Dutch Anti-Islamic Film To Air March 28th

Lennoxschips

And i am getting tired of being blamed for the fact that these people dont feel accepted. Why would i keep making efforts while they dont even take on the most basic skill requiered to get along, the language.
40 years in Holland and still not being able to speak Dutch?

I'm not blaming Dutch people for anything. I just said it was a chicken and egg situation. If people keep getting told that they are foreigners, well, it hardly helps.

Every Dutch-Moroccan I've ever met speaks Dutch. Sure, they throw in a bit of their own grammar (not unlike your English) and have an accent, but what the hell. Who cares, I can communicate with them no problem.

As long as you stick to a "us" and "them" mentality then that's how it will stay.

Reality is that lines are being cut, where there used to be 4 buses in 1 hour, now there is 2 in 90 minutes.

And the reality in Ireland for most towns and villages is zero buses per hour. Even in the backwaters of Holland there's a some kind of a public transport connection. Sure, you will have to find out the schedule and wait for a bus, but a bus will come. In Ireland there is no public transport in most places.

All that Dutch tax does go somewhere.

Lennoxschips

djpbarry wrote: »

More mosques than churches?!? :eek: May God have mercy on us all!

Yeah. Two churches in my area of town were torn down to make way for... apartments.

I thought it was a shame, but yeah, supply and demand I guess.

inforfun

djpbarry wrote: »

Here is the official data on asylum applications for the 10-year period from 1990 - 1999; it's a long way off 100,000 per year.

I give you the stats when you asked me to provide a source that shows my 85/90% economical refugees to be accurate.
You completely ignore that and only come back on the 100.000.

djpbarry wrote: »

He didn't say anything about killing. If Wilders can say whatever the hell he wants, then surely the same privilege has to be extended to everyone else, Muslim or not, no?

This is what he posted:
If you are going to defend his "right" to demonise Muslims, then you should defend the "right" of extremist Muslims to call for terrorists acts against westerners also.


Since when is verbally criticizing someone the same as calling for terrorists acts against westerners?
the only terrorists acts that didnt have fatalities are the ones that went wrong (wrong as in: wrong for the terrorists of course)

oscarBravo

It shouldn't really need saying, but comparison of public services & taxation between the Netherlands and Ireland is off-topic for this thread.

Lennoxschips

Yes, let's not stimulate spontaneous conversation.

berliner

wes wrote: »

I call them like I see them. See free speech works the other way too .

**EDIT**
Oh and extreme right wing nationalist call themselves patriots all the time. This is what Wilders party is. They are referred to by the media as a far right party. I don't think they would deny that themselves even. I personally consider the far right nutty (same for the far left). There just one example of this is all. I would also consider the far right Muslim extremist to be nutty as well for example.

"the Media" is full of crank liberals.I don't take their labels seriously.As i said before,Wilders party is saying what needs to be said in Holland.

MarkNL

Memnoch wrote: »

The comments and the film by Mr. Wilders also should fall into this category. He is making a very personal and opinionated generalisation that demonises a large section of society and encourages division and hatred. Granted he isn't directly calling for violence, but he doesn't need to. Creating hate is more than enough. His actions constitute incitement to racism and violence and should not be tolerated in a supposedly secular society.

Mr Wilders is doing nothing but quoting source material (quran, sura, etc...). The evidence is, frankly speaking, damning.

He has the right to do this.

Mark
Netherlands

wes

berliner wrote: »

"the Media" is full of crank liberals.I don't take their labels seriously.As i said before,Wilders party is saying what needs to be said in Holland.

Yes, the "liberal" media excuse. Just, because they say things you don't like doesn't make it so. Going on the about the "liberal" media is a favored method of the far right.

You agree with Wilders, good for you. I am still gonna call them, like I see them. A far right political party.

berliner

wes wrote: »

Yes, the "liberal" media excuse. Just, because they say things you don't like doesn't make it so. Going on the about the "liberal" media is a favored method of the far right.

You agree with Wilders, good for you. I am still gonna call them, like I see them. A far right political party.

Put any label you want on them.I support their views.Holland is listening.

wes

berliner wrote: »

Put any label you want on them.I support their views.Holland is listening.

Good for you !

Hopefully the "Liberal" media won't stop them from listening, due there accurate portrayal of Wilders party!

inforfun

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Every Dutch-Moroccan I've ever met speaks Dutch. Sure, they throw in a bit of their own grammar (not unlike your English) and have an accent, but what the hell. Who cares, I can communicate with them no problem.

I am aware that my English is far from perfect and there is an accent for sure too. Maybe you can compare it with the level of Dutch of the Dutch-Moroccans you met.
One huge difference though.... I wasn't born and raised in Ireland, i didnt go to school in Ireland and during working hours i mostly have to speak Dutch.

berliner

wes wrote: »

Good for you !

Hopefully the "Liberal" media won't stop them from listening, due there accurate portrayal of Wilders party!

Good for you too:mad:

djpbarry

inforfun wrote: »

I give you the stats when you asked me to provide a source that shows my 85/90% economical refugees to be accurate.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. The figures I posted showed that there were a total of 322,240 asylum applications in the Netherlands for the 10-year period 1990-1999. In the same period, 138,080 applicants (approximately 42.9%) were granted asylum, either temporarily or permanently. How exactly does this show your figure of "85/90% economical refugees" to be accurate? And what is an "economical refugee" anyway?

inforfun wrote: »

Since when is verbally criticizing someone the same as calling for terrorists acts against westerners?

:rolleyes:
Nobody said they were the same. The point is that if Person A (i.e. Wilders) has the right to say that "all Muslims are evil and we have to defend ourselves before it's too late", then someone else should have the right to say that "Dutch society is evil and we have to defend ourselves from it". That doesn't mean that I agree with either statement; it means you either have free speech, or you do not. If you do not, then where do you draw the line?

Lennoxschips

inforfun wrote: »

I am aware that my English is far from perfect and there is an accent for sure too. Maybe you can compare it with the level of Dutch of the Dutch-Moroccans you met.
One huge difference though.... I wasn't born and raised in Ireland, i didnt go to school in Ireland and during working hours i mostly have to speak Dutch.

Your criticism was that you couldn't communicate with Dutch-Moroccans. But this is patently not the case. First you criticise them for not speaking Dutch, and then when this is shown not to be true, you harp on about their Dutch not being good enough. The goalposts keep getting moved.

This is why I gave up integrating into Dutch society long ago. I speak fluent, university level Dutch, but that's not good enough. I don't eat haring, don't dress up in orange and don't sing along to Andre Hazes, so I'll never be accepted in the eyes of Dutch people. And even then I would still be "die Ier." I realised long ago that many Dutch (just like many Irish) just aren't interested in mixing with foreigners. They make up stories about integration and what not as an excuse.

Lennoxschips

In the same period, 138,080 applicants (approximately 42.9%) were granted asylum, either temporarily or permanently.

Yup, 138,080 in a ten year period. It doesn't wash with the political scaremongering of a country being "flooded" with asylum seekers.

But then politicians often aren't reality based.

therewillbe

Freedom of .......whatever .thats democracy , aint it ? We cannot step back to the dark days .

inforfun

For those who are interested....

Fitna the movie has been uploaded on Liveleak


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

But at the moment the servers are "smoking"

speedboatchase

Wow, there is some VERY provocative imagery in there

Thirdfox

It's up on Youtube too.

Here's the thread I wrote on it (didn't see this one):
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55506020#post55506020

The controversial film by Dutch MP Geert Wilder on Islam is out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T8azt0b-HGY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9P6Upxmm890

This is part of what the BBC had to say:
"Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders has posted a controversial film critical of Islam's holy book, the Koran, on the internet.

The opening scenes show a copy of the Koran, followed by footage of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

The 17-minute film was posted on video-sharing website LiveLeak.

Its planned release had sparked angry protests in Muslim countries. The Dutch government has distanced itself from the views of 44-year-old Mr Wilders."

What do you think? Is Islam itself a "danger" to "Western" society? Or just the fringe groups that hi-jack the words for their own cause? Does Western mean Christian or just non-Muslims in this case? And what about the video itself? A fair portrayal of Islam? Or mere right wing sensationalism?

I note the bible has similar hate filled verses but Christians (mostly) don't act on the passages telling them to stone homosexuals etc. (See the most hated family in America for one exception - and even they don't actually stone homosexuals, just protest at soldiers funerals.) Is Islam the only religion to be denounced or should other religions be equally attacked?

Sesshoumaru

I thought it was a good film. If it gets people talking about Islam and the intolerant aspects of this belief system then the film has done a good job. We'll just have to wait until Fridays prayers are over to see if Muslims worldwide will ponder their religion and their fellow non Islamic man for a few moments. More likely is that we will see a lot of burning and rioting by people who haven't seen the movie.

Definitely recommended viewing for those still under the impression that Islam is only a peaceful religion. Many reformations to go before it gets to that stage!

wes

Watched a few minutes of it. At best its bad propoganda. In fact its propoganda in a grand old far right European tradition.

Of course, Wilders true intention eventually comes out, when he goes on about Muslims, will some how take over Europe (the Islamisation nonsense and the rubbish about population). Has everyone forgotten the fact that European armies (e.g. UK) are currently occupying 2 Muslim countries? So some how Muslims are the ones who are in danger of taking over Europe, even with the European armies occupying Muslims countries. Complete nonsense.

unkel

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I thought it was a good film. If it gets people talking about Islam and the intolerant aspects of this belief system then the film has done a good job.

Agreed. I was fearing a hating film taking the complete p!ss out of everything and everyone islam. It is quite the opposite really. It seems it just wants to expose the silly extremist view in general but much more importantly, all those surmons by all those beardy fascists

jonny72

Just watched it..

Very very strong provocative stuff..

Having lived in Holland and seen the growing situation I think I can say there is A LOT of tension under the surface in that country.

Sesshoumaru

wes wrote: »

Watched a few minutes of it. At best its bad propoganda. In fact its propoganda in a grand old far right European tradition.

Of course, Wilders true intention eventually comes out, when he goes on about Muslims, will some how take over Europe (the Islamisation nonsense and the rubbish about population). Has everyone forgotten the fact that European armies (e.g. UK) are currently occupying 2 Muslim countries? So some how Muslims are the ones who are in danger of taking over Europe, even with the European armies occupying Muslims countries. Complete nonsense.

I think its a bad idea to start defining countries by religion. I think people would jump on me if I started calling Europe a Christian continent. I would also disagree that the West is occupying two countries. There is one occupation, Iraq. A war I certainly disagreed with right from the start. Afghanistan is whole different story IMO. But thats another discussion.

To be fair to Wilders he married a Hungarian himself and one of his close friends is Hirsi Ali. I don't think it is fair to call him far right or anti immigration. He himself has said numerous times he has nothing against individual Muslims. That it is the ideology he has a problem with.

The film itself shone a spotlight on the more extremist parts of the religion and the hate mongers who preach those parts. I actually thought it was quite tame compared to what I expected. Not really controversial, just showed us there really are people who call themselves Muslims and hate our society. A small minority for sure. But a very vocal one and they seem to be dominating the agenda at the moment. This is something that is certainly worth highlighting and discussing.

Playboy

Wilders is a zionist or has publicly supported the zionist project. This is a guy with an agenda ... his aim is to offend and reinforce negative stereotypes. He is not interested in debate or asking serious questions of real muslims about their faith. He quotes everything out of context and then also uses provocative imagery alongside the quotes as if somehow the Koran is directly responsible for these tragedieis .. what about the political motives here and american/british/european foreign policy in the middle east .. what about Israel? He also doesnt indicate which translation he uses for the verses in th Koran and you can be sure the terminology he used is going to be the most provocative .. like the word 'roast'.

Horsesh*t film and propoganda of the highest order.

wes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I think its a bad idea to start defining countries by religion. I think people would jump on me if I started calling Europe a Christian continent. I would also disagree that the West is occupying two countries. There is one occupation, Iraq. A war I certainly disagreed with right from the start. Afghanistan is whole different story IMO. But thats another discussion.

I agree we shouldn't define countries based on religion. I should have said Muslim Majority Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think the point I was trying to make was clear enough.

As for Afghanistan, it is still an occupation. Even if they had good reason to invade (to get Osama, something the forgot about apparently), doesn't change the fact that it is a occupation.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

To be fair to Wilders he married a Hungarian himself and one of his close friends is Hirsi Ali. I don't think it is fair to call him far right or anti immigration. He himself has said numerous times he has nothing against individual Muslims. That it is the ideology he has a problem with.

I don't see how his martial status and who his friends are, have any bearing on what he is saying.

My issue is the stuff about population, when he starts talking about it, its hard to believe that he doesn't have anything against Muslims in general. The far right have been coming up with scare stories about population for other minority groups for ages, Wilders is just repeating the same far right rubbish again. I call him far right as he repeats the same old far right nonsense.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

The film itself shone a spotlight on the more extremist parts of the religion and the hate mongers who preach those parts. I actually thought it was quite tame compared to what I expected. Not really controversial, just showed us there really are people who call themselves Muslims and hate our society. A small minority for sure. But a very vocal one and they seem to be dominating the agenda at the moment. This is something that is certainly worth highlighting and discussing.

The Islamisation bit at the end is what I had an issue with. He seems to have made a few fair points (even if the video is basically a cut and paste) and as you can see I just pointed out stuff that in my mind show his true in intentions with the video. Its very hard to believe the Islamisation of Europe nonsense, when European nations have invaded Muslim majority nations. The simple fact of the matter, Muslims are not a existential threat to Europe as suggested by the Islamisation nonsense. So imo the point of the video is to try and make out that there is a threat of Muslim taking over Europe, I think it fails to make its case and is just a repeat of the same old far right wackiness we have all come to know and love at the end.

Then, there are his repeated calls for the banning of the Koran. If he wants to criticize it till the cows come home, then more power to him. However, the fact that he doesn't really support free speech is another example of his far right credentials imo.

is_that_so

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I thought it was a good film. If it gets people talking about Islam and the intolerant aspects of this belief system then the film has done a good job. We'll just have to wait until Fridays prayers are over to see if Muslims worldwide will ponder their religion and their fellow non Islamic man for a few moments. More likely is that we will see a lot of burning and rioting by people who haven't seen the movie.

Definitely recommended viewing for those still under the impression that Islam is only a peaceful religion. Many reformations to go before it gets to that stage!

I am not sure that it will. It was crass propaganda at best and as far as I could see more about his freedom of speech.

I have to say that I learnt absolutely nothing from it, apart from a few verses he plucked out of the Koran, he added nothing much to my understanding other than the fact he thinks the world is full of some pretty mad people and they want to get us.

wes

Just read a interesting article on Comment is free from Ali Eteraz, I found the following bits interesting:

From http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_et...itna_farce.html

................................
There is also the fact that the Dutch government has completely disavowed itself of the film, something the Danish government didn't do with the Muhammad cartoons. Ayaan Hirsi Ali had already dulled the film's value when she said that all it was meant to do was provoke. Also, Wilders has been accused of thieving by the cartoonish Kurt Westergaard who said he did not authorise the use of his images in the film.

Finally, the image Wilders used to depict Theo Van Gogh's killer is actually Moroccan rapper Salah El Din and not the killer, Mohammed Bouyeri. The only thing the two men have in common is that they are bald and bearded.
................................

The bit, I bolded is a clear case of libel and Wilders has left himself open to a law suit with the film.Then there is the apparently the copy right infringment of someones else work as well.

From http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_et...itna_farce.html

.............................
If there are Muslims who wish to protest - and I really don't see why it's even necessary - my advice for them is to emulate Hossein Nouri. He is the paraplegic painter who, during the Danish cartoon fiasco, painted a portrait of the Virgin Mary in front of the Danish embassy. Here is a picture of his marvellous work.
.............................

An excellent suggestion for people, who are really bothered enough to protest, should do so like this guy:



That guy is like my new hero as well btw .

inforfun

is_that_so wrote: »

I have to say that I learnt absolutely nothing from it, apart from a few verses he plucked out of the Koran, he added nothing much to my understanding other than the fact he thinks the world is full of some pretty mad people and they want to get us.

Well, not the movie itself might learn us something but what about the panic before 1 second of the movie was broadcasted?
The call for banning the movie, without anyone having seen it, the threats made from Islamic countries?

If there is one thing this movie did, again without anyone having seen it, was getting the West **** themself about what could (and according to some would) happen if that movie was showed.

Now you can say that we are all to easily scared but well... Madrid and London anyone?

wes

inforfun wrote: »

Well, not the movie itself might learn us something but what about the panic before 1 second of the movie was broadcasted?
The call for banning the movie, without anyone having seen it, the threats made from Islamic countries?

Wilder himself has called for the banning of the Koran. He is a hypocrite and is hardly the defender or freedom of speech he is being made out to be by some.

Its kinda hard to take a film like this seriously, when the make himself doesn't believe in freedom of speech and is a hypocrite.

inforfun wrote: »

If there is one thing this movie did, again without anyone having seen it, was getting the West **** themself about what could (and according to some would) happen if that movie was showed.

Now you can say that we are all to easily scared but well... Madrid and London anyone?

Iraq anyone? A major war started to find imaginary WMDs, enforce democracy at the end of a gun (its not really democracy, when its at the end of a gun) and radical free market capitalism and not mention a propaganda and recruitment gold mine (that keep paying dividends) for Jihadi groups. Maybe, both sides have reasons to be afraid of the "other". Why not look at how the people feel in the Middle East? When you have the US Republican nominee singing about bombing Iran, maybe they have a good reason to be afraid of the "West" as well.

Perhaps, everyone should stop look at reasons to fear (and inevitably hate one another) and see the commonality between them.