Merged: How an unseen film triggered a panic throughout the West

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...542255,00.html

All this leaves Wilders is the Internet -- unless, of course, he decides not to show the film, which no one has seen and of which no one can say whether it even exists. The truth is that the "provocateur" has already achieved his goal. Wilders has managed to portray the Dutch and the Europeans as cowards, shouting "we capitulate!" before the battle has even begun.

As he sees it, they are loath to intervene in Iran's internal affairs but raise no objections when Iran intervenes in their internal affairs. They behave as if they want to protect the members of all religions against insults and abuse, all the while overlooking the fact that it is usually the members of one religion who respond aggressively whenever they are accused of having a propensity for violence.

Wilders could not have achieved more if his film had been shown.

[Onkel Neal]

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has said that while he rejects Wilders' views, he supports his freedom of speech — but warns him the film may put Dutch national interests at risk. Protesters in Afghanistan burnt Wilders in effigy on Friday and demanded Dutch troops withdraw from the NATO mission there.

Here we go again
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23757212/

[Happy Times]

The movies site.

http://www.fitnathemovie.com/



Im really getting angry, though i havent burned anything or threatned to kill anyone.:p

[Happy Times]

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West 1-10

Obsession is a film about the threat of Radical Islam to Western civilization. Using unique footage from Arab television, it reveals an 'insiders view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...5A96CBDC2582F7

[Happy Times]

Opinions on this film? I thought it was rather balanced at gives a good picture of the threat.

[Skybird]

Three active Islam-threads may be testing the mod's patience. Let's keep it together.

[Steel_Tomb]

With all due respect Skybird, why? Its hardly spam, I'd rather keep them separate so we can have different discussions on each subject, instead of just blurring it into one massive inconclusive thread.

I thought it was a very good documentary, I applauded it for its message that not all muslims are like this, which is good it would be a shame to alienate them in that manner. Opens your eyes to the threat the western world faces from Islamic extremism. With the number of asian countries, especially Iran close to becoming a nuclear power... I would be very worried about the technology and weapons that these deranged people will posses in the not so distant future. I was shocked to see Muslims on the streets of London making those speeches, I would have expected police with SMG's to take care of those mindless scum.

[Takeda Shingen]

Merged. We already have a thread on this topic.

The Management

[mrbeast]

It seems to me that Wilders film is nothing more than a ploy by him to incite Muslim extremists to commit violence. This would no doubt increase support for his hardline policies concerning imigrants. I don't really see much merit in his film take this as an example:

According to Wilders, it would be shown on a split screen, with verses and suras from the Koran on one side and examples of Sharia law being carried out on the other, including a beheading and a stoning.

What important point is this going to make? Other than being calculated to cause maximum offense.

This whole situation is very tricky and appears to have many of the hall marks of a no win scenario. Ban the film and then be accused of appeasing Muslim extremists. let the film be released and no doubt there will be riots and killings, maybe not in the Netherlands, but elsewhere.

IMO I think in this case the prevention of extreme violence might trump the freedom of Wilders to make his opinions of Islam public. That is a terrible situation to be in as I firmly believe in freedom of speech, but we need to remember where all the deaths occur when something like this blows up and its not Europe. It would seem unfair that people in third world countries should end up paying for our freedom of speech with thier lives.

I'm in no way giving licence to Muslim extremists, I have nothing but contempt for their twisted creedo and ultra aggresive response to any percieved slight against Islam. Extremists only make up a small minority of Muslims but they have a very loud voice which too often drowns out the more 'moderate' voices. The progressive strand of Islam needs to make its voice heard above the fundamentalist loonies, until then we will see this type of situation time and time again.

It seems intersting that Wilders wants the Koran and Mein Kampf banning, so he seems in favour of some censorship when it suits his purposes.

[Yahoshua]

Would you still object if it were a split-screen film showing text of chinese domestic policy on one side and then showing their abuses in Tibet and against their citizens on the other?

Saudi Arabia still has stonings and beheadings (it's literally a weekly rally after mid-day prayers every friday), but ignoring them doesn't change the fact that they still happen. So why should the muslims be so offended about something they already condone?

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Would you still object if it were a split-screen film showing text of chinese domestic policy on one side and then showing their abuses in Tibet and against their citizens on the other?

No I wouldn't object to that because what Wilder is proposing to do and your hypothetical film are not the same. Wilders film is generally about Islam. Islam is not a nation or a government.

If your hypothetical film was gennerally about Chinese people and purported to represent what Chinese people believed in or supported; then showed images of the Chinese government commiting atrocities, with the association being that Chinese people advocated such behavior then it might compare.

Of course this assumes that thats what Wilders film will do. That is what I fear it may do.

Saudi Arabia still has stonings and beheadings (it's literally a weekly rally after mid-day prayers every friday), but ignoring them doesn't change the fact that they still happen.

If someone made a film about specifically Saudi Arabia I would have no objection, considering that it was no done in a deliberately inflamatory manner. I have already seen documentaries that show what happens in Saudi Arabia and it is an abomination.

So why should the muslims be so offended about something they already condone?

Here you assume that all Muslims advocate or condone public floggings, forced amputations and public beheadings. But this is nt the case. Its this lumping together of all muslims that is unhelpful and simplistic.

Originally Posted by Skybird

If you cannot see that, nobody can help you. One could also stop showing documentations about the atrocities commited by the Nazi and inside KZs.

What such docus and Wilder's scene have in common: you have an ideology quoted by it's content, and the display of results that it triggers in hard reality.

My fear is that Wilders film will not inform people but simply pander to exsisting prejudice and stereotypes of Muslims, simply stressing the negative aspects of Islam above all else. Nazism ideologically, culturally politically had absolutely no redeaming features. Nazism is to all intents and purposes a 'dead' ideology and those who still cling to aspects of it are tiny in number and unlikely to cause many deaths.

My objection is that Wilders film may be inflamatory and pander to streotypes, be designed purely to get a reaction adding nothing constructive to the discourse on Islam in the modern world and will cause the deaths of innocent people, and as I previously posted those deaths will more than likely be in poor Muslim countries where the populace already have to endure meadievilist societies. I find that objectional when this film is simply to serve Wilders populist political agenda.

By painting all Muslims as extremists you simply alienate the moderates and feed the fundamentalists more ammunition.

And as Broder at the end says anyway: important is the kind of behavior Wilder was able to trigger by simple procclaiming to show that movie - that so far nobody has ever seen, and can comment on. muslim world already is in arms again, and Western dhimmis already bend over again in rushing ahead obedience

The response, when this film has been reportedly grandstanded by Wilder in the manner it has, is predictable. Authorities who seem to be dancing to the extremists tune may simply be trying to keep control of the situation.

If you look in the Old Testement of the Bible it has many references to Genocide and other objectional acts, yet no one proposes making a film to point out this. Imagine what the reaction would be from Jewish groups if we showed just how fascist, elitist, genocidal, incestuous, sexist and racist it really is.

My personal view is that, generally, Abrahamic religion is a curse on mankind and has poisoned the world for over 2000 years. Thats not to say that I hold any animosity to Jews, Christians or Muslims, but all three religions in my view cause no end of suffering. I would say that it has caused more deaths than all the other religions of the world combined.

But I feel this film will only serve to pour more petrol on what is already an inferno.

Freedom of speech is a precious gift but I think we still have to use our heads before we open our mouths.

Ultimately this could all be moot: there may not be any film to show.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

If your hypothetical film (...) Of course that assumes that that's what Wilders film will do. That is what I fear it may do. (...) My fear is that Wilders film will not (...) My objection is that Wilders film may be (...)

Must I comment here?

Here you assume that all Muslims advocate or condone public floggings, forced amputations and public beheadings. But this is nt the case. Its this lumping together of all muslims that is unhelpful and simplistic.

As a matter of fact, the quran calls for wars of conquest and enforced subjugation of others, it aloso orders the discirminating treatement of dhimmis and Jews and Christians - in no way Quran allwos to see them as equals, in no way. It is not that believers have a choice regarding these, but an obligation. Those you wouold call "moderates" are not folliwjhng Islam - they are violating Islam. Also, the Hadith, which inlcudes the sharia, calls for penatlies like those you listed. These penalties are not in violence of islam, but are representing it's most central scriptures.

be designed purely to get a reaction adding nothing constructive to the discourse on Islam in the modern world and will cause the deaths of innocent people, and as I previously posted those deaths will more than likely be in poor Muslim countries where the populace already have to endure meadievilist societies.

Okay, so they manage to bring Muslims in poor countries to death all by themselves, becasue other cultures, like ours, are not Islamic. What does this tell us about islam? Two things, at least. First, they are idiots. Second, they are brutal. Nice ideology that teaches people to behave this way. Anyhow, I couldn't care less if they kill themselves.

By painting all Muslims as extremists you simply alienate the moderates and feed the fundamentalists more ammunition.

You and many people in the west need to learn one thing, really: Islam is a fundamentalist relfgious and political ideolgy. It is fundamentalist by definition and self-understanding. It wants not to coexist and practice tolerance - it wants to rule and doiminate about all others. What is not idlamic, by definition is Islam's enemy. As long as there are enemies, there is no peace. Peace in Islam's understanding means there is nothing left than just itself: then there are no more enemies, so there is peace. Moderates as you call them, some of them, mayb e cindivinced of Wetsern ethics and value sindeed, and may be convinced of many of the inherent grim aspects of Islam indeed, and leave them out of their understanding of what islam is. but in fact by that they are already violating Islam. thgey are apostates already, and by Islam'S law must be killed. Islam's quran has no reformist section, like the glad tidings are in the bible. Quiran even has nothing that compares to the new testament, it only compares to the old testament. The Bible went beyond that - Quran not. islam got stuck with it'S head in the a$$ of history - 1400 years deep. the clash of civilisations is not only a cultural conflcit, it also is a clash of ages: medieval inquisiton versus modern humanism, so to speak.

If you look in the Old Testement of the Bible it has many references to Genocide and other objectional acts, yet no one proposes making a film to point out this.

well, expect fundamental Christians, who compare to the fundamentalism that Islam is by essence and who suffer from the same handicaps for the same reasons, Christians beeing serious in following what Jesus tried to teach are beyond that and the old testament. I oftehn have argued that the old testament and the glad tidings present two totally different conceptions of "God".

Imagine what the reaction would be from Jewish groups if we showed just how fascist, elitist, genocidal, incestuous, sexist and racist it really is.

So what,m who cares? Is it forbidden to speak out a truth just because radical may threat to vandalize in the street? are they the rulers of the place, then? I say: kick their a$$es, for they already claim more than what is theirs, and alraedy have done damage enough, and have caused far too much violence and war and hate and intolerance - becasue wellmeaning soft-hearetd people like you gave room to them, too uch room, and appeased them and fell back, all just to evade conflict at all cost, no matter how high the price may be.

The price is too high, i say. Our problems with relgions come from that we already have payed too much respect to it. Fundamentalist relgion never is satisfied, it wants more, and wants all. It will never stop. And the more it gets, the more fanatical it becoms, becasue by getting more, it becomes the stronger. It does not want your reason. It wants you to give up your reason, and reject your brain, and submit to it'S tales.

My personal view is that, generally, Abrahamic religion is a curse on mankind and has poisoned the world for over 2000 years. Thats not to say that I hold any animosity to Jews, Christians or Muslims, but all three religions in my view cause no end of suffering. I would say that it has caused more deaths than all the other religions of the world combined.

So you say you agree with me that theistic relgions are bad and have caused a lot of terror and violence - but you nevertheless say they should be allowed top continue, for confronting them would lead to conflict, while letting them have their will also leads to conflict, but that you accept to let happen? you are contradicting yourself.

But I feel this film will only serve to pour more petrol on what is already an inferno.

An Islam-made (and wanted!!!) inferno, I insist to specify. It is oltiical tactic to engage the West on every smallest, stupid, meaningless opportunity, becasue by the laws of probability, a sufficently huge number of incidents see some occaiusons where these see the West making more concessions,l and making more small steps to fall back. At the same time, Islam is totally safe from being confronted with any demands on recipricty and mutual deal on the basis of 1:1 - sine the West thinks that is racist and causes conflict, it does not do that.

Freedom of speech is a precious gift but I think we still have to use our heads before we open our mouths.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. When you say it shall end here and there - you already have given it up. In the end: free speech does not kill - but fathwas, stonings, assassinations do. islam is no equal to free speech, and it has not to demand that free speech must be limited in order not to oppose Islam'S views. And must we really care for Islam'S view at all? Or better: shoiuld we care for islam'S views? If I need to choose between free speech and islam's - or any religious or political ideology's - demand to limit it, I know what I choose, every time. and nif nthat would mean conflict, I am willing to let loose al hell, if necessary. Becasue such ideologies have to demand nothing from us - NOTHING.

Ultimately this could all be moot: there may not be any film to show.

For having understood that, you show a surprising ammount of rushing-ahead obedience to Islamic demands.

And this is probably what the man really wanted to demonstrate.

[Letum]

HA!
He wants free speech and he wants to band the Koran in the Netherlands.

He is unjustly and irrationally prejudice in the extreme and it is his ilk that are in part the
cause of them problems he complains about.

He paints many, many, many good, honest moral men with the same hateful brush.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

HA!
He wants free speech and he wants to band the Koran in the Netherlands.

He is unjustly and irrationally prejudice in the extreme and it is his ilk that are in part the
cause of them problems he complains about.

He paints many, many, many good, honest moral men with the same hateful brush.

Hahahahaha! That is funny! :p

Islam is only going to roll over you if you think that way. The other way, you put it back in its place - and that place is out of peoples lives. The only way to do that is to speak the truth, not sugar coat everything you run across.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

That Wilders guy claims to be "anti Koran" so finally that film will most probably put all the Muslims in the same bag. If he was only anti religious I wouldn't mind, but actually he states that the Koran is a fascist book and at the same time he's fond of Israel so I guess he has nothing against the old testament. That man is a joke.

Isn't the Koran a facists book? ANd whats wrong with Isreal?

-S