Dutch Anti-Islamic Film To Air March 28th

Camac Hibs

Wilders and crew seem to see Islam as some sort of homogenous ideology, and allow (quite conveniently) the Wahabi/Islamofascist/mentalists to speak for the whole faith, when it is as broad a church as christianity is today. He also assumes that an increased islamic population will inevitably be a far-right fundamentalist one, which from experience we can all see is bollocks.

Honestly some of the stuff you could pluck out of the old testament would make this stuff seem tame.

Im sure Wilders is praying for a hostile and vilent reaction across the world to further radicalize islamic populations, stoke fears and suspicions in the west, and play into the hands of extremist nutters like himself and the likes of al-quada.

bob2000

"some of the stuff you could pluck out of the old testament would make this stuff seem tame"

Maybe so, but please point out the hundreds of thousands of militant catholics that obey it to the letter.

Thirdfox

Maybe so, but please point out the hundreds of thousands of militant catholics that obey it to the letter.

Well the bible belt Christians in the US are pretty scary - though not as militant - more mind control leaning.

SeanW

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?

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?

Yeah, I watched the film (felt I had to cause of all the hubub that surrounded it) and much like the cartoons, I have to ask, what's the big deal? There is a certain propoganda quotient to be sure, but there is also some rarely seen footage of Islamofascist sermons and political speeches. In fact, that stuff about even the rocks asking Muslims to cut Jews heads off, is pretty tame compared to some of the stuff that's out there. I would recommend anyone interested in this watch: Glenn Beck: Exposing the Extremist Agenda.

Many of the people denouncing Geert Wilders film have absolutely no moral authority to do so, because his film is ultra-tame compared to TV series like "Zara's Blue Eyes" and propoganda "news" programmes, that report - as proven fact - that Coca Cola has invested billions of dollars in toppling Iran and PEPSI stands for "Pay Every Penny Save Israel" among other things.

For people here to be demonising Geert Wilders for the mildly propgandaic value of his film rings a little bit hollow. As for the film itself, each part in and of itself means very little, but taken as a whole, it suggests we've got a serious problem on our hands.

Im sure Wilders is praying for a hostile and vilent reaction across the world

He doesn't have to pray - we all know that many of the Middle Eastern demagogues, and radical Imams in the West, will use it as an excuse to ****-stir. As usual.

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.

And before anyone accuses me of playing favourites, I agree with this statement. I have equal quarrel with Mr. Bush and the Neo-Conservatives as I do these Islamofascists. They are two sides of the same coin, equal traders in the same evil currency of ignorance, hatred and fear, as far as I am concerned.

Executive Steve

Lennoxschips wrote: »

To be honest, the most problems I've had growing up in Holland have been with white people. Being at the playground and told to **** off back to Ireland while getting rocks thrown at you, that kind of thing.

Haha I had that from the white Dutch kids AND the Turks / Marokaans kids!

Nothing like a dirty Irishman to throw rocks at to bring a community together!

We should send the entire Government to a "Paddy's day parade" in a Primary school in south Rotterdam next year to ease Dutch racial tensions and get the TD's a restored sense of humility by having rocks thrown at them.

At least the local hospitals where they get patched up will be able to treat them on the same day as they arrive

:pac:

Playboy

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah, I watched the film (felt I had to cause of all the hubub that surrounded it) and much like the cartoons, I have to ask, what's the big deal? There is a certain propoganda quotient to be sure, but there is also some rarely seen footage of Islamofascist sermons and political speeches. In fact, that stuff about even the rocks asking Muslims to cut Jews heads off, is pretty tame compared to some of the stuff that's out there. I would recommend anyone interested in this watch: Glenn Beck: Exposing the Extremist Agenda.

Many of the people denouncing Geert Wilders film have absolutely no moral authority to do so, because his film is ultra-tame compared to TV series like "Zara's Blue Eyes" and propoganda "news" programmes, that report - as proven fact - that Coca Cola has invested billions of dollars in toppling Iran and PEPSI stands for "Pay Every Penny Save Israel" among other things.

For people here to be demonising Geert Wilders for the mildly propgandaic value of his film rings a little bit hollow. As for the film itself, each part in and of itself means very little, but taken as a whole, it suggests we've got a serious problem on our hands.

He doesn't have to pray - we all know that many of the Middle Eastern demagogues, and radical Imams in the West, will use it as an excuse to ****-stir. As usual.

And before anyone accuses me of playing favourites, I agree with this statement. I have equal quarrel with Mr. Bush and the Neo-Conservatives as I do these Islamofascists. They are two sides of the same coin, equal traders in the same evil currency of ignorance, hatred and fear, as far as I am concerned.

Really what are you on about? What serious problem have you got in Longford regarding the Muslim community or the muslim world. To be honest everything you say rings a bit hollow because you probably have never even met a muslim in your life. Why someone is soooo scared of something without ever having been exposed to it is beyond me .. it just shows us that the media is doing a good job :rolleyes:

Sesshoumaru

Playboy wrote: »

Really what are you on about? What serious problem have you got in Longford regarding the Muslim community or the muslim world. To be honest everything you say rings a bit hollow because you probably have never even met a muslim in your life. Why someone is soooo scared of something without ever having been exposed to it is beyond me .. it just shows us that the media is doing a good job :rolleyes:

Why don't you respond to his points instead of trying to belittle the man himself? Your first post after the video was released about Gert Wilders being a Zionist was bizarre in itself.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Many of the people denouncing Geert Wilders film have absolutely no moral authority to do so, because his film is ultra-tame compared to TV series like "Zara's Blue Eyes" and propoganda "news" programmes...

That's a bit of a daft argument - I can't criticise Wilders because someone, somewhere else (presumably on the other side of the imaginary left wing – right wing divide), has produced something less credible?

Playboy

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Why don't you respond to his points instead of trying to belittle the man himself? Your first post after the video was released about Gert Wilders being a Zionist was bizarre in itself.

Because his posts are all the same. He speaks of the ignorance, hatred and fear spread by the neo cons and the Islamofacists .. but dont you think he should add himself to that list.

Ignorance - knows nothing about Islam, Sharia and has interacted with very few if any Mulsim people. Does not live in an area with a significant muslim population or has any Islam related problems.

Fear - Seems to have some sort of Islamophobia .. a completely irrational fear that Europe and/or Ireland is about to be taken over by extremist Muslims and we have to put a stop to it before it gets out of hand :rolleyes:

Hatred - Seems to spend a lot of time watching right wing propoganda movies and articles and regurgitating them in online forums thus spreading more of this media inspired fear regarding Islam and Muslims in general.

SeanW

Playboy wrote: »

Really what are you on about? What serious problem have you got in Longford regarding the Muslim community or the muslim world. To be honest everything you say rings a bit hollow because you probably have never even met a muslim in your life. Why someone is soooo scared of something without ever having been exposed to it is beyond me .. it just shows us that the media is doing a good job :rolleyes:

Ok, first of all, this is the second time you have seriously misrepresented what I said. In this case you have no excuse as I made 2 things crystal clear:

1: I have no quarrel with ordinary, moderate muslims. My only grievence is with the Islamofascists and the Middle Eastern leaders, radical Imams etc who look to start trouble at every opportunity, preach hatred etc.
2: I have no more respect for the likes of Bush and Co than the above mentioned Islamofascists.

That's a bit of a daft argument - I can't criticise Wilders because someone, somewhere else (presumably on the other side of the imaginary left wing – right wing divide), has produced something less credible?

Not you personally, I was referring more to some Middle Eastern people who are involved in productions like "Zara's Blue Eyes." Or indeed the leaders or governments of any of those countries whos state media produces similar propoganda? Surely you cannot believe that these people have any moral authority to tell Holland or Mr. Wilders what to publish?

Playboy re: your latest post, you're wrong on all 3 points.

Ignorance

Actually, yes, I have known a few Muslim people they seemed pretty solid, decent people. As far as I know they just practiced their religion and didn't bother anyone else about it.
People like these are NOT the ones I object to. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you.

Fear - Seems to have some sort of Islamophobia

Nonsene. Objecting to political Islamofascism is not irrational. Pretending it doesn't exist is irrational. Ignoring all the evidence, that's beyond irrational.

Hatred - Seems to spend a lot of time watching right wing propoganda movies

You're suggesting that Glenn Beck's videos qualify as hate speech?

speedboatchase

Keep fighting the good fight SeanW . The people on this board trying to belittle the film's message or saying that it was tame or whatever, are the exact same people who would allow it to be banned instead of broadcast a few weeks ago in the first place. The same people who infantilise the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and who even view the former as an unjust war. It's this kind of thinking and appeasement that leads them to blaming America for nearly everything on every single topic, even when it's not relevant at all.

Wilder's made a fairly reasoned argument here that at least can maybe open up a dialogue between European and moderate Islam. I hope we don't see a similar reaction as to what we had seen in Denmark 2 years ago because if you look at the clip, Wilders was obviously trying to stay within the legal framework for the film to be broadcast. It wasn't unbiased, but it wasn't "hate speech" either and hopefully we will witness a rational reaction.

I think people are going off on a tangent about saying that Islamisation of Europe is the big boogy man because if you look at Irish statistics, the same influx of Islamic immigrants has not affected us as yet. However that isn't to say that the cases in Scandinavia, Netherlands, France and UK should be ignored or that they don't exhibit certain patterns.

We in Ireland aren't going to wake up one day and find ourselves in an Islamic state to be sure, but its still important that we recognise our Western values as worthy of protection, rather than appeasing and changing our laws and our ways to citizens from countries that would never grant us the same respect. Radical Islam and its followers deserve no respect, and on the contrary, moderate Islamic voices to drown out their views should be encouraged

jonny72

speedboatchase wrote: »

Keep fighting the good fight SeanW . The people on this board trying to belittle the film's message or saying that it was tame or whatever, are the exact same people who would allow it to be banned instead of broadcast a few weeks ago in the first place. The same people who infantilise the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and who even view the former as an unjust war. Poor Taliban eh? It's this kind of appeasement that leads them to blaming America for nearly everything on every single topic, even when it's not relevant at all.

I have a strange feeling that the same people 'backing' Mr Wilders film would have a very different view and a very different reaction if his film was about Jews instead of Islamists.

speedboatchase

The central issue of this thread is freedom of speech. We're all entitled to voice our opinions on this board within reason, else the moderator can ban us or lock the thread. Now that we've seen the film wasn't actually as bad as was feared, Wilders has exercised his freedom of speech also.

This issue has nothing to do with Jews (unless you're trying to back one side as Pro-Israel, which is dumb) as radical Islam is directly oppositional to freedom of speech. Radical Judaism (?) isn't. In fact I can't think of any "radical" part of any religion that actively encourages, and is then proceeded by, open calls to violence and irrational reactions other than Islam. As already pointed out, the worst Christian offenders we can think of are Fred Phelps Church and even they only picket at funerals

ps. I live with two Muslims in a college flat so by no means am I an "Islamophobe". I have a problem with radical Islam perhaps, but that isn't a phobia, i.e. irrational fear.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

Keep fighting the good fight SeanW . The people on this board trying to belittle the film's message or saying that it was tame or whatever, are the exact same people who would allow it to be banned instead of broadcast a few weeks ago in the first place. The same people who infantilise the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and who even view the former as an unjust war. It's this kind of thinking and appeasement that leads them to blaming America for nearly everything on every single topic, even when it's not relevant at all.

The Anglo-American axis engaged in an illegal war of aggression against Iraq. The WMD's were imaginary, they didn't exist. Saddam, has nothing to do with 9/11. Democracy at the end of a gun is not true democracy, it is a pale imitation. Enforcing Radical free market capatalism that steals a countries resources and hands them to multi-nationals, is nothing more than thievery on a massive scale, while the likes of haliburton get rich off of Iraq. To call this war anything other than unjust is absurd. Calling the US actions for what they are, is not appeasement, but rather the truth. People who support this disgusting war, are no different than those that support terrorism. The Iraq war in the context of this discussion is entirely relevant, as the Iraq war was a propoganda and recruitment boon to Jihadi's. Leaving out one sides violence, means ignoring half the problem.

As for Afghanistan, the ball was dropped there, when they decided to go after Saddam, an leave Bin Laden to live another day. The US screwed the pooch on that one and have no one but themselves to blame for there failure in Afghanistan.

speedboatchase wrote: »

Wilder's made a fairly reasoned argument here that at least can maybe open up a dialogue between European and moderate Islam. I hope we don't see a similar reaction as to what we had seen in Denmark 2 years ago because if you look at the clip, Wilders was obviously trying to stay within the legal framework for the film to be broadcast. It wasn't unbiased, but it wasn't "hate speech" either and hopefully we will witness a rational reaction.

Wilders repeats the same old population argument the far right has always done for different minorities. He does himself no favors by recycling this old stale argument.

speedboatchase wrote: »

I think people are going off on a tangent about saying that Islamisation of Europe is the big boogy man because if you look at Irish statistics, the same influx of Islamic immigrants has not affected us as yet. However that isn't to say that the cases in Scandinavia, Netherlands, France and UK should be ignored or that they don't exhibit certain patterns.

The Islamisation nonsense is mentioned in the film, so it is not a tangent.
The same old argument used by the far right about being overwhelmed by a minority group is old and stale at best.

Basically, we are to believe Wilders and the far right can see the future, with there population scenario. It makes a lot of bold assumptions, that there will be 0 integration. That high birth rates will remain constant with the 2nd and 3rd generation and that all Muslims are all fanatics.

If Jihadi groups can't take over there own countries how can they possibly take over Europe, which has far more military might than most Muslim majority countries.

speedboatchase wrote: »

We in Ireland aren't going to wake up one day and find ourselves in an Islamic state to be sure, but its still important that we recognise our Western values as worthy of protection, rather than appeasing and changing our laws and our ways to citizens from countries that would never grant us the same respect. Radical Islam and its followers deserve no respect, and on the contrary, moderate Islamic voices to drown out their views should be encouraged

Wilders, is hardly trying to do that. He was calling for a ban on the Koran. Last I checked the West loves free speech. So calling for it banned is the antithesis of free speech.

So it looks like Wilders is all ready to toss Western values out the window, when it comes to people he disagrees with. So its not only Muslims we need to worry about, but hypocrites like Wilders, who only embrace Western values when it benefits them.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

The central issue of this thread is freedom of speech. We're all entitled to voice our opinions on this board within reason, else the moderator can ban us or lock the thread. Now that we've seen the film wasn't actually as bad as was feared, Wilders has exercised his freedom of speech also.

Wilders supports free speech for himself. As I mentioned before, he has called for the banning of the Koran. This is the opposite of freedom of speech. To present Wilder (a hypocrite) as champion of free speech is ridiculous, when it can be clearly show that he doesn't really support it at all.

**EDIT**

speedboatchase wrote: »

This issue has nothing to do with Jews (unless you're trying to back one side as Pro-Israel, which is dumb) as radical Islam is directly oppositional to freedom of speech. Radical Judaism (?) isn't. In fact I can't think of any "radical" part of any religion that actively encourages, and is then proceeded by, open calls to violence and irrational reactions other than Islam. As already pointed out, the worst Christian offenders we can think of are Fred Phelps Church and even they only picket at funerals

Iilan Pappe, an Israeli historian had to flee Israel due to death threat:

Ilan Pappe: I'm not a traitor

Controversial historian Ilan Pappe left Israel last year after his endorsement of an academic boycott of Israel exposed him and his family to death threats. Now a professor in England, Pappe maintains that a cultural boycott on his homeland is the only way to end the occupation

Calling for boycott against an apartheid state, so Palestinians have equal rights is apparently worthy of death.

and

Security guards step in after Springer opera death threats

By Adam Sherwin, Media Reporter

BBC EXECUTIVES will be protected by security guards while the police investigate death threats made over the broadcast on Saturday of Jerry Springer — The Opera.

Yesterday security guards continued to monitor the North London home of Roly Keating, the Controller of BBC Two, who received threats from protesters.

The homes of six other BBC executives were also targeted after an evangelical Christian group posted the addresses and telephone numbers on its website.

Wilders also has body guards protecting him. Plenty of religious nuts who will threaten to kill people out there for speaking there mind.

speedboatchase

Well if people opposing this film were such freedom of speech-fanatics themselves, there wouldn't have been a problem with Wilder's exercising his opinion in the first place. You can't say that Wilder's is against free speech if you were against the broadcast of his film to begin with right? If you thought the film should've been banned before anyone even knew what a single frame was about, then you are the hypocrite. I happen to be a supporter of the film right to be broadcast, and I found the film itself alright, with some images deliberately provocative, which is a shame.

Also by encouraging this film's right to exist, one does not then take on the position of Wilder's himself. From his point of view, the Koran is comparable to Mein Kampf in its ability to incite violence and should be treated like so. That might not be my opinion on the Koran but just because I disagree with Wilders, that does not make him a hypocrite.

ps. Also I'm not entertaining any discussion on Iraq/Afghanistan as not an issue here at all IMO. Also neither was the previous poster's attempt at baiting anyone in favour of the film's broadcast as pro-Israel

speedboatchase

Also to everyone "appalled" by Wilder's belief that the Koran be banned, lets not forget that the Bible is banned in 3 countries around the world - Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Interesting, no?

p.s. Wes if you're trying to equate Christian extremists to Muslim extremists then you are a fool. Sorry, I don't mean to be openly insulting but there's no other word.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

Well if people opposing this film were such freedom of speech-fanatics themselves, there wouldn't have been a problem with Wilder's exercising his opinion in the first place. You can't say that Wilder's is against free speech if you were against the broadcast of his film to begin with right? If you thought the film should've been banned before anyone even knew what a single frame was about, then you are the hypocrite.

Find a single example, where I said the film should be banned. In fact, has anyone in the thread called for it banning? Pathetic straw man if there ever was one.

Wilder is a hypocrite, who does not believe in free speech. He can say whatever he damn well please (i have said this several times in this thread), but I will call him a hypocrite, as his own words have shown him to be one.

speedboatchase wrote: »

Also by encouraging this film's right to exist, one does not then take on the position of Wilder's himself. From his point of view, the Koran is comparable to Mein Kampf in its ability to incite violence and should be treated like so. That might not be my opinion on the Koran but just because I disagree with Wilders, that does not make him a hypocrite.

He is a hypocrite. He says he is all about Western values and free speech is one of those. He has made it clear he doesn't support free speech by wanting to ban any books.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

Also to everyone "appalled" by Wilder's belief that the Koran be banned, lets not forget that the Bible is banned in 3 countries around the world - Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Interesting, no?

So Wilders is as bad as Islamic fanatics who ban the Bible (also I am pretty sure the Bible isn't banned in Iran). Thanks for proving me right then.

speedboatchase wrote: »

p.s. Wes if you're trying to equate Christian extremists to Muslim extremists then you are a fool. Sorry, I don't mean to be openly insulting but there's no other word.

I never said they were as bad actually. You really like straw man arguments.

Just pointed out that they do exist, and gave an example of Christians who were against free speech, as you said you couldn't find any.


Heres where you said it:

speedboatchase wrote: »

In fact I can't think of any "radical" part of any religion that actively encourages, and is then proceeded by, open calls to violence and irrational reactions other than Islam.

I was giving you examples of other religions which threatened violence against people exercising freedom of speech. I never said any was worse than the other.

speedboatchase

He has made it clear he doesn't support free speech by wanting to ban any books.

Should every book be allowed then? If Gary Glitter wanted to publish his memors himself, it should be allowed to be read? Or can we say that in a democracy there should be certain limits on free speech? You're just after saying that people against free speech want to ban books.

As I said, from Wilder's point of view, some books should be banned, and he equates the Koran with Mein Kampf. This does not mean he is against freedom of speech, he probably has legimate reasons in his own head to equate the two. And it doesn't mean I accept the point of view, the Koran and any other holy book should be legal for its followers to read.

The only countries that seem to be against that kind of freedom are the usual suspects I outlined below - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan. Why is this? Why is Multi-culturalism a mono-cultural phenomenon?

I'm glad you weren't against the film's broadcast and I'm glad that Wilders didn't bow to the pressure from overseas. Lets hope the reaction is peaceful


EDIT: Plenty of Christians can be against free speech, of course. But their actions and reactions towards blasphemy are two things altogether. A lot of the rhetoric from radical Imans (who Muslims actually listen to rather than their Christian equivalent) throw any rational thinking to the wind, which seems to be where the violent image stems from.

Also you can be sure Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan ban a lot more than the Bible from the West

speedboatchase

(also I am pretty sure the Bible isn't banned in Iran).

Ask this guy. Story below. From an Iranian website before you jump on it



Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Aug. 13 – Iranian authorities in Tehran lashed a man on his back earlier this year for having a bible in his car, an Iranian Christian group said in a report on its website on Friday.

The man was only identified by the initials A. Sh.

On 5 May, the man, driving his vehicle, was involved in a road accident with a car belonging to security guards for a government official in Tehran.

A bible and a video of Jesus Christ were found in the man's possession upon inspection of his vehicle by the state security forces (SSF).

A. Sh. admitted to being Christian, prompting the security agents to beat him up, the report said. He was arrested and taken to a holding cell in Detention Centre 102.

During interrogation security agents accused the man of converting from Islam to Christianity, a practice banned under Iran's strict theocratic laws.

He was subsequently subjected to lashes on the back and underwent physical and psychological torture, the report added.

He was released two days later after his family made bail.

jonny72

speedboatchase wrote: »

Should every book be allowed then? If Gary Glitter wanted to publish his memors himself, it should be allowed to be read? Or can we say that in a democracy there should be certain limits on free speech? You're just after saying that people against free speech want to ban books.

As the other guy said, not many here who oppose Mr Wilders' view actually want the film banned.. I certainly don't. To me, I see it for what it is, a cheap petty hate speech dressed up as a short clip film. How about if he tried to show how peaceful moderate Muslims are? maybe make a short film highlighting the cohesiveness between Christians and Muslims in Holland, ever think he'll do that?

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

Should every book be allowed then? If Gary Glitter wanted to publish his memors himself, it should be allowed to be read? Or can we say that in a democracy there should be certain limits on free speech? You're just after saying that people against free speech want to ban books.

As I said, from Wilder's point of view, some books should be banned, and he equates the Koran with Mein Kampf. This does not mean he is against freedom of speech, he probably has legimate reasons in his own head to equate the two. And it doesn't mean I accept the point of view, the Koran and any other holy book should be legal for its followers to read.

Gary Glitter should be allowed to publish his memoirs. That way he can be tossed into jail when he incriminate himself.

A so called defender of free speech calling for banning of books is a hypocrite imo. Mein Kampf is incidentally available to buy in this country. I see no reason to ban it, its pretty rubbish regardless.

speedboatchase wrote: »

The only countries that seem to be against that kind of freedom are the usual suspects I outlined below - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan. Why is this? Why is Multi-culturalism a mono-cultural phenomenon?

So Wilders, wants to want to limit freedom of speech just like those places.

speedboatchase wrote: »

EDIT: Plenty of Christians can be against free speech, of course. But their actions and reactions towards blasphemy are two things altogether. A lot of the rhetoric from radical Imans (who Muslims actually listen to rather than their Christian equivalent) throw any rational thinking to the wind, which seems to be where the violent image stems from.

There are radical Imams, no doubt at all. I was just pointing out some example of others who made similar threats as can been seen from the link I provided, seeing as you couldn't find any.

speedboatchase wrote: »

Also you can be sure Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan ban a lot more than the Bible from the West

Which is the point exactly. Dodgy Islamic regimes ban things. Western nations don't. Wilder by calling for a ban against the Koran, is in my mind going against Western values, only some people are hailing him as someone who is defending them, which imo clearly isn't.

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

Ask this guy. Story below. From an Iranian website before you jump on it

You provide no link to the story. So how do I know its from a Iranian web site?

Also:

During interrogation security agents accused the man of converting from Islam to Christianity, a practice banned under Iran's strict theocratic laws.

He was accused of apostasy (pretty stupid thing to be arrested for). No where does the article say there is a ban on the Bible incidentally. The article seems to suggest he was arrested for apostasy, rather than having a Bible. The Bible (and other Christian paraphernalia) in his possession is presumably what they used to prove his apostasy. Pretty disgusting behavior regardless by the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime is truly repugnant.

There is no mention in the article of a Bible ban, I have checked Google and couldn't find anything. I have no doubt Iran, discriminates against minorities, but found nothing on any laws (in Iran) banning the Bible.

Snake Plisken

Very powerful film its about time europe woke up to the real threat of militant muslims, and if the moderate muslims are so against the militant minority why aren't they shopping them to the police?
It will never happen in Ireland well its already happening, even a little thing like a crib in a hospital being removed because it offended a muslim Doctor? We seem to have no problem bending over backwards for these groups, yet a teacher innocently calls a Teddy Mohammed and there are calls for the death penalty against her! very tollerant NOT!

lostexpectation

sheesh all these guys here wanting to lower standards along with the fascist wilders.

djpbarry

Snake Plisken wrote: »

...if the moderate muslims are so against the militant minority why aren't they shopping them to the police?

You mean the way criminal gang members in Ireland are being turned over to the Gardaí left, right and centre? Let me guess; that’s completely different, right?

Snake Plisken wrote: »

It will never happen in Ireland well its already happening, even a little thing like a crib in a hospital being removed because it offended a muslim Doctor?

If I remember correctly, this was purely a rumour; feel free to prove me wrong. Incidentally, there is a sizeable Muslim contingent where I work and nobody objected to the crib that was present over the Christmas period.

It should also be pointed out that RTÉ's objection to the word "crib" in an advertisement was criticized by Muslim leaders in Ireland, as it was quite obviously censorship gone mad.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

We seem to have no problem bending over backwards for these groups...

How exactly are we "bending over backwards" and who are "these groups" you are referring to?

Le Burp

Fair Play to him he has highlighted what facists exist and the time now to move and remove muslims completely from europe as all they are is blood thirsty stone age monsters

The Saint

Le Burp wrote: »

Fair Play to him he has highlighted what facists exist and the time now to move and remove muslims completely from europe as all they are is blood thirsty stone age monsters

Wow, nice bit of racism there. Congrats. Nothing like a bit of ethnic cleansing to sort the problem out. Seems like you support that kind of thing given your comment on the "Israel demolishing Bedouin villages" thread.

Le Burp

The Saint wrote: »

Wow, nice bit of racism there. Congrats. Nothing like a bit of ethnic cleansing to sort the problem out. Seems like you support that kind of thing given your comment on the "Israel demolishing Bedouin villages" thread.

LOL everyone of them is a potential suicide bomber, violence is their way so they should all go back to their filth holes in the middle east where they belong...

And yes I do support him as he has the balls to tell you lovely left wing liberals and pro-terrorists(muslims) that you are barbaric filth.