garbage about Jews and Judaism.
And of course, as I predicted, this isn't about free speech. You agree with his views and his agenda, which is why you are reposting this Muslim-hating propaganda.
So why all the window dressing of "free speech", when that's not really the reason you are spreading this material?
would that be a very windy version of "no i didn't watch it"?
No.
Post by: Nitrogen on April 05, 2008, 07:27:51 AM
And I consider myself one.
After spending time here I totally understand why you folks tend to hate 'em so much. The leftist stupidity in this thread makes my lefty brain spin.
Everyone should read hate literature. I read Mein Kampf mostly because it was a banned book where I went to school. I made it a point to read as many banned books as I could. There's a lot to learn about reading crazy stuff; learning how crazy people think allows you to better rebut crazy stuff when you see it.
Same with this crazy muslim crap you see. It's Nazi Germany all over again. In Nazi Germany, Hitler unified the people by giving them common enemies. Many nations in the middle east are doing the same thing now. They hate Jews and America because their media and government tell them to. It takes the onus of their problems off the horribly corrupt governments that keep them down.
The Palestinian conflict is a perfect example of this. You hear about how horrible Zionism is. Did you realize that after WWI, the British originally planned to give most of the region of Palestine to the Jews? Obviously, that didn't happen. Most of the area became Jordan. Everything West of the river Jordan was supposedly for the Jews.
Look at what the Arabs could have had if they weren't so bloodthirsty for Jewish destruction:
Only the UN went back on its word in 1947. The UN wanted to give quite a bit of what today is Israel to the Arabs. Israel was mostly fine with that, but the Arabs wanted more, and went to war over it in 1948. You can see how well that went for the Arabs.
So they tried again in 1968. We all know how well that went, too.
The arabs in the area had a homeland, and lost parts of it due to their irrational hatred of the Jews. The people that call themselves palestanians dont' want a homeland, they want to destroy Israel. They've tried twice, and will keep trying until they succeed.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2008, 12:55:15 PM
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
The entire debate about refugees and other countries will never find a solution to the problem, because it is premised on the theory that these are two foreign peoples fighting each other. They aren't-the Palestinians live on exactly the same plot of land that the Israelis live on. You have to admit that and deal with it before you can come up with a sensible position on this issue.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2008, 03:51:31 PM
Nitrogen,
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
They "want" Israel because Israel took a bit of hardscrabble desert and made a working 21st century civilization with power, clean water, modern airports, and buses that run on time. Of course they covet that. Due to their dysfunctional, backstabbing culture, their areas look more like post-civilization pestholes full of bullet-pocked, half-ruined buildings. And if they were "given" Israel, all the stuff they covet would, under their rule, first stop working, and then be blown up and shot to pieces.
And they don't see that.
Post by: roo_ster on April 05, 2008, 04:35:43 PM
Millions & millions of dollars' worth of infrastructure destroyed by rampaging Palis after the Israelis un@zzed the AO.
Freakin' savages.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2008, 06:04:39 PM
They don't see it even when shown exactly that: fine example being the forced withdrawal form settlements in Gaza.
Millions & millions of dollars' worth of infrastructure destroyed by rampaging Palis after the Israelis un@zzed the AO.
Freakin' savages.
Millions & millions of dollars' worth of infrastructure destroyed by rampaging Palis after the Israelis un@zzed the AO.
Freakin' savages.
Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of the destruction was done by angry settlers-didn't want to leave anything to the Palestinians that they believed was theirs. These are the types of folks who celebrated in the streets when Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 people.
Sometimes the facts just don't help us maintain our prejudices against this race or that race.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2008, 06:05:09 PM
Nitrogen,
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
They "want" Israel because Israel took a bit of hardscrabble desert and made a working 21st century civilization with power, clean water, modern airports, and buses that run on time. Of course they covet that. Due to their dysfunctional, backstabbing culture, their areas look more like post-civilization pestholes full of bullet-pocked, half-ruined buildings. And if they were "given" Israel, all the stuff they covet would, under their rule, first stop working, and then be blown up and shot to pieces.
And they don't see that.
Uh, right-and I suppose the fact that this is their home too and they still live there has nothing to do with it?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2008, 06:19:54 PM
Nitrogen,
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
They "want" Israel because Israel took a bit of hardscrabble desert and made a working 21st century civilization with power, clean water, modern airports, and buses that run on time. Of course they covet that. Due to their dysfunctional, backstabbing culture, their areas look more like post-civilization pestholes full of bullet-pocked, half-ruined buildings. And if they were "given" Israel, all the stuff they covet would, under their rule, first stop working, and then be blown up and shot to pieces.
And they don't see that.
Uh, right-and I suppose the fact that this is their home too and they still live there has nothing to do with it?
Did you not read what I said?
Look what Israel did with what they have. Look what the Palis did with what they have.
When Israel backed out of some settlements that had fully modern infrastructure, the Palis looted and destroyed it!!!
If a culture is given an area with premade modern, safe, code-built buildings all ready to move into, and they instead go on a wild frenzy of smashing, ripping out fixtures and all, you know...that culture is freaking broken.
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2008, 06:36:30 PM
Nitrogen,
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
They "want" Israel because Israel took a bit of hardscrabble desert and made a working 21st century civilization with power, clean water, modern airports, and buses that run on time. Of course they covet that. Due to their dysfunctional, backstabbing culture, their areas look more like post-civilization pestholes full of bullet-pocked, half-ruined buildings. And if they were "given" Israel, all the stuff they covet would, under their rule, first stop working, and then be blown up and shot to pieces.
And they don't see that.
Uh, right-and I suppose the fact that this is their home too and they still live there has nothing to do with it?
Did you not read what I said?
Look what Israel did with what they have. Look what the Palis did with what they have.
When Israel backed out of some settlements that had fully modern infrastructure, the Palis looted and destroyed it!!!
If a culture is given an area with premade modern, safe, code-built buildings all ready to move into, and they instead go on a wild frenzy of smashing, ripping out fixtures and all, you know...that culture is freaking broken.
This would be the same as above-the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of damage was done by settlers who destroyed everything rather than leave it to Arabs. There was also the army's bulldozing of all the homes-that did plenty of damage too.
But yeah, I like how you completely ignore the fact that the Palestinians actually live there too, except they don't have any rights. It's their home, that's why they are so fired up about it, not because the Israelis have cool toys.
Post by: Scout26 on April 05, 2008, 07:00:27 PM
Quote
I like how you completely ignore the fact that the Palestinians actually live there too, except they don't have any rights.
Yep, and now they have the West Bank and Gaza and what are they doing with those areas ?
I bolded part of your text because the Pali's don't believe that anyone else should live there "too".
Yes, and they have "no" rights.
"The Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts (e.g., Ambassador to Finland) and on the Supreme Court."
ShootinStudent can you give me the number of Jews that have served in the Parliment of an Arab Country ?? Served in an Arab Country's Cabinet or even served as a Judge in an Arab Country ??
Wow, interesting read, but obviously "propaganda"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_ArabAny particular reason that the Israelis can't have less then 2% of the land in the Middle East to call home ??
Post by: De Selby on April 05, 2008, 07:32:21 PM
Quote
I like how you completely ignore the fact that the Palestinians actually live there too, except they don't have any rights.
Yep, and now they have the West Bank and Gaza and what are they doing with those areas ?
I bolded part of your text because the Pali's don't believe that anyone else should live there "too".
Yes, and they have "no" rights.
"The Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts (e.g., Ambassador to Finland) and on the Supreme Court."
ShootinStudent can you give me the number of Jews that have served in the Parliment of an Arab Country ?? Served in an Arab Country's Cabinet or even served as a Judge in an Arab Country ??
Wow, interesting read, but obviously "propaganda"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_ArabAny particular reason that the Israelis can't have less then 2% of the land in the Middle East to call home ??
Yeah, sorry, but they don't have the west bank and Gaza-Israel asserts every right of sovereignty over those areas. It stations troops permanently in the West Bank. So yeah, you're going to have to scratch that from the list of places the Palestinians "have."
Arab countries don't have real parliaments, so that question is moot-but Jews do currently and have served since there was an Iranian parliament in the parliament of Iran. There is no real question that Israeli Arab citizens face discrimination-they have a different set of legal rights (quick examples: they can't bring relatives to their country or marry Jews and expect the same rights as a Jewish couple) and I doubt you could find a single, even one, Israeli Arab who says that he is treated equally by the Israeli state, branch of service regardless.
In any case, the practices of backwards medieval monarchies next door has absolutely zero bearing on the question at hand, which is, again: How do you propose to deal with the half the population that isn't Jewish, living in the Jewish state, currently without rights?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 06, 2008, 05:32:28 AM
Arab countries don't have real parliaments, so that question is moot
Ever wonder why that is? They can't. They never will, because the Shi'a and Sunni will never stop bickering and fighting.
Thus, it's just a constant cycle of infighting. One faction will take over a country for a while in uneasy stability, then the other one moves, there's a lot of blowing up and shooting, the other faction takes over...and the country looks like a toilet. That's what's occured in the West Bank as well. Hamas and Fatah are so busy accusing each other of things and blowing each other up that they can't even make it to the negotiating table like adults. They're their own worst enemy. And they both blame Israel for their own inability to function as a society.
From one of John Stewart's books...middle eastern humor. Sadly true, as well.
Mideast Arab 1: Knock Knock!
Mideast Arab 2: No, it is you who are wrong.
Post by: Nitrogen on April 06, 2008, 02:56:08 PM
Nitrogen,
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
So what do you propose should be done with the 50 percent of the population in Israel today that wants to have its own government and culture? You're right that they don't want Israel, but they would call that renaming their country, not "destroying someone else's country."
They "want" Israel because Israel took a bit of hardscrabble desert and made a working 21st century civilization with power, clean water, modern airports, and buses that run on time. Of course they covet that. Due to their dysfunctional, backstabbing culture, their areas look more like post-civilization pestholes full of bullet-pocked, half-ruined buildings. And if they were "given" Israel, all the stuff they covet would, under their rule, first stop working, and then be blown up and shot to pieces.
And they don't see that.
Maned pretty much covered what I was going to say.
The big thing to realize is that it's not about a Palestinian state (though I'm not against the idea, I just realize it won't fix anything.)
It's about pushing Israel into the sea. History shows over and over again that that's the endgame. 1947,
Oh and as far as arabs in Israel not having any rights; they have the right to vote. The Israeli courts have said time and time again that Arabs can live wherever they choose; and are not partitioned off into specific areas.
Now sure, there are a few distinctions. Arabs are not drafted like Israeli citizens. That's so they don't have to kill other arabs; but plenty of Arabs still serve. Many gaps between the two cultures comes from this; as many socitial benifits are only available to veterans.
During deployments, Arabs in Israel 99% of the time were loyal citizens, and not "sleepers" that were biding their time to blow stuff up. Many stepped up and helped their community out when deployments hurt their community.
Did you also know that Arabic is an official language in Israel, and there are state schools that teach children in Arabic there?
Israeli law bans employment discrimination based on religion.
So I guess Arabs in Israel have no rights.
SiS, have you ever even BEEN to Israel?