Network Solutions Suspends Site of Anti-Islam Film 874
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.
Religion of peace (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
I Bet... (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm offended (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:hum (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I live in Holland, and (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So, does anyone know what would happen if (Score:4, Interesting)
Like I said, you need to go ponder the words of your god/prophet/book and figure out just how poorly you follow the principles of your own beliefs.
Re:hum (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
NOT censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
Censorship is a policy enforced against the information carrier from outside, forcing them not to carry something. While not censorship, forcing a one to carry content they deem unsuitable is just as much a violation of their rights of ownership.
The film maker has no "right" to use any given carrier. Where ever one finds the "right" to free speech on the net, it is either because one owns the carrier themselves, or is only the illusion of the right in the form of permission of the carrier to present one's material through their property. If the Dutch government tried to force its removal, THAT would be censorship. The Dutch government is one of the least likely to do so. Instead, they have "distanced themselves".
That said, NetSol is a lousy carrier in several respects. There are far better hosts. Using Wikileak's host or even piggy backing on Wikileaks itself is more likely to be successful. If he wants his stuff or material about his stuff seen, finding a suitable carrier will be more productive than trying to force NetSol to carry it.
Re:hum (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Civilization at a cross roads (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'm offended (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hum (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:On behalf of 95% of muslims everywhere: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, I converted to Islam four years ago, and I can tell you that among the hundreds of Muslim people I know, there ain't a single one who rejoices if an innocent American or Dane is killed. I believe in freedom of speech in the Voltairian sense of the word, and I'd defend this guy's right to present his documentary till the end. If Pakistanis or some other Wahabis get all riled up about it, tough tomato! But you have to stop gullibly swallowing all the sensationalistic crap the media are dissing your way, and start doing some basic research if you want to understand why some Palestinians saw 9/11 as an occasion to celebrate. If you don't travel around, learn new languages (I don't mean the ones for machines and actively seek the opinion of Muslims, you have no business speaking of Islam and much less of their majority.
Re:I live in Holland, and (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:hum (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Internet cannot be censored (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:1, Interesting)
Deuteronomy 13:7-19:
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the LORD, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of it, shall fear and never again do such evil as this in your midst. "If, in any of the cities which the LORD, your God, gives you to dwell in, you hear it said that certain scoundrels have sprung up among you and have led astray the inhabitants of their city to serve other gods whom you have not known, you must inquire carefully into the matter and investigate it thoroughly. If you find that it is true and an established fact that this abomination has been committed in your midst, you shall put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, dooming the city and all life that is in it, even its cattle, to the sword.
There are lots of other places in the old testament that also instruct you to kill people of other faiths.
Oh, I'd say they're christian all right (Score:3, Interesting)
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" [wikipedia.org] doctrine to that effect.
That used to be a major heresy, namely that of Pelagius [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org] 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
If Buddhists can go Rambo, Muslims can suck it up. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:1, Interesting)
MEMRI [guardian.co.uk] has a pretty good reputation [guardian.co.uk] for propaganda [antiwar.com] themselves...
They gave him -exactly- what he wants (Score:5, Interesting)
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-...
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:5, Interesting)
We sit around all rich and advanced and western, but beneath it all we just need someone to hate. Another tribe to vilify.
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?
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.
Re:hum (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I live in Holland, and (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Simple and straight explanation (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you suggesting we start bombing our senators instead?
Re:hum (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Internet cannot be censored (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Interesting)
How early. Are you talking about those slaughtered by Mohammed and his men or those ransomed to pay a heavy tax to support Islamic invasion or die for their beliefs?
You know if you murder a city full of people you get to keep the money too, and you've purged the world of "infidels" and "apostates" too.
>>> "Martin Luther King was a Christian, but so was Jerry Falwell, and so were the Crusaders and Oliver Cromwell. Similarly, Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, but Avicenna, Abd Ar Rahman, and Suleyman the Magnificent were Muslims too."
There is some debate as to what percentage of the crusaders were Christians.
[wikipedia:] "Suleiman personally led Ottoman armies to conquer the Christian strongholds of Belgrade, Rhodes, and most of Hungary before his conquests were checked at the Siege of Vienna in 1529. He annexed most of the Middle East in his conflict with the Persians and large swathes of North Africa as far west as Algeria. Under his rule, the Ottoman fleet dominated the seas from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean."
So this is your example of a non-violent Muslim believer? Perhaps you're referring to his enlightened reform of land slaves (serf) to become dhimmi (bound to remain subservient to the ruling Muslims on pain of death)?
>>> "Both are in fact inert doctrines until they are taken up and interpreted by individuals."
The difference is that Muslims are commanded to subdue the world by force, impose their political system and by threat of death create converts. Christians are commanded to spread the message of God's sacrificial death and perform works of service to demonstrate God's love and convince people to convert. No interpretation needed, it's plain as day.
Remember that in Christian "law" the New Testament supersedes as in Islamic scripture the later stanzas overrule any earlier contradiction.
Re:I live in Holland, and (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Interesting)
It is quite an interesting issue, though, in terms of free speech rights in the Netherlands. Such rights are not as strong here as they are in the states (for instance, I believe denying the holocaust is illegal in the Netherlands). Lots of members of parliament would like to see the film banned. A lot of Muslims argue that the film should be banned, pointing to the holocaust issue for an argument for the legitimacy of such a ban, and the illegitimacy of the free speech argument.
Many people on here seem to not realize that 1) European countries do not have the same speech protections as the States, and 2) a private internet company can, indeed, suppress peoples rights to free speech. Perhaps this highlights a flaw in the privately owned nature of web hosting.
It does seem like the Dutch government does not intend to stop the release of the film, either, by the way. I did not mean to give the impression otherwise.
Re:hum (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to admit I'm getting sick of this sloppy liberal referencing to 9/11 as the day the US became a fascist dictatorship. It's the modern equivilent of McCarthiesm -- it shuts down debate without offering any proof -- because there usually ISN'T any.
Seriously, anyone have any examples of the Federal Government limiting free speech since 9/11? Anyone?
Re:I am a Muslim and I renounce all violence and t (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Interesting)
Valerie Plame. The Federal government basically said: if you speak out against us, we're going to use all our powers to make your lives miserable.
The Plame case was a far worse offense than what Nixon did, yet the Bush administration just got away with it.
Re:hum (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:lol, but of course it's always more complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I declare a fatwah! (Score:2, Interesting)
In a free marketplace of ideas like western Europe, asking for this kind of protection under the law for your ideas gives a rather obvious indication of the lack of confidence in those ideas in my opinion. But then, i don't claim to understand religious people.
But we shouldn't let facts get in the front of our generalized prejudices, should we?
Re:lol, but of course it's always more complicated (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
So we should just sit back? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I live in Holland, and (Score:3, Interesting)
So what you are basically saying, is that you reserve the right to call the Quran all sort of names - or even ban it - based solely on the actions of some people who claim to follow its message. I really don't think that position is tenable. Hmmm...you are clueless when it comes to Islam. The whole concept of "church" is unacceptable. One of the ideas the prophet defended is that, authority will eventually be abused for political reasons, and only a fool would trust an institution who's going to tell you how to live you life. What you just wrote is at the essence of the problem and the reasoning behind modern Islamophobia. Don't hold your breath. I have no more responsibilities than a Christian to denounce the torching of abortion clinics or a Jew to dissociate him/herself from Zionism. If you are not educated enough and must associate all Muslims with the actions of Ben-Laden or other criminals, then suit yourself.
I am a Muslim, and by definition, my only spiritual leader is God. That the brainwashed followers of a twat preaching hatred and/or violence claim to be Muslims does not make it so. That's a good point. Immigration is not a Human right, but freedom of religion definitely is.
As far as I'm concerned, you should be able to let whoever you damn please into your country. If you want to discriminate against race, religion, sexuality or any other attribute, it is your country, and you should be able to lobby for that. I just don't see how you can get your compatriots to go along in that plan of yours.
And you didn't answer the question as to how you're envisaging to deal with Muslims who are citizens. I know for a fact that there are a lot of them. Do you give them signs to display prominently? Stack 'em up in camps? Boats? And if so, how do you plan on getting away with that legally?
Peace,