Anti-Muslim Dutch politicians in hiding after death threats

I do think holding Muslim leaders accountable for what they say and what members of their community do-- is long overdue. And, the contents of the Koran should be widely publicised and condemned (where applicable) But, we had better closely couple that with messages that we can't resort to senseless retribution on innocent people.

I strongly sympathize with your feelings. A frontal attack like you describe, however, would likely rouse the very last Muslim to OBL's cause. I think if we don't find a way to develop these people, we will wind up making Arabia a parking lot. Things are progressing frighteningly quickly.

I'm hoping the Guardian is mistaken in this report,...

An insult, even into the depth of one's religious convictions does NOT WARRANT MURDER. EVER.

Thing is, I too think Van Gogh went too far - way too far (even if the actual film bothered me less). But of course he didn't deserve to die - or any violence at all. Just a good speaking-to.

So YES, I think he went too far in what he said - and NO, I dont think he (or anyone) should be murdered for what he said. What do you not get about this combination? Why do you need to pretend that if someone says "he went too far", he must really be saying that it was OK for Bouyeri to murder him for it"?

17-year old Muslim radical found with bomb
Arrested suspect was targeting Wilders

Trouw
By Kustaw Bessems (my translation)
14 July 2005

A seventeen year old authochtonous [the word used by Dutch to designate white, native Dutch] convert to radical Islam has been arrested in Amsterdam because he had a self-made bomb at home. The boy formed a possible threat to the independent MP Geert Wilders.

In the parental appartment of the suspect the police discovered a 'wrapped, carton rod filled with gunpowder, small bullits and a explosive device'. The Dutch Forensics Institute is researching how usable and dangerous the bomb is. [..]

According to the Prosecutor's Office, the boy was active on the internet, where he posted radical texts under a pseudonym. He moderated several internet discussiongroups where texts and images with threats were placed. [..]

According to a reliable source, the arrested boy was involved with a short film that appeared on the internet in January. In it, Mohammed B. was praised skyhigh for his murder of Theo van Gogh. And the film ended with 'a present for Geert Wilders'. "The knives are already being sharpened, dog", it said on screen, with a scraping sound on the background.

That film was signed by 'the lions of Tawheed' ('tawheed' means the unity of God). Next to it was an insignia with a Koran, two crossed swords and the word 'Poldermujahideen'.

Although it is hard to establish who posts exactly what on the internet, there are indications that the boy that has now been arrested [..] until recently also posted radical texts on [..] the discussion group 'The Polder Mujahedeen' [..]. The site is full of radical-islamic texts that emphasize the duty to fight jihad against all unbelievers. It also features work of Mohammed B., as well as a poem by Jason W., the boy with the hand grenade who was arrested after great turbulence in the Hague neighbourhood of Laakkwartier. [..]

The Volkskrant earlier this year wrote about [the author on the site 'Polder Mujahedeen'] that he is a sixteen-year old authochthonous convert. That would fit the information about the boy arrested now.

According to a reliable source the suspect has a Dutch and a British parent, and the internet author Tallib does indeed use conspicuously many anglicisms in his texts.[..]

But the phrase "Van Gogh went too far" does imply a certain penalty to be paid (somewhat more severe than a 'talking-to') and that's probably where we fail to agree.

In this particular case, I think the only one to have gone too far is Bouyeri.

Yes, I think Ward Churchill is a despicable man whose words are chosen deliberately and with malice aforethought. They're meant to wound, to injure, to cause anguish to those he targets. But, if we take away his right to say those words, disallow his right to speak, what penalty shall we place upon him if he continues to do so?

Are we not intelligent enough, civilized enough, to fight his words with our own words? Is some other type of punishment valid? Should we throw him in prison and solitary confinement so his words reach no one? Muzzle him to cease his barking? Saddam Hussein would have had his tongue cut out.

Van Gogh's utterances and actions aren't what filled Bouyeri with hatred nor what led him to lose control to the point of slaughter. He was indoctrinated with a philosophy of hate through his radical religious beliefs.

If those like Bouyeri, who think that anyone who believes differently. worships differently, are appeased by disallowing criticism of them or their religion

I get the combination. Where we disagree is that you seem to want to appease the hate speech and actions of one group by disallowing criticism and opinion of another group.

The Bouyeri's of this world will continue on. It wasn't Van Gogh's words that got him killed. He was murdered because he was an infidel.

JustWonders wrote:

If those like Bouyeri, who think that anyone who believes differently. worships differently, are appeased by disallowing criticism of them or their religion

Again, you're resorting to rhetorical posturing now. Nobody is suggesting that all "criticism of them or their religion" should be disallowed.

Remember that art work in a New York museum, with, what was it, the crucifix covered in elephant **** or something? The NY mayor protested and it was removed, right? Did that mean that he was "disallowing criticism of Christians or their religion"? Nonsense. He was disallowing (exerting pressure to remove) what he thought went too far.

But the phrase "Van Gogh went too far" does imply a certain penalty to be paid (somewhat more severe than a 'talking-to') and that's probably where we fail to agree.

Now you're just making things up as you go along.

The observation that "Van Gogh went too far" does not automatically imply a justification for violence against him ("somewhat more severe than a 'talking-to'"). There is no such automatic connotation to the phrase.

For example, you will find many, many people here in this country (I mean, in the Netherlands) who feel that Van Gogh regularly went too far - and almost none who feel he should have been attacked.

The word choice in itself implies no such thing. If I say that you went too far in your post just now, do I mean that you should be physically attacked or otherwise punished?

(If I really did think so, I think a "talking-to" by the moderators and the deletion of your post would in fact exactly have sufficed.)

I think he shouldn't have been allowed to say such things in prime time media - ergo, I feel he went too far. I feel he went too far, ergo, he shouldn't have been allowed to proclaim such stuff in prime time media. Seems like a wholly logical statement there, which you can already agree with or not, without making up that it somehow 'really' implies a justification of violence.

Van Gogh is still Van Gogh. He was the person he was. We had our opinion about him while he was still alive - he's not suddenly someone else now that he's dead. If I thought he always went too far when he was still alive (wishing he would shut up, wishing scandal-hungry programme makers wouldnt keep pulling him before the cameras) - then why should I suddenly pretend to think differently now that he's dead? His murder didn't retroactively make everything he did OK - that would be buying into the logic of martyrdom.

I dunno about you, but I find it wholly possible to have an opinion about Van Gogh, have an opinion about his murder, and one wont automatically determine what the other is. Saying I disagree with the murder doesnt automatically "imply" that evrything Van Gogh said was OK. Saying that it was not OK what Van Gogh said doesn't automatically "imply" that beating him up is OK. Why in heavens name would it?

JustWonders wrote:

In this particular case, I think the only one to have gone too far is Bouyeri.

Bouyeri did more than "go too far" - he's a criminal, a zealot, a murderer. Different ballpark. But none of that in itself means that Van Gogh did not go too far.

Would you really be OK with someone like Ward Churchill spouting off every week in the newspapers and on national TV about Lieberman having wet dreams about Mengele, Mexicans being goat fuc kers, Bush deserving to get cancer, Jesus Chist being a pedophile? Are you seriously saying you would not consider writing a letter to protest it? What does writing a protest letter mean other than that you think someone is going too far?

And talking of parsing words - you never said or thought: "that Ward Churchill guy is going too far", when you read about his comments? If you did, did you actually really mean he should be assaulted - or were you just thinking, "that guy went too far"?

JustWonders wrote:

Yes, I think Ward Churchill is a despicable man whose words are chosen deliberately and with malice aforethought. They're meant to wound, to injure, to cause anguish to those he targets. But, if we take away his right to say those words, disallow his right to speak, what penalty shall we place upon him if he continues to do so?

But should he necessarily be allowed to say it, time and again, on prime time TV? The things Van Gogh said would never even be allowed on American TV or in its mainstream press, so what are we talking about here? You have people demanding the removal of TV programmes from the screen because they include a couple of two mothers, for heaven's sake.

I can also distinctly remember the arguments from the right when an anti-war activist was yelled off a Fox TV talk show, when a kid with the wrong T-shirt was forbidden entry to a Bush campaign event, when a critical journalist was no longer invited to ask questions at WH press briefings - their right to speak had not been denied! They could still say whatever they wanted - just not there - right?

JustWonders wrote:

Are we not intelligent enough, civilized enough, to fight his words with our own words? Is some other type of punishment valid? Should we throw him in prison and solitary confinement so his words reach no one? Muzzle him to cease his barking? Saddam Hussein would have had his tongue cut out.

<yawn>

Nobody's suggesting any of that whatsoever, so you can spare us the rhetorical indignation. The posturing serves no goal here.

What you're doing in fact is simply setting up a straw man - that anyone who thinks Van Gogh went too far in the stuff he said, that not everything he said should have been broadcasted uncritically - must have wanted to throw him into solitary confinement, cut his throat off ...

I only now recognize this for the tired scheme it is, in fact. "If you don't <agree with our guy>, you must really <stand for the complete opposite>". If you dont agree with Bush's war on Iraq, you must really be a fan of Saddam. Et cetera. Whatever. Some day that **** is going to stop sticking.

JustWonders wrote:

Van Gogh's utterances and actions aren't what filled Bouyeri with hatred nor what led him to lose control to the point of slaughter. He was indoctrinated with a philosophy of hate through his radical religious beliefs.

Yup, already said as much literally in my own post, the very one you claim to be responding to - but: "it makes no difference to Bouyeri - he's off into religious zealotry, and would have murdered someone no matter what. But Van Gogh's and similar rantings make / would have made a lot of difference to those kids in the street now cheering Bouyeri."

If those like Bouyeri, who think that anyone who believes differently. worships differently, are appeased by disallowing criticism of them or their religion

Remember that art work in a New York museum, with, what was it, the crucifix covered in elephant **** or something? The NY mayor protested and it was removed, right? Did that mean that he was "disallowing criticism of Christians or their religion"? Nonsense. He was disallowing (exerting pressure to remove) what he thought went too far.

JustWonders wrote:

I get the combination. Where we disagree is that you seem to want to appease the hate speech and actions of one group by disallowing criticism and opinion of another group.

Nonsense. If I condemn the hate speech of both groups - specifying, even, that that of the Islamic extremists is worse (since it culminated in violence) - I am de facto "appeasing" the Islamic extremists? Huh? How does that even work?

JustWonders wrote:

The Bouyeri's of this world will continue on. It wasn't Van Gogh's words that got him killed. He was murdered because he was an infidel.

Already covered that base. Yes, the Bouyeri's of this world will continue on and they have to be stopped. Period.

At the same time, it would sure help in preventing those hundreds of kids out on the street now, cheering on Bouyeri because they feel continuously trod upon by Dutch hate-mongerers, from turning into little Bouyeri's themselves in five years time, if we would at least keep up some basic standards of humanity, respect and decency ourselves.

That, in fact, is already a duty we owe to our historical traditions in any case.

No. In my opinion, saying someone went too far generally means serious consequences would ensue. I haven't ever heard anyone say, "now you've gone too far and need a talking-to". Could be a difference of language/perception here. <shrug>

Remember that artist in Rotterdam, who just after Van Gogh's murder, improvised a wall fresco that consisted of an angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill." The local imam protested, and local authorities removed the fresco. That this even happened is political correctness gone awry.

I think nimh went "too far" in his response to JW.

JustWonders wrote:

Remember that artist in Rotterdam, who just after Van Gogh's murder, improvised a wall fresco that consisted of an angel and the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill." The local imam protested, and local authorities removed the fresco. That this even happened is political correctness gone awry.

I know, this has been published online by Michael Ledeen in his Ledeen's Lair and more US conservative blogs/publications.

But I really would like to see the original news.

nimh wrote:

But should he necessarily be allowed to say it, time and again, on prime time TV? The things Van Gogh said would never even be allowed on American TV or in its mainstream press, so what are we talking about here? [..]

I assure you that if Churchill used the exact same language as Van Gogh in his rantings, he would be quoted in prime-time, live, both on TV and in the newspapers. The networks would censor certain words, but cable would run it verbatim (trust me).

Your inclusion of the episodic TV program is something entirely different (made specifically for and aimed at children) and doesn't even compare with what we're discussing.

nimh wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

Are we not intelligent enough, civilized enough, to fight his words with our own words? Is some other type of punishment valid? Should we throw him in prison and solitary confinement so his words reach no one? Muzzle him to cease his barking? Saddam Hussein would have had his tongue cut out.

Nobody's suggesting any of that whatsoever, so you can spare us the rhetorical indignation.

So, don't answer the question. If you feel it's rhetorical indignation, you're entitled to your opinion. Van Gogh, as he was dying, told Bouyeri, "we can talk about this". Talk. Dialogue. Reason. Of course, Bouyeri had already made up his mind that he was acting in the name of Allah, so he didn't want to listen. I'm quite sure you'll see this as more 'rhetorical indignation'. So be it.

You're the one who is of the opinion that Van Gogh should not have been free to speak. To me, that's saying that the rules of political correctness can only apply in certain instances.

Bouyeri was recruited and indoctrinated in a mosque where murder of infidels and the Wahabbe doctrine is extolled by fanatical Muslim Imams.

If you choose to impose rules of civil behavior on Van Gogh, you must impose them on everyone.

Again, just my opinion, but wishing Van Gogh had "just shut up" denotes a walking-on-eggshells sensitivity to immigrants from traditions where notions of tolerance had little or no part to play.