Geert Wilders invades America

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you miss his call for banning the Qur'an?

Not at all. Did you miss the death threats to him and to the website staff when the film was released?
We see people who call for the ban of all religion, not just Islam, regularly. If someone wishes to state their views, but is not making threats of violence, I have no problem whatsoever with that. It's when the talk turns to violence and action that it is a problem.

If he was all talk, I wouldn't have a problem. If he succeeds in passing legislation that persecutes Muslims, however, then he's thrown down the gauntlet.

Yep, all talk, just like the threats against Theo Van Gogh were all talk.

Eight held in probe of Dutch filmmaker's killing - World news - msnbc.com

 

[Kalam]

Yep, all talk, just like the threats against Theo Van Gogh were all talk.

Eight held in probe of Dutch filmmaker's killing - World news - msnbc.com

I'm talking about Wilders himself, not the threats against him.

You won't see me shed a tear if something happens to him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep, all talk, just like the threats against Theo Van Gogh were all talk.

Eight held in probe of Dutch filmmaker's killing - World news - msnbc.com

I'm talking about Wilders himself, not the threats against him.

You won't see me shed a tear if something happens to him.

My mistake.

I thought you were just pandering to terrorists, not actively supporting them.

 

[Kalam]

My mistake.

I thought you were just pandering to terrorists, not actively supporting them.

If you insist on playing with fire, don't be surprised when you get burned. I'm not ashamed to point out that the world is better off without Van Gogh and would be better off without Wilders. However, I'm afraid that my nonchalance toward any misfortune that might befall Mr. Wilders doesn't amount to "actively supporting" any criminal act - I don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My mistake.

I thought you were just pandering to terrorists, not actively supporting them.

If you insist on playing with fire, don't be surprised when you get burned. I'm not ashamed to point out that the world is better off without Van Gogh and would be better off without Wilders. However, I'm afraid that my nonchalance toward any misfortune that might befall Mr. Wilders doesn't amount to "actively supporting" any criminal act - I don't.

If you do not condemn criminal acts you are actively supporting them. Your attitude is the reason I claim that Islam is an abomination on religion, you do not even care that it is used as justification to kill people. There are plenty of people that would love to ban Christianity and the Bible, and if you point out any Christian that thinks people like that should be killed I will tell you that they are wrong. That is the difference between a true follower of a peaceful religion and people like you.

 

[ekrem]

Did Geert Wilders tell you you can't talk about something?

Did you miss his call for banning the Qur'an?

In the recent elections he promised to impose a headscarf-tax for Muslim women.

 

[Kalam]

My mistake.

I thought you were just pandering to terrorists, not actively supporting them.

If you insist on playing with fire, don't be surprised when you get burned. I'm not ashamed to point out that the world is better off without Van Gogh and would be better off without Wilders. However, I'm afraid that my nonchalance toward any misfortune that might befall Mr. Wilders doesn't amount to "actively supporting" any criminal act - I don't.

If you do not condemn criminal acts you are actively supporting them. Your attitude is the reason I claim that Islam is an abomination on religion, you do not even care that it is used as justification to kill people. There are plenty of people that would love to ban Christianity and the Bible, and if you point out any Christian that thinks people like that should be killed I will tell you that they are wrong. That is the difference between a true follower of a peaceful religion and people like you.

"Active support" involves quite a bit more than a lack of condemnation, but thanks for explaining things for me.

Wilders can say whatever he wants about Islam. I'm afraid that none of it will stymie our astronomical rate of growth or accomplish anything other than motivating one of my more unstable coreligionists to do something rash.

PS: It's good to know that your perception of an entire religion is based on a single "attitude" within it. Who knew that my posts were so authoritative?

 

[Kalam]

Did Geert Wilders tell you you can't talk about something?

Did you miss his call for banning the Qur'an?

In the recent elections he promised to impose a headscarf-tax for Muslim women.

How unsurprising.

 

[lizzie]

Did you miss his call for banning the Qur'an?

Not at all. Did you miss the death threats to him and to the website staff when the film was released?
We see people who call for the ban of all religion, not just Islam, regularly. If someone wishes to state their views, but is not making threats of violence, I have no problem whatsoever with that. It's when the talk turns to violence and action that it is a problem.

If he was all talk, I wouldn't have a problem. If he succeeds in passing legislation that persecutes Muslims, however, then he's thrown down the gauntlet.

So, is he capable of single-handedly passing anti-Muslim legislation? Have you no faith that he's not supported to that extent by most of the people around him? Is he any better or worse than someone in a predominantly Islamic country who speaks out against Christians or Jews?

 

[Kalam]

So, is he capable of single-handedly passing anti-Muslim legislation? Have you no faith that he's not supported to that extent by most of the people around him?

He seems to be the visible head of the movement that pushes that sort of legislation. If it has enough support that it actually passes, that speaks volumes about the Dutch government in general.

Is he any better or worse than someone in a predominantly Islamic country who speaks out against Christians or Jews?

He would be just as contemptible if he favored placing those restrictions on Christians or Jews instead of Muslims.

 

[lizzie]

He seems to be the visible head of the movement that pushes that sort of legislation. If it has enough support that it actually passes, that speaks volumes about the Dutch government in general.

But what do you believe is the reality of the issue?

He would be just as contemptible if he favored placing those restrictions on Christians or Jews instead of Muslims.

That wasn't what I asked you.

 

[Kalam]

But what do you believe is the reality of the issue?

I'm not familiar enough with Dutch politics to answer that question. All I know is that Geert Wilders is a fanatical proponent of violating the rights of Muslims.

That wasn't what I asked you.

I don't know if direct parallels can be drawn between Wilders and any leader in a primarily Islamic country. They have their own unique faults.

 

[Flopper]

As a country we've gone through many periods of zenophobic reactions - usually aimed at newly arrived immigrant groups, religious groups, ethnic groups or even ideological groups (pinkos) and usually, it's during times of economic or social stress. Typically those groups are either new, and culturally strange to Americans (Chinese, Japanese, Eastern European) or they've been here a long time, quietly biding through each upsurge in anti-whatever (Jews or hispanics). Each upsurge comes with it's own set of readily-believed conspiracy theories, disinformation and urban legends to add fuel to the fire.

The reactions vary, from attempts to restrict or refuse citizenship….
1920’s….

.... So he proposed to change birthright citizenship in the U.S. Constitution with a 1920 amendment. He ran during the 1920 election on the slogan: "Stop the SILENT INVASION." In the end, Phelan was defeated, so that 1920 amendment went nowhere.
​

Today… http://lighthousepatriotjournal.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/conquest-of-aztlan.jpg


To rhetoric and propaganda

1940’s: WWII Homefront: Anti-Japanese
Anti-semitism that peaked in the 30’s and 40’s and the broad public denial about the realities of what was happening in Europe: History of antisemitism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Today, it’s it is the likes of RISING ISLAMOPHOBIA blamed for hate crimes against Turks in Europe Bare Naked Islam's Weblog​

What is ominous, to me, is when these attitudes move into the political sphere.

This September 11th will be commerated with a visit from Geert Wilders, a man who’s views I find deeply disturbing and who’s words are reminiscent of the rampant-anti-semitism of the 30’s and 40’s. To have him here – associated with some of our prominent politicians, and connected with the emotions swirling around memories of 9/11, the desires of a Muslim Imam to build an interfaith Community Center to foster greater dialogue and understanding is a frightening thought.

Europe has long had a tradition of Islam-bashing conservatism, but the Ground Zero mosque flare up shows Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich now in lockstep with the continent's worst.

On September 11, Geert Wilders, the ultranationalist Dutch politician who has suggested banning the Koran as hate speech, is speaking at Ground Zero, part of a rally against the Islamic community center being built nearby. He’ll be joined by Newt Gingrich, and in all likelihood other significant conservatives as well. Not long ago, the American right resisted the kind of overt Islamophobia that animates reactionary parties in Europe. The embrace of Wilders shows that this is no longer the case. A new type of religious bigotry has entered American politics, one more blatant than anything we’ve seen since the Twin Towers fell.

Even during the most terrifying days after September 11, or in the crazed and febrile period preceding the invasion of Iraq, the spokespeople for the American right mostly refrained from the outright demonization of Muslims. Some of the credit goes to George W. Bush, who, despite the odd slip of the tongue about America’s “crusade,” was usually careful to emphasize that American Muslims are not an internal enemy

Entire article: Geert Wilders Invades G.O.P America: Newt Gingrich Leading Shameless European-Style Islam-Bashing Crusade

I agree.

The most disturbing aspect of the xenophobia you speak of is those that preach hate, distrust, and fear for political and financial purposes. They are well aware the hate they spread will last long after the issue dies away. Who are they? You need only spin your radio dial across the AM spectrum or Goggle Muslim or Immigration. But these aren't the only ones; Islamic terrorist who need the support of a billion Muslims, Politicians who seek to score political gains in the upcoming elections, and the political commentators who seek only to increase their ratings. These people are well schooled in knowing what buttons to hit. They know the greatest propaganda method is carefully selected comments that lead their audience to the desired conclusion. They never have to dirty their hands. Their audience will do that for them. Hatred is not something humans are born with. You have be taught and there are lots of teachers around.

 

[lizzie]

That wasn't what I asked you.

I don't know if direct parallels can be drawn between Wilders and any leader in a primarily Islamic country. They have their own unique faults.

Of course direct parallels can be drawn. Hatred is hatred, no matter which side of the aisle one sits on.

 

[Kalam]

That wasn't what I asked you.

I don't know if direct parallels can be drawn between Wilders and any leader in a primarily Islamic country. They have their own unique faults.

Of course direct parallels can be drawn. Hatred is hatred, no matter which side of the aisle one sits on.

Can you give an example of such a leader?

 

[lizzie]

I don't know if direct parallels can be drawn between Wilders and any leader in a primarily Islamic country. They have their own unique faults.

Of course direct parallels can be drawn. Hatred is hatred, no matter which side of the aisle one sits on.

Can you give an example of such a leader?

It was a hypothetical question that I asked in order to get a feel for whether or not you view things from a standpoint of moral relativism or moral absolutism in general. I am pretty much a moral absolutist in that if I see something as wrong, then it is wrong regardless of who employs it. I understand that different cultures have their own moral codes, and I have no problem with that, but in my place and time, I understand things from my own perspective, and I like to try and get a picture of who I am talking to, not only on this, but any issue.

 

[ekrem]

In the recent elections he promised to impose a headscarf-tax for Muslim women.

How unsurprising.

Geert Wilders has called for a parliamentary "headscarf tax" of € 1000 per year for Muslim women. Wilders made his new proposal on Wednesday during the budget debate. "Every woman who wants to wear a headscarf, should first have to apply for a license"

Rechtsextremist Wilders fordert "Kopftuchsteuer" - Niederlande - derStandard.at ? International
Google Translate
Google Übersetzer

Further sources:
Rechtsruck in Holland: Wilders schafft sich Basis für die Macht | Politik | ZEIT ONLINE
Wilders fordert Kopftuchsteuer

 

[hipeter924]

If you insist on playing with fire, don't be surprised when you get burned. I'm not ashamed to point out that the world is better off without Van Gogh and would be better off without Wilders. However, I'm afraid that my nonchalance toward any misfortune that might befall Mr. Wilders doesn't amount to "actively supporting" any criminal act - I don't.

If you do not condemn criminal acts you are actively supporting them. Your attitude is the reason I claim that Islam is an abomination on religion, you do not even care that it is used as justification to kill people. There are plenty of people that would love to ban Christianity and the Bible, and if you point out any Christian that thinks people like that should be killed I will tell you that they are wrong. That is the difference between a true follower of a peaceful religion and people like you.

"Active support" involves quite a bit more than a lack of condemnation, but thanks for explaining things for me.

Wilders can say whatever he wants about Islam. I'm afraid that none of it will stymie our astronomical rate of growth or accomplish anything other than motivating one of my more unstable coreligionists to do something rash.

PS: It's good to know that your perception of an entire religion is based on a single "attitude" within it. Who knew that my posts were so authoritative?

Wilders is a fascist, at first he seems a nice guy sincere about trying to end Islamic terrorism and other issues with Islam. But banning the Koran, special taxes for Muslims and ethnic cleansing/expulsions are fascist actions. It's just a classic example of how Europe is now, Fascists vs Islamists vs Socialists. I am just going to sit back and read about them them killing each other while drinking a cappuccino.

 

[Rezonator]

I don't know if direct parallels can be drawn between Wilders and any leader in a primarily Islamic country. They have their own unique faults.

Of course direct parallels can be drawn. Hatred is hatred, no matter which side of the aisle one sits on.

Can you give an example of such a leader?

Muhammad. He is the only leader. All the rest, including you, are followers who have submitted: submitted your will, submitted your intellect, submitted your very humanity to a man who cheerfully decapitated 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, and enslaved their women and children, after they had surrendered to him on the promise they would be spared:

Then the apostle [Muhammad] went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. . . . There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. —Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad​

That's the "leader" who you and all of Islam reveres and holds up as a "beautiful pattern of conduct" <SPIT!> to be followed and emulated and bowed down to.

Abd Al-Rahman III was one of those sycophantic amoral followers, like you, who became the new Islamic Emir in Spain in 912. After the Castle of Polei in Spain surrendered to him, he decapitated nearly a thousand Christians unwilling to convert to Islam—following the shining example of "the Prophet," don'tcha know.

Let me guess: you're going to tell us that somehow he, like the millions of other Muslims who have slaughtered many more millions of non-Muslims for 1400 years, somehow just didn't get the fucking memo about how "peaceful" and "moderate" they really, really should be. Right? Well, save it, kneeler-boy. I've heard it all.

 

[Jos]

Let me guess: you're going to tell us that somehow he, like the millions of other Muslims who have slaughtered many more millions of non-Muslims for 1400 years, somehow just didn't get the fucking memo about how "peaceful" and "moderate" they really, really should be. Right? Well, save it, kneeler-boy. I've heard it all.

Tens of Millions of Americans where killed by christians
Conquistador - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia