Wilders Denied Entry Into UK Despite Being Invited By Parliament

ChocolateSauce

More on Wilders...and mods, don't worry, this isn't another freedom of speech thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7882953.stm

I've little to say, except that they are wrong to do this. They claim his presence will cause problems. "Lord Ahmed, who said other Muslim peers shared his concerns, stressed that Mr Wilders' views would certainly present a threat to public order."

So let me get this straight...they fear that Muslims are going to start rioting and commit violent acts, and so they penalise a man who only wants to talk about his opinions?

Right. Lovely state society's in these days.

Nodin

Theres a number of muslim speakers that have been barred, theres a few holocaust deniers that have been kept out. Farrakhan was also refused entry at one stage. They only wanted to talk about their opinions too.

Fratton Fred

add the odd american rapper to that list as well.

Nodin

True. Snoop Dog was kept out, and he just wanted to sing a few songs. All in all, the Haircut from Holland has SFA to complain about.

irish_bob

Nodin wrote: »

True. Snoop Dog was kept out, and he just wanted to sing a few songs. All in all, the Haircut from Holland has SFA to complain about.

snoop dogg commited a crime at heathrow airport the last time he was in the uk , its nothing to do with what comes out of his mouth


ps , i like snoop

djpbarry

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I've little to say, except that they are wrong to do this.

Pretty hypocritical alright and it paints Wilders as something of a martyr and generates publicity for him, which is the last thing they want. On a side note, he is one scary looking MoFo.

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a number of muslim speakers that have been barred, theres a few holocaust deniers that have been kept out. Farrakhan was also refused entry at one stage. They only wanted to talk about their opinions too.

Well, further disgrace on the UK in that case. I'm more sceptical about the rappers. They're probably not allowed in because they have records, and not the kind they sell.

On a side note, he is one scary looking MoFo.

Haha, yeah, with his peroxide blonde hair and beady little eyes....

FTA69

Buju Banton and Sizzla (reggae artists) were also excluded because of the homophobia in their lyrics.

Nodin

.....and overall you can bet their videos were better than the Hairdos.

ChocolateSauce

WARNING, LINK LEADS TO FITNA, A VIDEO THAT MAY BE CONSTRUED AS OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY MUSLIMS!

Denied entry abroad, prosecuted at home, all because of this badly presented movie which is largely based on the display of verses from the Koran:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410&hl=en

Nodin

They had two of his cronies on Sky last night. Some American "OMG TehMuzlims!!!" type and another eejit giving a press conference. Seeing the likes of them get airtime is probably the best argument for letting the prat in.

SeanW

I've seen Fitna and I don't understand how it could possibly qualify as Hate Speech - that is, if hate speech is even a reason to gag someone, as someone who is hateful is usually rather transparent about that and most people can recognise, and thusly avoid hateful sentiment.

All that Fitna does is reveal to some of us who didn't already know, the hatefulness of radical Islamism, which is where the REAL Hate Speech is ... unless of course you do not consider "Freedom go to HELL" "Death to Salman Rushdie" "Houses and young men must be sacrificed" "Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed" or 3 year old girls who at that age have learned that "I hate the the Jews because they are apes and pigs" to be hate speech.

In 1859, John Stewart Mill wrote that: "Silencing an opinion is not merely a private injury, but an evil done to the human race, in the present and in the future, to dissenters and to believers alike. If the opinion is right, we lose the opportunity of exchanging error for truth, and if wrong, we lose the opportunity of its full understanding which can only be produced by its contrast with error; otherwise whatever views we hold will be held as dead dogma, not living truth."

If Geert Wilders is nothing more than a hatemonger, and the particulars of his film is easily dismissable by the facts, why is this not the preferred course, over prosecutions, barring orders and threats of violence? Could it be that his arguments are not so easily refuted by fact and so it becomes necessary to oppose him by force, which Lord Ahmed is accused of having done, by threatening to bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to block Mr Wilders from entering Westminster, among other things, and why does Labour seem to love Islamist intimidation so much?

He said it is wrong to believe that religious belief is dying out, and credited Britain's growing Muslim population with raising the public profile of all faiths because secular commentators are afraid to criticise them.

Hmm ...

asdasd

the hatefulness of radical Islamism, which is where the REAL Hate Speech is

Come now. That is Hate Speech and Thought Crime in itself. Was all the teaching at the re-education camp in vain?

Surely you know that

a) If the Pope criticises homosexuality it is a hate crime.
b) It's ok for Islam to do it because Islam is oppressed. Therefore Islam cannot involve itself in hate criminality, only the dominent bourgeois white oppressive culture.

Remember!!

Also

a) European borders should be open to all workers even if they are undercutting wages of the working class. The working classes are agents of white bourgeois oppression when they oppose this. All opposition to open borders is fascism. Remember ths holocaust?
b) European borders should be closed to European parliament members from other member States if we oppose their views.
c) Any muslim can come in regardless of his, or her, views. And from anywhere. Not just Europe. Opposition to this is fascist.

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

All that Fitna does is reveal to some of us who didn't already know, the hatefulness of radical Islamism, which is where the REAL Hate Speech is ... unless of course you do not consider "Freedom go to HELL" "Death to Salman Rushdie" "Houses and young men must be sacrificed" "Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed" or 3 year old girls who at that age have learned that "I hate the the Jews because they are apes and pigs" to be hate speech.

Having watched it I'd disagree. It doesn't limit itself to revealing the hatefullness of radial Islamism, it quotes barbaric sounding verses from the Qu'ran and then casts them beside images of radical Islamism as if one causes another. The thing is, if you wanted to you could drag up equally violent quotations from the Bible yet we don't have massive radical Christian terrorism these days.

His argument is a fallacy, he casts the two side by side without showing cause and effect. Violent proclamations in a religious text does not automatically beget terrorism and radical behaviour as his film suggests. I can see why it would deeply offend Muslims in general.


That said, while his film is offensive, I don't see what barring him from the UK achieves other than raising his profile and getting more people to watch it which is probably exactly what he wants.

SeanW

The thing is, if you wanted to you could drag up equally violent quotations from the Bible yet we don't have massive radical Christian terrorism these days.

Actually, you will find Christianity to be nearly as much of a threat to liberal values and civil progress as Islam - after all they have a hateful view of homosexuals, practiced slavery up until the 1850s in the American South, rail against contraception in AIDS ravaged Africa, hell, both divorce AND homosexuality were illegal in Ireland until the mid 90s while priests diddling boys, de-facto, was not.
(You can probably imagine I don't think much of religion).

His argument is a fallacy, he casts the two side by side without showing cause and effect. Violent proclamations in a religious text does not automatically beget terrorism and radical behaviour as his film suggests. I can see why it would deeply offend Muslims in general.

Fair enough. I will concede that I do not share all of Mr. Wilders views, in particular that the Koran should be banned - I don't believe in banning anything even if it is hateful, because that's a very slippery slope. That includes the Bible, Mein Kampf (of which I have read parts of both). So I'm not a huge Wilders fan in that respect.

What makes Fitna so important in my view is the detailing it does of Islamist sentiment towards freedom, democracy and civilised values. It is this right to question an evil - even if its scale is questionable - that I think must be protected and enshrined at all costs. Otherwise we risk creating dark corners where such ills can grow, like what we're seeing in some European countries and Canada.

Run_to_da_hills

This was discussed on a similar thread in AH,

According to the Telegraph on this story Britains right to free speech is deminishing rapidly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, you will find Christianity to be nearly as much of a threat to liberal values and civil progress as Islam - after all they have a hateful view of homosexuals, practiced slavery up until the 1850s in the American South, rail against contraception in AIDS ravaged Africa, hell, both divorce AND homosexuality were illegal in Ireland until the mid 90s while priests diddling boys, de-facto, was not.
(You can probably imagine I don't think much of religion).

Yup, like I said not much radical terrorism. I never said Christianity wasn't a thread to liberal values.

SeanW wrote: »

What makes Fitna so important in my view is the detailing it does of Islamist sentiment towards freedom, democracy and civilised values. It is this right to question an evil - even if its scale is questionable - that I think must be protected and enshrined at all costs. Otherwise we risk creating dark corners where such ills can grow, like what we're seeing in some European countries and Canada.

See the thing is, does it? Or does it detail a straw man of these sentiments?

SeanW

nesf wrote: »

See the thing is, does it? Or does it detail a straw man of these sentiments?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

I think the point is you're giving Wilders far too much credit. You're taking what is clearly a trashy piece of Islamophobia and turning it into some sort of deep, meaningful proclamation against oppressors of freedom.

Personally, I find it difficult to take Wilders seriously; he cries foul when he is "gagged", but at the same time he's trying to have a book banned. Go figure.

Mena

nesf wrote: »

Seee the thing is, does it? Or does it detail a straw man of these sentiments?

I'd have to agree here, based entirely on personal experience. While there can be no excuse for the actions of fundamentalist Islamists, they certainly do not, in my view, represent the majority out there. I've spent much of the past five years in the Middle East and would be hard pressed to find a nicer, more gently and kind people on this planet, even if they still believe in archaic stories.

Nodin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This was discussed on a similar thread in AH,

According to the Telegraph on this story Britains right to free speech is deminishing rapidly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

So when that Imam was kept out a while back, you reckon they took the same line?

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

He presents Islam in general and specifically certain pages of their holy book as the cause of this extremism. This is in my opinion a straw man and misses or deliberately misconstrues the true causal factors underlying extremism in the Middle East. I don't see it as a criticism of threats against freedom, liberty or whatever. It's a poor smear piece that misses the point.

ChocolateSauce

nesf wrote: »

it quotes barbaric sounding verses from the Qu'ran and then casts them beside images of radical Islamism as if one causes another.

Are you saying they don't? Why would there be radical Muslims calling for Jihad if they didn't find justification in the Koran? Can you imagine the difference we'd see if there were verses like "Convert all ye can, but do not do violence unto the unbelievers, for this is an abomination in the eyes of Allah"?

As for Christians, I'd point out two things, firstly, the Bible doesn't call on its followers to be quite as aggressive as the Koran does, and two, most if not all Christian countries (or formerly Christian countries, depending) have very large numbers of people in them who are not very religious, if at all. I would say a secular way of life has put a gag order on the militant aspects of Christianity, something which cannot be said for Muslim countries.

djpbarry

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Can you imagine the difference we'd see if there were verses like "Convert all ye can, but do not do violence unto the unbelievers, for this is an abomination in the eyes of Allah"?

Do we know for sure that there is not such a verse? I only ask because I know that the Bible is full of contradictions, so I wouldn't be surprised if other holy books were too.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

...firstly, the Bible doesn't call on its followers to be quite as aggressive as the Koran does...

You sure about that? Surely it's a matter of interpretation?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

...most if not all Christian countries (or formerly Christian countries, depending) have very large numbers of people in them who are not very religious, if at all.

Most Christian countries? I disagree. Take for example the US, Italy, Spain, etc.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I would say a secular way of life has put a gag order on the militant aspects of Christianity, something which cannot be said for Muslim countries.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that?

ChocolateSauce

djpbarry wrote: »

Do we know for sure that there is not such a verse? I only ask because I know that the Bible is full of contradictions, so I wouldn't be surprised if other holy books were too.

The Koran has far fewer contradictions than the bible. If there is such a verse, I would argue it has been ignored in favour or other more hateful verses.

You sure about that? Surely it's a matter of interpretation?

Well I would think the interpretation which is currently popular is the one which has millions of Muslims on the streets of cities all over the world calling for the destruction of the west over a silly little cartoon.

Most Christian countries? I disagree. Take for example the US, Italy, Spain, etc.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that?

Like the US, which is the only country in the world founded on secular principles? Like Spain, the (I think) third country to legalise gay marriage? Like Italy, where there is a great debate raging as to the right to die? If these countries were as devout as, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there would be secular state, no gay marriage and no debate. There is somewhere between 15-30% of the population of Italy and Spain who "do not believe there is a god", and while the average in the US is about 10%, the coasts have a much higher rating, while the inner "bible belt" has almost universal belief in god. Even so, among the people who call themselves Christian, how many would follow the bible strictly?

What I mainly meant was that in most liberal democracies, religion isn't allowed to do certain things, like have its biblical laws written into civil law. Many countries, France and the US in particular, make such interference highly illegal, and thus Christianity has been gaged. Compare the situation 300 years ago when the punishment for atheism was death.

nesf

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Are you saying they don't? Why would there be radical Muslims calling for Jihad if they didn't find justification in the Koran?

If you want to state that you need to do more than merely point to violent verses and then to violent members of that religion. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. If Wilders wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than make a mere assertion.

ChocolateSauce

nesf wrote: »

If you want to state that you need to do more than merely point to violent verses and then to violent members of that religion. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. If Wilders wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than make a mere assertion.

Point agreed on, in principle. I do however think there is room for an intuitive leap. I also cannot actually put everything I have read, seen or heard into a thread on the internet.

asdasd

Most Christian countries? I disagree. Take for example the US, Italy, Spain, etc.

ChoclateSauce has already demolished your arguments, but even were those three correct you would have to look up the definition of "most", or ask a three year old.

If Wilders wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than make a mere assertion.

Who cares if he wants to be taken seriously, or not. Why is he not allowed to speak in "free" England, even were his arguments spurious - which I dont concede.

nesf

asdasd wrote: »

Who cares if he wants to be taken seriously, or not. Why is he not allowed to speak in "free" England, even were his arguments spurious - which I dont concede.

Oh, I think he should be allowed speak. I just think his central argument in his film is spurious which was my disagreement with SeanW.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Are you saying they don't? Why would there be radical Muslims calling for Jihad if they didn't find justification in the Koran? .

Because they'll latch on to what they want to justify themselves? Thats why they're a minority.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I would say a secular way of life has put a gag order on the militant aspects of Christianity, something which cannot be said for Muslim countries.

Try some of American loons and get back to me.

asdasd wrote:

ChoclateSauce has already demolished your arguments.

Where?

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Because they'll latch on to what they want to justify themselves? Thats why they're a minority.

Well they seem to have latched onto the Koran.

Try some of American loons and get back to me.

Loons, they are. Militant, they are not. As I've said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza" and that we "behead those who mock Jesus"?

Oh, I think he should be allowed speak. I just think his central argument in his film is spurious which was my disagreement with SeanW.

Voltaire wrote:

Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As I've said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza"

The US congress (democratically elected), were happy to vote in support of bombing Gaza. Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient.

asdasd

Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient/

True, if the BBC or RTE covered Gaza then we would all know about. Unfortunatley they spend all their time on the plight of Christians in Saudi Arabia, and Jews in the rest of the ME.

wes

asdasd wrote: »

True, if the BBC or RTE covered Gaza then we would all know about. Unfortunatley they spend all their time on the plight of Christians in Saudi Arabia, and Jews in the rest of the ME.

So, the poster I was replying to, works for the BBC or RTE?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Where?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Like the US, which is the only country in the world founded on secular principles? Like Spain, the (I think) third country to legalise gay marriage? Like Italy, where there is a great debate raging as to the right to die? If these countries were as devout as, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there would be secular state, no gay marriage and no debate. There is somewhere between 15-30% of the population of Italy and Spain who "do not believe there is a god"

nesf wrote: »

I just think his central argument in his film is spurious which was my disagreement with SeanW.

Perhaps, but if ones holy book tells them to go out and kill non believers and they proceed to do that, it's hard to claim to the contrary that they're acting in violation of Koranic teachings.

wes wrote: »

The US congress (democratically elected), were happy to vote in support of bombing Gaza. Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient.

Likewise incovenient is the fact that Hamas started the whole thing by firing rockets deep into Israel proper.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

When was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza" and that we "behead those who mock Jesus"?

+1

wes

SeanW wrote: »

Likewise incovenient is the fact that Hamas started the whole thing by firing rockets deep into Israel proper.

Except that they didn't. It started when Israel broke the cease fire, by launching an attack into Gaza. Of course, this fact is constantly denied, as its terribly inconvenient.

Anyway, still doesn't change the US support for the atrocities commited in Gaza.

**EDIT**
Here is a link concerning the breaking of the ceasefire:
Guardian.co.uk: Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well they seem to have latched onto the Koran."?

No, certain muslims have latched onto a certain reading of the Koran

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Loons, they are. Militant, they are not. ."?

Waco, Oklahoma city bombing, abortion clinic bombings and shootings.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

As I've said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza" and that we "behead those who mock Jesus"?

Why would you get that in the secular, largely irreligous West?
Go to India, however, and you'll find Hindus every bit as militant as their muslim counterparts. Or Sri Lanka. Or take a look at the christian phalangists in Lebanon.

SeanW wrote:

Perhaps, but if ones holy book tells them to go out and kill non believers and they proceed to do that, it's hard to claim to the contrary that they're acting in violation of Koranic teachings."?

...a statement which rests on the presumption that that simplistic reading is correct. However, the majority of muslims don't agree with that, and don't act in such a fashion. And presumably it is by actions that we judge them, rather than baseless fear.....

SeanW wrote:

Likewise incovenient is the fact that Hamas started the whole thing by firing rockets deep into Israel proper.."?

...but not as inconvenient as the fact that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land and mistreating the inhabitants for over four decades, long before there was a Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the other non-secular groups.

ChocolateSauce

wes wrote: »

The US congress (democratically elected), were happy to vote in support of bombing Gaza. Of course, such things are often ignored, as there terribly inconvenient.

Bombing Gaza as a means to an end is not the same as calling for genocide, which "death to Israel" can only be construed as. The Congress voted to bomb Gaza, not to kill everyone in it. Furthermore, Hamas started the thing with their endless rocket attacks on civilian targets, and Hamas is democratically elected too. They broke the ceasefire by doing this, and then they hid their militants in civilian buildings so that the only way the Israelis could stop them was to attack buildings full of civilians. It's a losers game for both sides, it is wrong to attack civilian targets, but it is also wrong to hide in civilian buildings if you're launching rockets at non-combatants.

No, certain muslims have latched onto a certain reading of the Koran

chocolatesauce wrote:

Well they (militant Islamists) seem to have latched onto the Koran.

We seem to have said the same thing here.

Waco, Oklahoma city bombing, abortion clinic bombings and shootings.

Isolated incidents by criminals who happen to be Christians. Where are the Christian versions of the Taliban, or Al-Qaeda, where are the weekly Christian suicide bombings, the barbaric and sick Christian Sharia courts (inquisitions), or even the state sponsored terrorists that are the Saudi Religious police?

...but not as inconvenient as the fact that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land and mistreating the inhabitants for over four decades, long before there was a Hamas, or Hezbollah, or the other non-secular groups.

I don't think you can blame today's politicians or people for the founding of Israel. Blame the allies after the war for that. Besides, all parties are guilty of being unable to live together peacefully. Who started it is irrelevant, who finishes it is all that matters.

Why would you get that in the secular, largely irreligous West?
Go to India, however, and you'll find Hindus every bit as militant as their muslim counterparts.

The Times today has an article dealing with Hindu militants. In the highly conservative parts of India where they're rife, they beat women who are acting "immorally". However, they are vigilantes, even if they do have the tacit support of the local government. In Arabia, they are proud of the fact they brutally lash women in public for similar offenses, and it is written into law. I never said it was exclusively Islam which is like this, but I was comparing it to the west, of which India and Lebanon are not a part.

Largely irreligious, compared to other parts of the world. Very, very few countries in the west actually have Christian minorities, and the US is very devout, fanatical throughout large swathes of it.

asdasd

which "death to Israel" can only be construed as

Actually it probably could be translated as "Down with Israel" - it's an emotive language.

This seems orthogonal to the main thread here - I am sympathetic to Palestinians ( but i was more sympathethic to them when they were nationalists not Islamists) but the point on the table is should Wilders be allowed into the UK.

I say yes.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Bombing Gaza as a means to an end is not the same as calling for genocide, which "death to Israel" can only be construed as. .

Hardly. However theres already a thread to deal with the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't think you can blame today's politicians or people for the founding of Israel. Blame the allies after the war for that. Besides, all parties are guilty of being unable to live together peacefully. Who started it is irrelevant, who finishes it is all that matters..

I wasn't referring to the foundation of Israel. But theres a thread here already if you wish to discuss it further.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Isolated incidents by criminals who happen to be Christians...

...claiming biblical justification. Much like Al Qaeda and the Koran.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The Times today has an article dealing with Hindu militants. In the highly conservative parts of India where they're rife, they beat women who are acting "immorally". However, they are vigilantes, even if they do have the tacit support of the local government. ...

And they have political parties who would instituionalise their views into law, given a chance.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

. I never said it was exclusively Islam which is like this, but I was comparing it to the west, of which India and Lebanon are not a part.
...

Not all faces of Islam are contained in and behave like Saudi Arabia.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Largely irreligious, compared to other parts of the world. .

...and thus acts accordingly.

asdasd

Waco, Oklahoma city bombing, abortion clinic bombings and shootings.

Waco was a State action against some religious nuts. Thats the tragedy there. Oklahoma city was a reaction to that, and no sense that he was religiously motivated. Abortion clinic bombings are rarer than attacks on scientists who work with animals.

Christians would be way down the list of ideologies which produce modern terrorism, behind Islamists, Animal Rights activists, Marxists, Nationalists etc.

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Bombing Gaza as a means to an end is not the same as calling for genocide, which "death to Israel" can only be construed as. The Congress voted to bomb Gaza, not to kill everyone in it.

What would you call the nutters spray painting "death to arabs" around Hebron?

The US congress voted to support an act of state terrorism. You seem to think it ok for the West to support this, but when the other guy does it, it is wrong? They use nastier words, but the end result is the same, support of killing innocent civilians.

Why is it ok for the US to support such an atrocity? To get back to the main point, they supported state terrorism. They are a secular democracy and they supported it. Israels excuses aside, my point is simple, the democratically elected US congress supported state terrorism.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Furthermore, Hamas started the thing with their endless rocket attacks on civilian targets, and Hamas is democratically elected too. They broke the ceasefire by doing this, and then they hid their militants in civilian buildings so that the only way the Israelis could stop them was to attack buildings full of civilians.

You do realize the ethnic cleansing of Palesinte and Israel occupation happened before this? How exactly are Hamas to blame for Israel acts of state terror? Could Hamas not say the same thing. They started it so, we can do whatever we like to defend ourselves? Seems ridiculous to me.

Also, Israel broke the ceasefire, I provided a link earlier about it. Also, when you attack all aspects of infrastructure of one of the world most densly populated area's, civilians will be killed. This has little to do with Israel claims of Hamas hiding among civilians, these guys have homes that they go to sleep in at night, which Israel have no issues attacking. I am sure if Palestinains attacked a member of the IDF in his home and kill them and there entire family, no one would excuse it and would call it terrorism.

Again, to go back to my main point, was of the US congress supporting Israel state terror.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It's a losers game for both sides, it is wrong to attack civilian targets, but it is also wrong to hide in civilian buildings if you're launching rockets at non-combatants.

Israel attacked all government buildings including Police stations, which are civilian targets, Israel targetted everything. So there excuses are ridiculous. They attacked all aspects of the Gazan infrastructure, they openly admited it. The after the fact excuses, mean very little, especially when I know that Israel's claims are largely lies.

Once again, to go back to my main point, was of the US congress supporting Israels state terror.

Just, because the other guys calling for violence are bit more nasty in there rethoric, does not change what the US congress supported, which is state terrorism plain and simple.

Also, don't get me wrong I support Wilders right to go where ever he please. Just as I support the right of the other people who were banned from the UK.

Having said that, from what I can see Wilders has been banned like many others and his case is really no different to the others. Once its ok to ban people for there views from coming to a country, people should not be surprised, when the government starts using those powers to ban anyone they feel like.

ChocolateSauce

Well Nodin, I guess that wraps up our conversation.

wes wrote: »

What would you call the nutters spray painting "death to arabs" around Hebron?

Nutters comes to mind.

The US congress voted to support an act of state terrorism. You seem to think it ok for the West to support this, but when the other guy does it, it is wrong. Why is it ok for the US to support such an a atrocity?

I never said I supported it, I only said it wasn't as bad as genocide.

You do realize the ethnic cleansing of Palesinte and Israel occupation happened before this? How exactly are Hamas to blame for Israel acts of state terror? Could Hamas not say the same thing. They started it so, we can do whatever we like? Seem ridiculous to me. Israel attacked all government buildings including Police stations, which are civilian targets, Israel targetted everything. So there excuses are ridiculous.

While I do agree that Israel over-reacted, I don't think reacting with military force was unjustifiable. The Gaza people voted into power a militant party which has publicly stated it will not stop rocket attacks on Israel until it gets what it wants. As a democracy, the citizens have to take responsibility for the actions of their government. Again, I'm not saying I support Israel, I'm just saying Gaza isn't blameless.

wes

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Nutters comes to mind.

Who are protected by the IDF.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I never said I supported it, I only said it wasn't as bad as genocide.

I never called it genocide. Also, terrorism isn't as bad as genocide either.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

While I do agree that Israel over-reacted, I don't think reacting with military force was unjustifiable. The Gaza people voted into power a militant party which has publicly stated it will not stop rocket attacks on Israel until it gets what it wants. As a democracy, the citizens have to take responsibility for the actions of their government. Again, I'm not saying I support Israel, I'm just saying the Gaza isn't blameless.

I would disagree with your version of events, but that outside the scope of this converstion. Anyway, none of which excuses Israel act of state terror. They also elect there government which pursues apartheid, colonization and state terror, against the Palestinians. Why are they not held responsible by the West for there government? In fact there state terror and apartheid are openly supported in the West, by democratically elected government as well. Why no responsiblity there then? Plenty of people support violence, some do it via protest and others do it via there democractically elected congress.

thebigcheese22

I was listening to the Wide Angle on Newstalk over the weekend and they had excellent guests on about this, Micheal Portillio from the Tories, and a Dutch journalist.

Portillo made the point that he thinks this guy is a buffoon, but giving him and his ilk the oxygen of publicity, it will make them more popular than if the authorities did nothing. Just look at the number of people looking up his documentary, its rocketed in recent days.

Also, the journalist was pointing out that Dutch Left and Centrist Members of Parliment are in uproar over this decision because this idiots numbers in the polls have gone way up, resulting in potentially more MPs under the leadership of this racist.

Never mind the debate about freedom of speech, this was a totally idiotic decision that lacked foresight.

djpbarry

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The Koran has far fewer contradictions than the bible.

I’m going to have to take your word for it.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Well I would think the interpretation which is currently popular is the one which has millions of Muslims on the streets of cities all over the world calling for the destruction of the west over a silly little cartoon.

Popular among a tiny minority, yes, considering there are literally hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over who did not take to the streets in such a way. While we’re on this particular subject, have Christian groups never protested against, say, the dramatic portrayal of Jesus Christ?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Like the US, which is the only country in the world founded on secular principles?

I do not believe that is true. There are several countries in the world that were founded as secular republics. Turkey, for example, comes to mind. But anyway, it’s somewhat irrelevant as the US is not a secular country, by any stretch of the imagination.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Like Spain, the (I think) third country to legalise gay marriage? Like Italy, where there is a great debate raging as to the right to die?

I think we may have misunderstood each other. I was not arguing that Christian countries are “less secular” than Muslim countries.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

If these countries were as devout as, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there would be secular state, no gay marriage and no debate.

Lumping Pakistan (which, like India, was founded as a secular state) in with Saudi Arabia (and to a lesser extent, Iran) is just ridiculous – they are two completely different countries.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Isolated incidents by criminals who happen to be Christians.

That’s a little dismissive and rather naïve, to be honest. There are Christian terrorist groups all over the world. The US has the CSA, the ARA, the Army of God, the Aryan Nations and everyone’s favourite Christian fundamentalists, the Ku Klux Klan. There are other prominent groups in Indonesia, India, Lebanon, Russia, Serbia, Burma, Uganda and Canada.

asdasd

djpbarry, I am watching you, and your Tu Quoque. You seem to have the utter inability to argue in defence of Islam without attacking Christianity. Or to argue A, without attacking B. This tends to bring all threads off topic. As I am now.

That is always and everywhere you argument. And it gets old fast.

The US has the CSA, the ARA, the Army of God, the Aryan Nations and everyone’s favourite Christian fundamentalists, the Ku Klux Klan. There are other prominent groups in Indonesia, India, Lebanon, Russia, Serbia, Burma, Uganda and Canada.

The CSA, ARA, Army of God are so important that I have not heard of them. Most would presumably be nationalist, or racist as well. The KKK has about 5 members, average age 98.

As for the rest, no real iea who these Christian terrorists are - but I would imagine that Christians in Indonesia and India tend to be the subjects of terror rather than the perpetrators, given their position. In fact in both countries Christians have come under attack from mobs, and terrorist organisations, and in Indonesia - a genocidal act by the State.

Islam has terrorist organisations where it is in the majority. And minority. And everywhere in between.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

Christians would be way down the list of ideologies which produce modern terrorism, behind Islamists, Animal Rights activists, Marxists, Nationalists etc.

..yet they exist, in large numbers in Uganda, Burma.....

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

djpbarry, I am watching you, and your Tu Quoque. You seem to have the utter inability to argue in defence of Islam without attacking Christianity. Or to argue A, without attacking B. This tends to bring all threads off topic.

...and that happens because of the tendency to treat Islam in isolation to other religons and behaviours, thus creating a 'biased sample'.

asdasd

...and that happens because of the tendency to treat Islam in isolation to other religons and behaviours, thus creating a 'biased sample'.

Not biased at all. One religion has more bloody frontiers than others, and that is Islam. At least now.

So desperate are y'all for equivalence that we get to hear about terrorists in Indonesia ( which has a historical genocidal policy towards Christians, and a large Islamic terrorist group ranged against them) and Burma ( which has a present day genocidal policy towards Christians).

Really. Come on.

Try harder.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

Not biased at all. One religion has more bloody frontiers than others, and that is Islam. At least now..

...frequently for reasons which are often as much nationalistic as anything else (Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir.

asdasd wrote: »

So desperate are y'all for equivalence that we get to hear about terrorists in Indonesia ( which has a historical genocidal policy towards Christians, and a large Islamic terrorist group ranged against them) and Burma ( which has a present day genocidal policy towards Christians).
Really. Come on.

Try harder.

Well we're merely applying the "terrorist" label. Personally I've always thought armed resistance justified in the three examples I've given, regardless of the various religons involved. If they get blanket labelled, I see no reason not to apply the same criteria in order to refute the "Something About Islam" point of view.