Anti-Muslim Dutch politicians in hiding after death threats

nimh wrote:

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

You are absolutely free to think so. It happens - I sometimes think your posts go too far too. In fact, it would never even have crossed my mind that by saying so, you're in fact implying that I deserve some sort of penalty, you know - beyond at most an edit of the post - like, something more severe than just a 'talking-to'. Mind JW though, she's probably now thinking that you want me to be beaten up or imprisoned in solitary confinement

I used that phrase purposefully, hoping it would help you recognise the normal interpretation of it, as well as the lengths of your overkill toward JW.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

It's true, Walter.

Thanks, I only asked since I couldn't find it mentioned elsewhere and obviously didn't pay attention to it when it was origianally published.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

I used that phrase purposefully, hoping it would help you recognise the normal interpretation of it, as well as the lengths of your overkill toward JW.

And I'm pointing out that I can not honestly imagine anyone taking your post as meaning that I deserve punishment - specifically punishment, mind you, beyond a talking-to or an edit of the post in question.

Because that's what JW asserts it means, and what you now apparently peddle as its "normal" interpretation.

Normal in your world, perhaps. In mine (and I'm sure not mine alone), it's fully clear that you thought I went too far from your responses, and that carries no implication other than, well, that you thought I went too far and shouldn't have written all that <shrugs>.

You actually, unintentionally, proved my point rather neatly, thanks.

0 Replies

When you speak of someone WHO WAS MURDERED as having "gone to far", the connotation is quite more ominous.

0 Replies

The phrase "he went too far", by my understanding at least is a relatively mild injunction. It implies stepping over some boundary without defining exactly where that boundary lies. I think van Gogh probably did go "too far", i was unaware of his offensive remarks about Jews. (Such remarks btw would be liable to prosecution in the UK.]

He certainly went too far for Bouyeri's finer sensibilities. But my understanding is that he was not murdered because he called Morroccans goat-fuc kers on tv, but because he made a short film depicting the ill treatment of women in Islam.

Just because someone occasionally goes "too far" in their criticism of Islam should not obscure the fact that there is a lot in Islam which deserves crticism.

Did Salman Rushdie go too far in writing "Satanic Verses"? I dont think so. But its only police protection that has saved him from a similar fate to van Gogh.

0 Replies

The thing is--just for clarification--I think Theo went too far as well. But, as JW, when I said that, I felt the ned to claifiy that I doidn't think that merited a killing.

I was just surprised at the vitriol aimed at JW for such a personal, mild statement.

(I'm really going to work now.)

(Really.)

And, Steve is correct about Rushdie, IMO.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The phrase "he went too far", by my understanding at least is a relatively mild injunction. It implies stepping over some boundary without defining exactly where that boundary lies. I think van Gogh probably did go "too far", i was unaware of his offensive remarks about Jews. (Such remarks btw would be liable to prosecution in the UK.]

Thanks Steve. I had about 2% doubt left in my mind that this might all still have been a non-native speaker thing, but apparently it really wasn't.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

But my understanding is that he was not murdered because he called Morroccans goat-fuc kers on tv, but because he made a short film depicting the ill treatment of women in Islam.

True, see my posts above.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Just because someone occasionally goes "too far" in their criticism of Islam should not obscure the fact that there is a lot in Islam which deserves crticism.

Nope.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Did Salman Rushdie go too far in writing "Satanic Verses"? I dont think so.

I dont think so either.

0 Replies

I think nimh took my initial response to him (when he answered why he thought Van Gogh had gone "too far") personally, when I was merely expressing some opinions that have been forming since the murder occurred. In re-reading it, he may have thought my use of the collective "you" was aimed at him. It wasn't, but I understand his need to defend his own opinions if he thought I was attacking.

I think the general appeasement policy of the Dutch specifically (but Europe in general) is a failed effort. Limiting freedom of expression (in this case) would be nothing more than accomodation -- a liberal society tolerating fundamentalist intolerance. In my opinion it only strengthens the resolve of the fraction of their muslim immigrants who are radical/extremist.

The only way Van Gogh could have been stopped from speaking out is by enacting laws to prevent it. And that begs the question, what then would be the penalty for whomever broke such a law? A fine? Jail? And what would be the criteria for determination of speech that does or does not "go too far"?

Calling someone a disgusting name? How does one prosecute offensive idiocies? What if the offender put it in writing? Would that writing then be banned? And if the answer to that is "yes", then would not the Imam approved fanaticism, spoken in the name of Allah, multiculturalism and Eurosecularism also be banned? All of it?

Lash - thanks. I also think nimh's response was over-kill, most likely due to his sensitivity about what's happening in his country, but maybe I should have never asked the question to begin with, knowing that there are certainly no easy answers. Only time will tell if the Dutch will realize that appeasement doesn't work, even if it's only a very small fraction of the immigrant muslims that need to be dealt with.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

the vitriol aimed at JW

Vitriol? Me, in that post? To your standards?

I mean, this is all just from your posts today! If all of that is just good sport, what in heavens name was "vitriolic" in my post to JW?

Lash wrote:

This has blown up in the Dem's faces....like everything else.

Going to work. Humiliate you later!!

<God, this is a great day.>

Lash wrote:

You had no shot, no point, no reason to open your mouth.

Do you have anything of value to add--or you just want to go about characterizing people who you can't seem to argue a point with?

Looks like you're the one waiting for a hint of something to say.

Lash wrote:

See goodfilder avoid the topic.

See goodfielder try to distract from the fact that the entire Democrat contingent on this thread is desperately trying to pull their pants up.

See goodfielder unable to address the topic.

Lash wrote:

Are you wanting to protect them, Walter, while they murder innocent people....children...? Why do you prefer terrorists to the rest of us?

Lash wrote:

Dems: Losers again.

muahahahaha!!!

Lash wrote:

She and her lying, hedonist, gasbag husband had blabbed her job all over the Washington party circuit.

You people need to read more and think a bit before jumping on some lame Dem banwagon.

You are SO OUT OF TOUCH with what's going on.

Lash wrote:

Contortions like this are rampant since the London attack.

They can't bear that they've been wrong....and worse, that we've been right.

Lash wrote:

Again, JTT, you can take that crap back in time when it happened. [..] Someone else may be interested in the history lesson.

We've all heard it.

Lash wrote:

She's just an example of the other idiotic lunatics who don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Saddam was Charlie in his Iraqi Chocolate Factory per most of them.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

The only way Van Gogh could have been stopped from speaking out is by enacting laws to prevent it. And that begs the question, what then would be the penalty for whomever broke such a law? A fine? Jail? [..] How does one prosecute offensive idiocies?

Or you could just do what you do in America, where the networks and major newspapers are apparently unwilling to broadcast that kind of hate speech.

No law for that needed. Just some corporate responsibility.

In fact, I'd bet that there's few Western countries where stuff like Van Gogh's would have been eagerly reproduced by the major media.

I think its partly got to do with the illness that has caught the Dutch, post-Fortuyn. Because yes - Islam has an illness, but we've caught a virus too. And its not making things better.

0 Replies

well as nimh and I agree, I think everyone else can shut up ( Smile

)

0 Replies

We're a capitalist society and I assure you that it's not about 'corporate responsibility'. If there was a market for hate-speech in this country, if it was profitable, you'd see no corporate censorship of it.

It doesn't sell well here, as liberal talk-radio such as Air America is finding out.

That aside, the words you actually used were "disallow" and "limit", which to me denotes some type of legal intervention.

Since Bouyeri himself has said that it wasn't anything Van Gogh said, but rather his adherence to the teachings of his religion, where is the relevance in repressing one's right to express their opinions, whether it's voluntary or through legal channels?

Some Imam doesn't approve of the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill", saying it't racist? Instead of forcing the police to sandblast it away because, omygosh, it's offending some Imam's sensibilities, it should have been painted on every building in town. Good grief. That Imam needs a good talking-to.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

well as nimh and I agree, I think everyone else can shut up ()

mock/ Are you telling people to shut up!? Are you one of them appeasers!? /mock Razz

0 Replies

Quote:

Some Imam doesn't approve of the words "Thou Shalt Not Kill", saying it't racist? Instead of forcing the police to sandblast it away because, omygosh, it's offending some Imam's sensibilities, it should have been painted on every building in town. Good grief. That Imam needs a good talking-to.

Definitely. I think that was a case where, uncharacteristically, the authorities overcompensated. Its funny, the division of roles. The authorities - police in front, local councils too - are taking the most cautious (and in this case obviously overcautious) approach, while the loudmouths dominate the media and the national political debate (the tougher you sound, the better your ratings). We send out totally mixed messages.

Quote:

Since Bouyeri himself has said that it wasn't anything Van Gogh said, but rather his adherence to the teachings of his religion, where is the relevance in repressing one's right to express their opinions, whether it's voluntary or through legal channels?

The Bouyari's of this world dont suddenly pop up. They dont get to the point where they would have killed Van Gogh no matter what out of the blue. I see two main contexts - nothing all too straightforward direct cause-effect like, just backgrounds - and thus two fights we face.

The first fight we face, obviously (on this one I'm sure we'll agree) is the growing influence of Muslim extremist hatemongerers. The most dangerous of them are not in the mainstream mosques, in fact. Like I said, Mohammed B was sent away from his mosque because he was too radical. He is not the only one. There are growing legions of radicalising young and very young Muslims who do not find a willing recepticle for their anger in their parents' mosques. Dont you remember those young Muslim internet radicals who called their parents' generation and the whole complex of established Muslim organisations "toadies and subsidy whores"? When Van Gogh was murdered, muslim organisations joined a demonstration against it. The young extremists, barely out their teens, were "deeply ashamed about [this] grotesque prostration by the first generation".

There's what many of us are deeply worried about. A new generation of very angry young (Moroccan) Muslims, who think their parents' mosques are cowardly appeasers to the Dutch. Instead, they find their refuge in the rare obscurantist mosque, where they do, covertly, preach hatred. Moreover - and much more dangerously still because there's no way to cnotrol it, they find it on the Internet. You've seen the articles: the core that these groups circle around are extremist websites and forums. They download their extremist Islamist treatises from Middle-Eastern websites. Next up, they download tutorials on how to make bombs. Like the 17-year old who was just arrested.

OK, so there's struggle 1). Fight these grouplets. Hunt and deport the travelling militants who try to lure these kids to Iraq or Afghanistan, like that Syrian guy they're after.

But struggle 2) has to do with: how did we get suddenly, this generation of furious Moroccan teens? For that, we need to look at ourselves.

But I cant right now, cause this place is closing.

0 Replies

The other thing I was writing (still unedited):

JustWonders wrote:

We're a capitalist society and I assure you that it's not about 'corporate responsibility'. If there was a market for hate-speech in this country, if it was profitable, you'd see no corporate censorship of it.

No, I dont think so. Well, partly you're right of course: Fox's rowdy talk shows draw more viewers than CNN's more sedate stories, which in turns makes more media adopt a more rowdy, opinionated style. But apparently, there are simply limits of decency generally followed; things that you "just dont say". Now mind you, I usually hate that attitude, the hypocrisy of it. But I also dont see why it should be so hard to, as a community, keep certain standards intact. You dont show frontal nudity on prime time network TV. Thats not a question of censorship, per se - you can find it on cable if you really want to. But the mainstream media kinda police themselves and each other on the limits there. And they do the same on other things.

Yes, its part of that awful political correctness you loathe. I tend to agree that there is too much of it in the US, both from the left and the right (see those rainbow crayons by ways of analogy). And you're right; this is not necessarily a question of spontaneous scruples on the part of the editors; they adhere to such standards of what is really not allowed, as a unspoken conventrion, because they know that if they'd transgress it, they'd cause a stream of angry letters, viewers would turn off.

Here, we have had much of the opposite. The past five years, Moroccans and Muslims in particular were free targets; anybody could say anything about them. I think it's been indecent, and I dont think its too much to ask of broadcasters, but also ourselves, as body of citizens, to show some respect for each other again. With the Christian parties, I say: perhaps we've gone too far in just allowing anything, anytime. Perhaps its good to take a good long look at ourselves and what we have become.

Thats wholly aside from persecuting terrorists. The extremists should be tackled as hard as is necessary. What I'm talking about isn't about, oh dear the Muslims are angry lets watch our step. Its about the increasing, growing, stewing disgust I have experienced over these past four years at how the Dutch talk, behave. I think its wrong. And I would have (*and have*) spoken up about it and demanded a change whether or not Van Gogh was killed; in fact, I would obviously have been much *more* vocal about it still if he hadnt been killed.

We have become a nation of intolerant, bigoted, coarse, egoistic loudmouths, with no respect, no self-restraint, hysterical and inflammable. Hell, we're almost getting to be like those hyped up Moroccan kids. Compare how dignified the Spanish have been. Compare the British - not just now in their time of crisis, but throughout this past decade. I think we should take a look in the mirror and reflect on what we have become.

I am angry at the Moroccan loudmouths because they in turn legitimize the worst of the Dutch loudmouths - and vice versa. I wish we could regain our cool somehow - and be a determined, unified, resilient country that knows how to retain its dignity, socialness and tolerance even in the face of attack. After 9/11, the New Yorkers didnt go and set fire to dozens of mosques. To primary schools with Muslim kids. They didnt throw petrol bombs. WHat has happened with us that we can only reply in kind? Why cant we show them how much better man can act?

I think that editors should have taken their responsibility, broadcasters and politicians, years ago. Dont talk about one group a way that you would never talk about another group, no matter what it did, either. And if you really would just call any group just anything, check yourself.

Yes, I believe hate speech has no place in the major newspapers. No place on prime time TV. I think the media should self-police. Should "limit", yes, the amount of garbage they put out. That they shouldnt "allow", yes, hateful scandalmongerers to spew the latest mix of prejudice and bigotry at any old talkshow. And I dont just blame them; I also blame ourselves as a people for being the people that just loves to eat that stuff up - and thus encourages those editors.

All that is ASIDE from the danger extremists pose and I would have hoped we would have faced up to this by now anyway.

0 Replies

Edited or not, really good post, nimh.

0 Replies

Thank you. Appreciate that. Unedited is from the heart, I guess.

This doesnt just come out of nowhere, you know, it didnt even only appear with the murder of Van Gogh. The Dutch loudmouthed bigotry actually predates the emergence of Muslim extremist violence. Thats why, at the same time (perhaps contradictorily) I see it as two separate problems we have to both address - and see the bigotry, not as the direct cause (or not the only direct course, anyway), but definitely as the aiding background to the radicalisation of Muslim youth.

Moroccans are treated like **** here, man (there, I mean - keep talking like I still live there). I had wholly moderate Muslim colleagues who really felt the pressure of their radicalising peers. I had the Moroccan kids hanging outside my front door, overheard their discussions, they're angry, and with good reason.

The sick thing is that once that anger drives them into extremist groups, then a whole other dynamic takes over, the dynamic of indoctrination, of sectarian militancy, then you get the perverted role of extremist facilitators preying on these kids to turn them into militants, zealots.

Whatever happens beyond that point is solely the responsibility of those hatemongerers, no longer ours. How these angry kids turn into religious zealots who are no longer motivated by petty resentment but by messianistic zealotry - who kill Van Gogh not because theyre angry about "goat fuc kers" anymore but out of their interpretation of The One Religion - thats their work.

But that there's apparently scores of angry Moroccan teens of such number that those extremist organisers can harvest them in the first place, thats where we Dutch should look at ourselves, IMO.

(Tho of course its odd that many of those arrested or accused so far are not Moroccans at all, but converted Westerners)

OK I'm repeating myself now. Over and over. Sorry. Deep feelings.

0 Replies

it does seem the most dangerous are those who have recently converted to islam

or those muslim boys (it does always seem to be boys) who might be typical "difficult" teenagers, then get heavily into religion.

Good article in today's independent by Johann Hari if you can find it nimh. Sorry too lazy myself. Bed time nighty night

0 Replies

Muslim extremist Mohammed Bouyeri, who confessed to the November 2004 murder of Theo Van Gogh, was sentenced to life in prison, the harshest possible sentence, today in Amsterdam.

Quote:

Life for Theo van Gogh's killer: end of story, or beginning of a new chapter?"What he is going to do in prison is a problem, and what other people are going to perhaps do to get him out of prison is a problem, and the number of problems will multiply - I'm absolutely sure of that."
Hans Janssen

Behind bars
The life sentence - which means precisely that in the Netherlands - had been the expected outcome. However, despite seeming to be an end to the story, some experts are concerned that Mohammed Bouyeri's imprisonment may well mark the beginning of an entirely new chapter of Islamic extremism in the country. Hans Janssen, an expert on Islam from the University of Utrecht, told Radio Netherlands that he is deeply worried about Bouyeri's future conduct behind bars:
"I'm absolutely certain that it will be a nightmare: he will convert some of his prison-mates to his radical, violent form of Islam."

Recruitment
The possibility of Bouyeri - who, at the end of his trial said that he would do "exactly the same" again if he had the chance - influencing fellow inmates is not conjecture, says Mr Jannsen, but based on what is already happening:

"Recruitment is going on in prisons, not only in this country, but in most countries that have prisoners who have been sentenced for Islamic terrorist activity. Usually, the prison authorities and the secret services try to find out what is going on, but I'm sure they miss a lot."

Click to listen to Ann-Marie Michel's interview with Hans Janssen
Windows Media Player
Real player

Source

0 Replies

Bouyeri cant do much in prison

It should be announced that despite all the efforts of the prison hospital, he was pronounced dead at 3.15 am 23 August 2005 as a result of a fight with other inmates over the allocation of books in the prison library.

not difficult

0 Replies

Anti-Muslim Dutch politicians in hiding after death threats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know