Fitna the movie - released on the net

pH

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7317506.stm

After viewing it I can't see any argument whatsoever for banning it - yes it's critical and the stats about the number of Muslims living in Holland are out of place and reflect Wilders' agenda but there's no insult to anyone here, just a collection of readily available new reports cut together.

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

Dave!

well that was pretty disturbing......

NSFW

nesf

Calculated xenophobic crap.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

Dades

Sounds like xenophobic crap.

But should it be banned?

nesf

Dades wrote: »

Sounds like xenophobic crap.

But should it be banned?

It depends how you think free speech should be limited. Personally I think it's a thinly disguised incitement to hatred masquerading as a "critique of Islam", so I would have little issue with it being banned, versus say "The Life of Brian" which was simple parody and not pushing a more sinister agenda. The issue with this piece is not that it is critical of Islam (that's fine), it's that it's pushing a different agenda that is the problem.

Then, on the other hand I subscribe to the belief that unfettered free speech is not a good thing for society necessarily.

Rev Hellfire

Its an interesting one to call. I think such a film is a good thing, now I might not agree with all it implies but there is a case to be made against radicalised Islam (and I'm sure many would say against all religions on this forum).

Should we be afraid of films which highlight these uncomfortable truths? Preferring to sweep them under the table using the pretext of inclusiveness and a fear to offend least we be accused of bigotry ?
If there's a man eating tiger in your living room you don't sit around saying how its really a nice kitty.

So +1 to the film for the discussion it will hopefully cause, it would be nice to think that while condemning it the Islamic communities might actually look to their own and reflect on what might have prompted such fear inspired feature to be produced.

biko

Unfortunately this film continues down the path set by the US (sorry but had to bring that up) that equals Islam with terrorism.

None of the quotes from the Koran mentioned in the film is worse than something from the Bible.

Other form of terrorism may not cut off your head on video but they'll find a way to shut you up nonetheless.

pH

nesf wrote: »

It depends how you think free speech should be limited. Personally I think it's a thinly disguised incitement to hatred masquerading as a "critique of Islam", so I would have little issue with it being banned, versus say "The Life of Brian" which was simple parody and not pushing a more sinister agenda. The issue with this piece is not that it is critical of Islam (that's fine), it's that it's pushing a different agenda that is the problem.

That's interesting because the film itself has no direct call for anything, except maybe arguing for a change in Dutch immigration policy, which I believe he is entitled to do.

There is absolutely no call to violence in it, except some very explicit ones made by Muslim preachers, I cannot see any argument for silencing this film that could not equally be applied to most all the messages contained in the film.

"Slit their throats" is a call to violence, making a film that cuts verses from the Koran with terrorist atrocities committed in the name of Islam I feel is an appropriate response, in the light of recent happenings in Holland, Van Gogh's murder etc.

WindSock

The calling at the end of the film was to rip out pages in the Koran that incite violence. The man behind the film knows it will enflame the mentalists and so he will sit back smugly when this all happens and rally more support for his cause.
You can debate if there was any film made about any other religion showing the bad bits, you can be sure if anyone made a film like this one, there would not be as stong a backlash as there will be from the Islamic mentalists.

Rev Hellfire

WindSock wrote: »

The calling at the end of the film was to rip out pages in the Koran that incite violence.

I think if you watch the end of the film you'll see he says the sound you hear is a page from a phone book been ripped out. Followed by the following quote:

"For it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran."

Hardly an incitement to violence.

Dades

WindSock wrote: »

You can debate if there was any film made about any other religion showing the bad bits, you can be sure if anyone made a film like this one, there would not be as stong a backlash as there will be from the Islamic mentalists.

That's true.
But if the film makers were (as I'm sure they were) counting on the mentalist backlash does that change anything?

nesf

pH wrote: »

That's interesting because the film itself has no direct call for anything, except maybe arguing for a change in Dutch immigration policy, which I believe he is entitled to do.

There is absolutely no call to violence in it, except some very explicit ones made by Muslim preachers, I cannot see any argument for silencing this film that could not equally be applied to most all the messages contained in the film.

"Slit their throats" is a call to violence, making a film that cuts verses from the Koran with terrorist atrocities committed in the name of Islam I feel is an appropriate response, in the light of recent happenings in Holland, Van Gogh's murder etc.

I might be reading one or two steps too far into it but this is how I interpreted it (given the rough context of how some parts of the Islamic community react to these things).

If I wanted to justify fear and xenophobia against Islam I would make a film like this that will almost certainly incite violent protests and threats of violence against its makers and its backers. It's not that the film itself tells people to fear Islam, it's that it's calculated to incite a reaction that will bring about this. It's disguised as a "reasonable and balanced call to remove the more problematic parts of the Koran" but honestly, anyone who actually buys that is being a bit naive about the whole thing imho.

The film, in isolation is fine, the film within the context of its backers and the inevitable reaction to it, isn't. Does that make sense?

pH

Let's have some perspective here, firstly the murder of Theo Van Gogh who made a film critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat, while he was bicycling to work. He shot him eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh's throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contained references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

Pim_Fortuyn was murdered, not by a Muslim, and not related directly but the murder of another strong anti-Muslim politician had left a sense of unease.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali ended up spending years hiding and being protected, as has Geert Wilders.

If the murders and threats make you angry then an angry film is (to me anyway) a proportional response. I feel that in western Europe we bend over backwards to be tolerant of most things, but no one can expect us to be tolerant of intolerance, that's just asking too much.

nesf

pH wrote: »

If the murders and threats make you angry then an angry film is (to me anyway) a proportional response. I feel that in western Europe we bend over backwards to be tolerant of most things, but no one can expect us to be tolerant of intolerance, that's just asking too much.

It's not a proportional response though. It's just going to result in more of the same, that's hardly a reasonable reaction to activities that you wish to cease.

WindSock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think if you watch the end of the film you'll see he says the sound you hear is a page from a phone book been ripped out. Followed by the following quote:

"For it is not up to me, but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran."

Hardly an incitement to violence.

Yeah but he knows the only people who will get angry about the Westerners call on the defilement of the Koran are the Mentalists. The ones who believe it all should stay in there. They are the ones who follow it verse for verse, do you think they would be happy enough to let a non believer call on the people of Islam to change the Koran?

Dave!

pH wrote: »

Let's have some perspective here, firstly the murder of Theo Van Gogh who made a film critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of Tuesday November 2, 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat, while he was bicycling to work. He shot him eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh's throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contained references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

Pim_Fortuyn was murdered, not by a Muslim, and not related directly but the murder of another strong anti-Muslim politician had left a sense of unease.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali ended up spending years hiding and being protected, as has Geert Wilders.

Don't forget Kurt Westergaard

Rev Hellfire

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah but he knows the only people who will get angry about the Westerners call on the defilement of the Koran are the Mentalists. The ones who believe it all should stay in there. They are the ones who follow it verse for verse, do you think they would be happy enough to let a non believer call on the people of Islam to change the Koran?

So you believe we should bow our heads down for fear of offending?
If something is wrong people should have strength of their convections to say it is so and not be bullied by the fear of how the guilty might react.

WindSock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So you believe we should bow our heads down for fear of offending?
If something is wrong people should have strength of their convections to say it is so and not be bullied by the fear of how the guilty might react.

No I'm not saying that at all. I don't know how you got that from my posts. I'm just saying it was made to enflame the crazies who are going to go insane from seeing it. Whereas I don't agree with his method, I can see he is using this film to back up his point for when the shi-ites hit the fan.

I completely agree with not being afraid to speak out about any one or any religion for fear of backlash.

Rev Hellfire

If the radical Islamic followers don't get him the copyright holders will

nesf

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So you believe we should bow our heads down for fear of offending?
If something is wrong people should have strength of their convections to say it is so and not be bullied by the fear of how the guilty might react.

Of course not, however; it doesn't mean that some tact is appropriate when dealing with some issues. Telling religious fundamentalists to tear the parts of their religious text out because you find them offensive is not constructive and there's no way to paint it as constructive.

This is simply offline flamebaiting.


There are plenty intelligent and rational opposition pieces published arguing against the violence committed by Islamic fundamentalists but you don't see them inciting riots in the streets. This piece is clearly calculated to incite a violent reaction from them so the author can claim that his xenophobic views are justified because his "rational criticism" is being reacted to so badly etc.

Ekancone

nesf wrote: »

Then, on the other hand I subscribe to the belief that unfettered free speech is not a good thing for society necessarily.

Hmm, who gets to decide what we can and can't say in this scenario?

Zillah

nesf wrote:

Then, on the other hand I subscribe to the belief that unfettered free speech is not a good thing for society necessarily.

Nor is alcohol, smoking, advertising, capitalism, fast food etc. Lots of things can be very bad for society but that doesn't mean we should restrict them.

pH

daithifleming wrote: »

Hmm, who gets to decide what we can and can't say in this scenario?

I would have thought that's obvious, there are people like nesf who just *know* exactly what the rest of us shouldn't be saying. They get to decide obviously.

nesf

pH wrote: »

I would have thought that's obvious, there are people like nesf who just *know* exactly what the rest of us shouldn't be saying. They get to decide obviously.

lol. Disagreeing with you makes me into an imposer of my will upon all?

Zillah wrote: »

Nor is alcohol, smoking, advertising, capitalism, fast food etc. Lots of things can be very bad for society but that doesn't mean we should restrict them.

True. I didn't say there was a clear line between what we should and shouldn't restrict, I was just pointing out that I subscribe to a belief that many here wouldn't agree with.

daithifleming wrote: »

Hmm, who gets to decide what we can and can't say in this scenario?

*shrugs*

Me thinking that free speech should be limited doesn't necessarily mean I think there's a good way to implement this. Censors are necessarily "inefficient".

Zascar

You should also watch the Channel 4 Documentary called "Undercover Mosque" - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816

For some properly offensive views, check out Pat Condell:
The Trouble with Islam
A word to Islamofascists
More Demands from Islam
Islam in Europe

Ekancone

Zascar wrote: »

You should also watch the Channel 4 Documentary called "Undercover Mosque" - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816

For some properly offensive views, check out Pat Condell:
The Trouble with Islam
A word to Islamofascists
More Demands from Islam
Islam in Europe

Pat Condell is hardly offensive...

Zascar

Well personally I think he raises many good points, but he has certainly offended a LOT of other people. Just check out the article son the web about him or comments on his youtube/liveleak video's

Rev Hellfire

pH wrote: »

I would have thought that's obvious, there are people like nesf who just *know* exactly what the rest of us shouldn't be saying. They get to decide obviously.

I can stay silent no longer !
At great personal risk I managed to obtain a picture of nesf taken at a recent gathering of he attended with some like mannered individuals.



*If you fail to hear from me after this post, save yourselves and don't come looking for my lifeless body most likely thrown down a well.

pH

Well fitna is now removed from liveleak which means that the point is proved, there are people who do not think their beliefs are subject to criticism to the extent that they are prepared to use violence and threats of violence to silence their critics.

Zascar

Read the statement to which Liveleak staff put up in its place: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

very sad...