So, who's seen it?
You read more about it and watch it . Warning: it is very, very graphic.
*looks left, then right and ducks for cover*
So, who's seen it?
You read more about it and watch it . Warning: it is very, very graphic.
*looks left, then right and ducks for cover*
Last edited by smartcookie; 04-15-2008 at 09:41 PM. Reason: I heart shitstorms.





^^^ yes I saw it during it's first stint on the LiveLeak website ... before it was pulled due to LiveLeak employees receiving 'threats of a very serious nature' from Dutch Islamic extremists ...
(snip)""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 realized 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 another's culture. We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high."
Initial efforts to derail the film proved less successful. Network Solutions on Saturday suspended the Web site where Wilders had been planning to premiere the film, citing complaints about the then unseen film's content.
During the day that the film was available, it prompted widespread condemnation. On Friday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon decried Fitna as hate speech.
"I condemn, in the strongest terms, the airing of Geert Wilders' offensively anti-Islamic film," said Ban in a statement. "There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here. I acknowledge the efforts of the Government of the Netherlands to stop the broadcast of this film, and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility."
Ban said that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western nations but a minority of extremists eager to stir strife.
The Organization of The Islamic Conference also denounced the film as blasphemy. OIC Secretary General Prof Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said, "The film is a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims, incitement for hatred and an act defamation of religions which is solely intended to incite and provoke unrest and intolerance among people of different religious beliefs and to jeopardize world peace and stability."
In the day that Fitna played, it was viewed over 420,000 times."(snip)
from
I was particularly interested in Wilders' film because Wilders in the Netherlands, Jean LePen in France, the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the NPD in Germany, and perhaps most successful the SVP in Switzerland, are all taking a strong stance against the 'separatism' of Islamic immigrants, as well as the violence stemming from Islamic enclaves in their countries.
Perhaps most controversial are efforts by these parties to redefine the criteria for citizenship of children (i.e. just because someone managed to sneak into country X and have a child, that child would not automatically become a citizen of country X), to redefine hate speech so that open discussions are once again possible (i.e. without requiring gov't approval of the subject matter), and holding parents responsible for the criminal acts of their children (i.e. deporting the entire family if any family member is convicted of a serious crime)
I was also extremely interested in Mr. Wilders' own comments about this film and its motivation ...
I would also add that Wilders film is actually a 'follow-up' ... with the original groundbreaking film on this subject released by Hollander Theo Van Gogh (yes the same family) 3 years ago. Unfortunately, Mr. Van Gogh was unable to follow up his own film, since he was promptly murdered after his pioneering film 'Submission' was released ...
~
Last edited by Melonie; 04-16-2008 at 01:18 PM.
Submission was directed by Theo Van Gogh, but to characterize it as "his film" is to downplay that it was conceived of and written by .
Fitna is hate speech. But the hate speech is delivered by the subjects themselves, not Geert Wilders.
I've got no patience for a death cult with no sense of irony whatsoever:
![]()
^^^ LOL! Good point
Will someone explain to me how this film is supposedly "anti-Islamic"? Hell, you could make the argument that it's pro-Islamic. All it's doing is pointing out the teachings of Islam and modern Muslim leaders, and the direction that Islam intends to take in the modern world. If people have a problem with pointing out the truth, how is that the messenger's fault? Wouldn't the problem lie with the truth itself?





well according to the Dutch government and the UN, it points out 'negative traits' that only apply to Muslims ... which arguably brands the comments as being racist / xenophobic ... which therefore potentially brings anti-hate speech laws into play.
This is why anti-"hate speech" laws are evil. Without freedom of speech, there can be no other kind of freedom. Every time we silence information like this, these murderers win another big victory against us. Why are our governments colluding in our own demise?
This is a big issue in Europe and has been forr many years ... Two POV are battleing ...
(1) In a democratic soicity there is room for everybody ... We need the muslims to be integrated and feeling welcome ... So we have to avoid any thing that in any way would offend them ... Talking shit about the holly phrofet Muhammed is not nice ...So don't do it !!
(2) The islamic values is not really welcomed and are in many ways contradicting the values in a democratic community ... Even if not ageeing with above ... The freedom of free speech is essential in a democracy ... Feel free to contradict any opinion ... Feel free to make fun of any other opinion ... Feel free to make cheap jokes about Hillary, Obama, Bush, Muhammed ... Nobody goes free !! Take it or leave it !! That's democracy ...
I know where I stand ... Take a wild guess !?
Nini Nieborg reporting from Copenhagen Denmark ...
There actually ISN'T room for everyone in a democratic society. There's no room for those who threaten the democracy. When we wind up censoring ourselves under threat of violence from them, it is no longer a democracy; they have dealt a serious blow to everyone's freedom.
The only way we can save ourselves is to stand up to these people. We can make whatever jokes about whatever historical figures we want to, and if they get violent over a damn cartoon, then they should be dealt with as violent criminals. If they don't want to live in a free society, they can go back the fuck to Iran or Pakistan.




So muslims shouldn't have anything that offends them so they'll be comfortable?? Come one, people make fun of christianity, judaism, LDS, all the time, why should Islam get a pass...





^^^ and also murdering the person that 'made fun' of them ... with 'made fun of' including citing non climate related inconvenient truths a la Fitna !
That's all the more reason we should NOT capitulate.
Nini, we Americans seem to have attracted a different variety of practicing Muslim immigrant than that of Europe. I can only make clumsy guesses as to why:
(1) Our social welfare system is minimal compared to that of Europe, so nobody's going to emigrate to America for that reason;
(2) Europe is geographically closer to the Muslim world, so it makes sense that you get a lion's share of immigrants of that faith - much like why there are so many Mexican immigrants here in the USA;
(3) It's easier to assimilate in America because that's been the name of the game from day 1.
I'm reading Poor Dr. Patai has become a lightening rod for touchy-feely Western apologists who insist that a Hungarian Jew couldn't possibly be accurate in his portrayal of an Arab modal personality. Actually, it's more of a nerdy anthropological study than a political doctrine...I don't think his critics have even read him. It's interesting. I recommend reading it, not that I conflate Arab with Muslim, but it's a fact that most Arabs are Muslim (even though the reverse isn't true) and it's helpful to understand a little bit of the cultural context in which the religion came to exist.
I'm glad no one has come into this thread - yet - crying "But it's a religion of peace!" The "peace" comes from the "peace of mind" that one achieves from conversion to Islam, or defeat of "The House of War", which refers to non-Muslim countries and peoples. There's a more scholarly explanation here:
I'm still waiting for the emergence of the "New Church of Islam" or whatever it'll be called. Other major religions have made those kind of modern transitions to accommodate a modern world with modern needs.
Even the Catholics keep changing their dogma to fit with the modern world. Ever heard of the new and improved 7 deadly sins? Apparently genetic engineering and pollution have replaced sloth and greed.
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!





^^^ that's understandable, since sloth and greed are arguably virtues for the 'religion' of liberal 'humanism' ! But then again, killing 'infidels' is a virtue to extremist Muslims.
I think you are spot on !!
YES ... There is a big difference between Mexican immigrants in USA that really need to work and muslim immigrants that pretty much can live on welfare and chooses to do.
For many years the the debate has been poluted by this Political Correctness stuff. Meaning we weren't even allowed to have a discussion about Islam. Often Germany 1930- would be mentioned.
On the other hand the debate would be polluted by af small group of ignorant racists mixing arab, muslims, fundametalists and terrorists in one box.
All that has somewhat changed for the better in the las few years. I think ...





True for the most part, because many muslims can legally immigrate to a European country as part of previous colonialism (example France and Morocco), or via 'refugee' status. But Mexican immigrants into the USA do have a similar angle i.e. if they can manage to give birth to a child on US soil then that child becomes a US citizen - thus becomes eligible for welfare as does the rest of the family who must care for that child.YES ... There is a big difference between Mexican immigrants in USA that really need to work and muslim immigrants that pretty much can live on welfare and chooses to do.
Another significant difference is that European muslims' non-assimilated 'subculture' pretty much has a monopoly on what in the US would be referred to as 'minority' status, whereas in the US the hispanic / mexican immigrants must compete with (slave descended) black Americans for 'minority' status.
It is not only France that face that problem !! UK, Holland and Germany do it too !! For some diifferent reason !?
Denmark face it too and we never had any colonoies !! The big oil/crisis in 1973- fucked it up !! At that time less than 1 % of the population were foreign or Islam. They were here as forereign labour !!
In 1973 many of those forereign labours would have being more than happy to go go back with a tax/refund !!
We didn't encourage that !!! Now we pay the price !!





Well the UK certainly has an ex-Colonial problem i.e. Malayans, Sudanese, Egyptians / Jordanians, ex-India Pakistanis i.e. a long list from all over the world. The Dutch have their own muslim ex-Colonials to deal with as well i.e. the Moluccans.It is not only France that face that problem !! UK, Holland and Germany do it too !! For some diifferent reason !?
Germany doesn't have the same size ex-Colonial problem, since their colonial adventures were pretty much confined to Tanzania, South Pacific islands etc. But the Germans also inherited a different problem i.e. assimilating the former DDR ... which meant they inherited a whole bunch of muslim USSR "subjects" who moved (or were moved) to the DDR prior to the 'reunion'.
And while this is almost NEVER publicly discussed, the middle eastern muslims and the Germans have been de-facto allies since a muslim extremist Black Hand member assassinated Archduke Ferdinand and started WW1. Of course this intensified in the WW2 years ...
^^^ take note of the famous nephew referred to at that link !
Well the US wound up with 12 million (illegal) mexicans for more or less the same reason ... that in a 'rich' country that offers generous social welfare benefits, most citizens of that country would rather not work at difficult unskilled jobs if they can achieve a similar standard of living on the 'dole'. Thus the 'rich' country tolerated the presence of low skill foreigners to perform those difficult unskilled jobs! But as technological progress and/or gov't mandated labor costs made unskilled jobs uncompetitive, the 'rich' country then wound up with a whole bunch of unskilled immigrant laborers, but fewer and fewer jobs for them to perform.Denmark face it too and we never had any colonoies !! The big oil/crisis in 1973- fucked it up !! At that time less than 1 % of the population were foreign or Islam. They were here as forereign labour !!
~
Last edited by Melonie; 04-19-2008 at 09:53 AM.
The other reason we don't have the extremist Islamist problem here in the US is that Muslims here, by and large, are well-educated and upper class and therefore have integrated and assimilated much easier into the system. In France, Arabs (as well as Muslims) are basically their economically oppressed class...and growing every day.
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.





Some things are more important than full, unfettered, freedom of speech, imo. I think it comes down to the culture of the country, and the circumstances surrounding it's founding. In Canada for instance, our constitution extolls the virtues of "peace, order, and good government" as our highest goals as a nation. Hate laws are consistent with these goals. The US constitution extolls "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Personal liberty is very important to the citizens there. This may account for the difference in philosophies between some countries.
I believe spouting hatred in it's many forms leads to more hatred, and violence, and is the enemy of peace. Just my opinion.





Non-assimilation in Europe is a long-standing tradition. How many nations comprise the average European country? Look at your history if you forgot. Europe is set up culturally to allow nationalities not to assimilate, and in many countries they seem to prefer it.
I could discuss this more, but you can see what I mean.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
Excellent point. An isolationist attitude is one the most common threads in all extremist groups of people regardless of their particular religion, nationality or race. Not much progress will be made on these issues until people stop blaming a particular religion, race etc. and instead start looking at the big picture of how and why these groups form, grow and gain power.
There never was a good war or a bad peace.
Benjamin Franklin
Bookmarks