Do You Love Your Human Rights?

[Tony]

You do? Well, they're being undermined by islamofascists:

(It's a long but good read. )

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_cultural_jihadists.html

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.


It's sickening and depressing to see liberals betray liberalism over the threats of some diaper-headed theists. I'd hate to say it, but I guess the hope for the West rests with the right-wing.

[Polaris]

And the chorus of apologists claiming all adherants to Islam everywhere are harmless little puppy dogs snarling at the evil Amerikans in 3...2...1...*














*Yes I'm being facetious.

[Darat]

Oh and here I was thinking you were attempting to poison the well with your strawman....

I started to read the excerpt posted but when I reached the paranoia regarding the BBC I have to admit I stopped reading. It's a pity they had to descend into that as there is a kernel of an actual point and issue that should be addressed by rational folk.

[Beerina]

...as Little Green Footballs blogger

Full stop.

[JoeEllison]

Oh and here I was thinking you were attempting to poison the well with your strawman....

HAHAHAHA! :D

Maybe the real point is that to fight Islamic nutball bigots, the OP thinks that we should all fight fire with fire, nuttiness with nuttiness, and bigotry with bigotry?(the "diaper-head" comment was a dead giveaway)

[Tony]

Oh and here I was thinking you were attempting to poison the well with your strawman....


Me?

I started to read the excerpt posted but when I reached the paranoia regarding the BBC I have to admit I stopped reading. It's a pity they had to descend into that as there is a kernel of an actual point and issue that should be addressed by rational folk.

Then be rational, what about the BBC section was paranoia? I've never heard of the author's claim, so I don't know one way or the other.

[Tony]

Maybe the real point is that to fight Islamic nutball bigots, the OP thinks that we should all fight fire with fire, nuttiness with nuttiness, and bigotry with bigotry?

Nope, that would entail that we liberals start suicide bombing, and flying planes into buildings. I simply think Islam should be dealt with like we deal with Christianity. I.E. free speech, debate, ridicule, liberalism and general opposition.

(the "diaper-head" comment was a dead giveaway)

Yep, I disrespected Islam. Are your feelings hurt?

[Cain]

More doomsaying. Most of the time this stuff on our impending demise at the hands of the Islamists is just exaggerated nonsense. Remember the thread on the foot bath at some college in Michigan? Oh, and there's always the Danish cartoons. Oh no, toleration and accommodation.

I tack this up as another crazed loss of perspective. Yes, the Arab/Muslim hordes are invading us from within, Islamifying our society and culture. Oh dear. Meanwhile the U.S. government actually invades countries, props up dictatorships, and unquestioningly enables reactionary Israelis to steal more Palestinian land.

Right-wing and left-wing are inadequate descriptors. We're actually talking about hard-liners. The type of mentality I see in the article (at least from what I read and skimmed) betrays a lack of confidence in the power of ideas and the appeal of a relatively free society.

Also, Hollywood whitewashes religion in general, not just Islam. Let's instead spotlight in the institutions and interest groups that matter. If something resembling the cartoons came out of a Middle Eastern country, then I could enthusiastically support it. Trying to mock and enrage already weak, marginalized outgroups is kind of pathetic.

The Setting: http://youtube.com/watch?v=310rPOYoZSI
It's the mid 80s and Trevor, the new kid, is hanging out with Chad in the latter's basement. They're lifting weights because they have a "big game" coming up on Friday. Chad the preppy is curling an improbable amount of weight:

Chad: Hey Trev, why were you talking to Brian Sherman today after geometry?
Trev: What?
Chad: You do know he's a NERD, right?
Trev: Um, he's not bad. He's actually helpi--
Chad: What? He's a geek.
Awkward Pause... Chad let's the barbell crash to the floor. He begins flexing in the mirror.
Chad: I'm just sayin man, you don't wanna harm your rep by being seen with him. Geez, I'm so frickin' big! "Aaaaaaah" *Chad creams his shorts*

[Tony]

More doomsaying. Most of the time this stuff on our impending demise at the hands of the Islamists is just exaggerated nonsense. Remember the thread on the foot bath at some college in Michigan? Oh, and there's always the Danish cartoons. Oh no, toleration and accommodation.


It could be that, im certainly not dismissing that possibility, indeed, I'm counting on it.

But what do you say about the many examples cited in the article? Can you refute any of them?

Meanwhile the U.S. government actually invades countries, props up dictatorships, and unquestioningly enables reactionary Israelis to steal more Palestinian land.

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

[Cain]

It could be that, im certainly not dismissing that possibility, indeed, I'm counting on it.

But what do you say about the many examples cited in the article? Can you refute any of them?

What do you mean "refute" them? Can you "refute" my example of a nearby pastor making racist and homophobic remarks? No. I'm not familiar enough with the examples to say the author's agenda has led to specific and crucial omissions. I'm sure it reads for others as it reads for me: "This exalted academic/intellectual from [Norway, England, etc.] once made the following comment" which naturally shows Europe, and quite possibly the United States, is fated to be overwhelmed.

Irrelevant to the subject at hand.

You're missing the larger argument, which is that your subject is irrelevant to the events at hand. It's like you're talking about shark attacks and someone makes an issue of mentioning all of the other people needlessly killed in regular ways. I'm sure a lot of people find it thrilling to engage in an international culture war from their keyboards. I'm just... not one of those people.

[Ziggurat]

Oh, and there's always the Danish cartoons. Oh no, toleration and accommodation.

Bowing before threats of violence is not toleration or accomodation. It is appeasement. And it will lead to less tolerance and less accomodation, by precisely those with so little of it already.

[ddt]

It's a long but good read.
I read it all. With nearly every example from the Netherlands - and there are quite a few - I thought: that's not how I remembered it.

So I'll write the rest of this reply mainly from a Dutch standpoint.

It's sickening and depressing to see liberals betray liberalism over the threats of some diaper-headed theists. I'd hate to say it, but I guess the hope for the West rests with the right-wing.
Which right-wing? The morally conservative Christian-Democrat CDA, the ministers of which investigated possibilities to ban Wilders' movie? The right-liberal VVD, which didn't want to extend Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protection while she lived in the US? Or the populist Wilders, who for over a year shouts that the Quran should be banned but doesn't have the guts to argue that in front of a judge?

But what do you say about the many examples cited in the article? Can you refute any of them?
I'll be glad to take up the challenge.

After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”
There's much more to Pim Fortuyn than his view on Islam:

The focus on a single person as opposed to a party, more than before in Dutch political culture; he was the first in a string of populists to emerge in Dutch politics;
His socio-economic program which promised more breaking-down of the social security system than the social-democrat/liberal coalition before him had already done;
His call for abolishing article 1 of the constitution, the anti-discrimination article, arguing that emancipation had been completed.
His remarks against immigrants in general; specifically, his call for a general immigration stop, because we'd have enough foreigners to cope with.

With his remarks against immigrants he clearly catered to feelings of unrest under the populace, as all populists tend to do, but he also offset them with remarks as "I don't want to offload our Moroccan hooligans to king Hassan".

His view on Islam was best pronounced in a Volkskrant interview (http://web.archive.org/web/20020212063049/http%3a//www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws/denhaag/1013147690985.html):
I don't hate Islam. I consider it a backward culture. I have travelled much in the world. And wherever Islam rules, it's just terrible. All the hypocrisy. It's a bit like those old Reformed Protestants. The Reformed lie all the time. And why is that? Because they have norms and values that are so high that you can't humanly maintain them. You also see that in that Muslim culture. Then look at the Netherlands. In what country could an electoral leader of such a large movement as mine be openly homosexual? How wonderful that that's possible. That's something that one can be proud of. And I'd like to keep it that way, thank you very much.

(translation from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn)).

I don't know why the NYT has called him "marching the Dutch to the right"; but the Dutch Greens and Socialists did that mainly because of (2) above.

I couldn't find any editorial by Parool or Volkskrant comparing Fortuyn with Mussolini; Volkskrant columnist Jan Blokker may have done so, knowing his writing style. Nevertheless, I don't see what that has to do with his view on Islam.

The likening with Hitler in Trouw wasn't an editorial either but a sports column (source (http://www.trouw.nl/hetnieuws/sport/article614799.ece)). The writer saw Fortuyn in a TV program, angered about his immigrant-phobia, and imagined sitting there himself and what he'd say to him: "You ugly, bald fake-professor! with the intelligence of Hitler and the charm of Heinrich Himmler" and ends with "it was just an impulse".

As to Fortuyn's killer, Volkert van der Graaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkert_van_der_Graaf): he was concerned about all vulnerable groups in case Fortuyn gained power; not just muslims, but also asylum seekers, disabled on social security, etc.

Summarizing, the points raised by Bawer around Fortuyn here are at best a very one-dimensional picture.

When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.”
Of course, "quite a number" is very vague. The wiki page on this lists major newspapers from all continental European countries - and Bawer is mostly worried about Europe, isn't he? See the end of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109973) about this discussion.

In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen’s call for “accommodation with the Muslims,” including those “who consciously discriminate against their women.” Sharia enshrines a Muslim man’s right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist.
The precise quote both of Buruma and what Cohen has said would here be in order. Cohen may be a man of the soft approach, but I can't remember him condoning discrimination; the juxtaposition with rape and murder is outright smearing.

Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a “simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalist”
I don't know the context in which Garton Ash said this. However, recalling Ayaan's viewing of "Submission" with four women in a women's shelter, and in the subsequent discussion insisting that their woes were purely to blame with Islam - on which one of them walked out - I can see his point. Or recalling her visit to an Islamic school, and asking in her own broken Dutch whether the children learned the language adequately.

Of all the West’s leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlands—where Muslims will soon be a majority in major cities—“it would be a disgrace to say, ‘This is not permitted!’ ”
Though also the Dutch press misinterpreted the quote from Mr. Donner, I get the impression that Bawer deliberately botches it for his own purposes. What Mr. Donner actually said was:

"If there were a majority in Parliament in favor of introducing sharia law, that should be possible in a democracy."

Translation mine, from memory. Note the subjunctive, though. Note also he said Parliament. The remark that muslims would soon be a majority in big cities - if it were true, I don't have numbers on this - is pure fear mongering as it is besides the point. There hasn't been any call for introducing sharia from Dutch muslims AFAIK.

When, after van Gogh’s murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction).
... and the city council censured the Mayor, who subsequently extended his apologies to the artist.

[JoeEllison]

Nope, that would entail that we liberals start suicide bombing, and flying planes into buildings. I simply think Islam should be dealt with like we deal with Christianity. I.E. free speech, debate, ridicule, liberalism and general opposition.Wrong... why suicide bomb when we can send the world's most expensive military to blow up countries that have never attacked us... oh, wait, we already have. Sucker.



Yep, I disrespected Islam. Are your feelings hurt?

Nope. You outed yourself as a bigot, which I appreciate. Better than if you were to hide your disgusting true colors, right?

[ddt]

In his book "While Europe slept", Bruce Bawer claims that Volkert van der Graaf, the murderer of Pim Fortuyn, was inspired by the NRC newspaper editorial of May 6th, 2002 - the day of Fortuyn's murder - which was highly critical of Fortuyn. That editorial was written by NRC's editor-in-chief Folkert Jensma (so this is the Folkert/Volkert affair :)).

I'm at a complete loss how he gets the timeline right. He claims it was in the "morning issue" of the NRC. Wrong, NRC is an evening paper, never had morning issues. It doesn't appear before 16:00 hours at the earliest; Fortuyn was murdered at 18:05 hours.

And this man has lived in Amsterdam!

Here (http://www.maxpam.nl/2006/08/volkert-folkert/) is a Dutch article with scans of the relevant pages of the book.

[Thunder]

the only ones who are seeking to undermine my civil rights are right-wing republicans and neo-socialist democrats a.k.a George Bush and Michael Bloomberg.

[Cain]

Bowing before threats of violence is not toleration or accomodation. It is appeasement. And it will lead to less tolerance and less accomodation, by precisely those with so little of it already.

Yeah, so go burn an American flag already. :rolleyes: "Appeasement," hmmph. Bah. So says the strident supporter of unchecked U.S. aggression and imperialism. And like the stupid, immoral, pointless war you naively supported, and probably still do support, what you propose here is exactly what the "Jihadists," "Islamists," "Islamo-fascists" hanker for. They're far more threatened by globalization than we are by the mild, dismissive rebukes against troglodytes who insist on using the word "diaper-heads." (Tony: smart move tainting your culture war with racism.)

Cultural integration and reconciliation occurs over generations. Social change progresses slowly compared to political, economic, and technological change. Like the right-wing culture warriors, these guys see the writing on the wall. People like to think of these things in terms of "war" because that's a muscular, polarizing way of framing things. "You're an appeaser." Please. The whole "pick-a-side-we're-at-war" plays right into the hands of the hardliners. Muslims in Europe and the United States face discrimination on a daily basis. If they're not welcomed into a society then they're going to have to associate with the more radical, self-isolated groups.

[Pauliesonne]

After a quarter of a century, I'm still getting used to them.

[Tony]

Wrong... why suicide bomb when we can send the world's most expensive military to blow up countries that have never attacked us... oh, wait, we already have. Sucker.


So then you admit your comment was a strawman?

Nope.

Yep, your feelings were hurt, which is why you resort to childish name calling.

[Tony]

Yeah, so go burn an American flag already. :rolleyes: "Appeasement," hmmph. Bah. So says the strident supporter of unchecked U.S. aggression and imperialism. And like the stupid, immoral, pointless war you naively supported, and probably still do support, what you propose here is exactly what the "Jihadists," "Islamists," "Islamo-fascists" hanker for. They're far more threatened by globalization than we are by the mild, dismissive rebukes against troglodytes who insist on using the word "diaper-heads." (Tony: smart move tainting your culture war with racism.)



Racism? What race has the genetics that cause the physical manifestation of diapers, towels and assorted fabrics on their heads?

Muslims in Europe and the United States face discrimination on a daily basis. If they're not welcomed into a society then they're going to have to associate with the more radical, self-isolated groups.

And therefore, we should start censoring speech offensive to Islam?

[Tony]

I read it all. With nearly every example from the Netherlands - and there are quite a few - I thought: that's not how I remembered it.

So I'll write the rest of this reply mainly from a Dutch standpoint.


Which right-wing? The morally conservative Christian-Democrat CDA, the ministers of which investigated possibilities to ban Wilders' movie? The right-liberal VVD, which didn't want to extend Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protection while she lived in the US? Or the populist Wilders, who for over a year shouts that the Quran should be banned but doesn't have the guts to argue that in front of a judge?


I'll be glad to take up the challenge.


There's much more to Pim Fortuyn than his view on Islam:

The focus on a single person as opposed to a party, more than before in Dutch political culture; he was the first in a string of populists to emerge in Dutch politics;
His socio-economic program which promised more breaking-down of the social security system than the social-democrat/liberal coalition before him had already done;
His call for abolishing article 1 of the constitution, the anti-discrimination article, arguing that emancipation had been completed.
His remarks against immigrants in general; specifically, his call for a general immigration stop, because we'd have enough foreigners to cope with.

With his remarks against immigrants he clearly catered to feelings of unrest under the populace, as all populists tend to do, but he also offset them with remarks as "I don't want to offload our Moroccan hooligans to king Hassan".

His view on Islam was best pronounced in a Volkskrant interview (http://web.archive.org/web/20020212063049/http%3a//www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws/denhaag/1013147690985.html):

(translation from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn)).

I don't know why the NYT has called him "marching the Dutch to the right"; but the Dutch Greens and Socialists did that mainly because of (2) above.

I couldn't find any editorial by Parool or Volkskrant comparing Fortuyn with Mussolini; Volkskrant columnist Jan Blokker may have done so, knowing his writing style. Nevertheless, I don't see what that has to do with his view on Islam.

The likening with Hitler in Trouw wasn't an editorial either but a sports column (source (http://www.trouw.nl/hetnieuws/sport/article614799.ece)). The writer saw Fortuyn in a TV program, angered about his immigrant-phobia, and imagined sitting there himself and what he'd say to him: "You ugly, bald fake-professor! with the intelligence of Hitler and the charm of Heinrich Himmler" and ends with "it was just an impulse".

As to Fortuyn's killer, Volkert van der Graaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkert_van_der_Graaf): he was concerned about all vulnerable groups in case Fortuyn gained power; not just muslims, but also asylum seekers, disabled on social security, etc.

Summarizing, the points raised by Bawer around Fortuyn here are at best a very one-dimensional picture.


Of course, "quite a number" is very vague. The wiki page on this lists major newspapers from all continental European countries - and Bawer is mostly worried about Europe, isn't he? See the end of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109973) about this discussion.


The precise quote both of Buruma and what Cohen has said would here be in order. Cohen may be a man of the soft approach, but I can't remember him condoning discrimination; the juxtaposition with rape and murder is outright smearing.


I don't know the context in which Garton Ash said this. However, recalling Ayaan's viewing of "Submission" with four women in a women's shelter, and in the subsequent discussion insisting that their woes were purely to blame with Islam - on which one of them walked out - I can see his point. Or recalling her visit to an Islamic school, and asking in her own broken Dutch whether the children learned the language adequately.


Though also the Dutch press misinterpreted the quote from Mr. Donner, I get the impression that Bawer deliberately botches it for his own purposes. What Mr. Donner actually said was:

"If there were a majority in Parliament in favor of introducing sharia law, that should be possible in a democracy."

Translation mine, from memory. Note the subjunctive, though. Note also he said Parliament. The remark that muslims would soon be a majority in big cities - if it were true, I don't have numbers on this - is pure fear mongering as it is besides the point. There hasn't been any call for introducing sharia from Dutch muslims AFAIK.


... and the city council censured the Mayor, who subsequently extended his apologies to the artist.

Thanks ddt, I'll be reading this while I work. I'll address it when I am finished.

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, so go burn an American flag already. :rolleyes:

What, pray tell, was your point? Do you imagine that I am in favor of making flag burning illegal?

And like the stupid, immoral, pointless war you naively supported, and probably still do support, what you propose here is exactly what the "Jihadists," "Islamists," "Islamo-fascists" hanker for.

I haven't proposed anything except not silencing ourselves or others in the face of threats of violence. And that is exactly NOT what the jihadists "hanker for". They are very much threatened by the exercise of free speech, and explicitly call for its abolishment.

[Chaos]

*snip*
And therefore, we should start censoring speech offensive to Islam?

No. Governments should have started the effort to integrate them into our societies fourty to fifty years ago, when they first came here in large numbers.
But, at the time, governments were still convinced that, once we no longer needed them, they would pack up and go home like the useful idiots (very strong emphasis on "idiots") governments thought those foreigners were.

And right now, instead of projecting the message they we welcome all those who are not intending to kill us and/or actually destroy our culture, we have election campaign after election campaign in which at least one major contender campaigns on the promise of kicking out those dirty foreign scum, Germany for the Germans (and France for the French, Switzerland for the Swiss, and so on) etc etc. In that climate, of course any demands for cultural adaptation look like the demand to assimilate into becoming racist xenophobic bigots like those who campaign with the promise of kicking them out.

[Tony]

No. Governments should have started the effort to integrate them into our societies fourty to fifty years ago, when they first came here in large numbers.
But, at the time, governments were still convinced that, once we no longer needed them, they would pack up and go home like the useful idiots (very strong emphasis on "idiots") governments thought those foreigners were.


Hey Chaos, its been a long time, thanks for answering.

Do you think it was a mistake to import those foreign workers into your country those decades ago?

What should the leaders at the time have done to better integrate the Turkish worker coming into your country?

And right now, instead of projecting the message they we welcome all those who are not intending to kill us and/or actually destroy our culture, we have election campaign after election campaign in which at least one major contender campaigns on the promise of kicking out those dirty foreign scum, Germany for the Germans (and France for the French, Switzerland for the Swiss, and so on) etc etc. In that climate, of course any demands for cultural adaptation look like the demand to assimilate into becoming racist xenophobic bigots like those who campaign with the promise of kicking them out.

Do you think Islam is compatible with modern German values? If so, what gives you reason to think so?

[WildCat]

And right now, instead of projecting the message they we welcome all those who are not intending to kill us and/or actually destroy our culture, we have election campaign after election campaign in which at least one major contender campaigns on the promise of kicking out those dirty foreign scum, Germany for the Germans (and France for the French, Switzerland for the Swiss, and so on) etc etc. In that climate, of course any demands for cultural adaptation look like the demand to assimilate into becoming racist xenophobic bigots like those who campaign with the promise of kicking them out.
I see this as a flaw in the Parliamentary system. While 10% of any given society is composed of racist bigoted jackasses only in a parliamentary system do they get representation and an official voice.

At least with our (US) system marginal ideas get relegated to the dustbin, and those who support those ideas become increasingly marginalized by society.

[Pardalis]

More doomsaying. Most of the time this stuff on our impending demise at the hands of the Islamists is just exaggerated nonsense.

Just like the fear mongering that's going on about the US becoming a fascist state. Same nonsense.

[Cain]

What, pray tell, was your point? Do you imagine that I am in favor of making flag burning illegal?

No. If we have surrendered our speech in this country, if we are appeasers, then go out and raise consciousness. (Also, though it depends exactly how the question is asked, most Americans favor outlawing flag-burning).

I haven't proposed anything except not silencing ourselves or others in the face of threats of violence. And that is exactly NOT what the jihadists "hanker for". They are very much threatened by the exercise of free speech, and explicitly call for its abolishment.[/QUOTE]

No, this is (one of) your continued mistake(s). Of course people want their enemies to say outrageous things. Obama supporters would love it if we discovered audio tapes of McCain or Clinton calling their guy a ******. (Please note this last word appears in asterisks because the Guardians on this forum want to protect you its utterance and the JREF from unwelcome controversy.) What Islamic actually fear are the films, music, television, and Barbie Dolls that our culture produces and transmits/transports around the globe. And they have a point because 99% of that stuff is crap anyway, but they recognize that our societies, more than theirs, provides people with greater freedom to engage in self-shaping behavior, which still holds tremendous appeal. Soft power.

[Ziggurat]

No. If we have surrendered our speech in this country, if we are appeasers, then go out and raise consciousness.

So you were suggesting I should go burn a flag to protest the fact that people are caving in to threats of violence from jihadists? Sorry, still not getting you.

(Also, though it depends exactly how the question is asked, most Americans favor outlawing flag-burning).

First off, I don't pretend to be most Americans, I'm just me. And second, if the outcome depends so much on the phrasing of the question, then that's a pretty damned good indicator that the outcome doesn't mean much at all.

No, this is (one of) your continued mistake(s). Of course people want their enemies to say outrageous things.

Wrong. There's a reason Bin Laden is getting his panties in a twist over these cartoons. There's a reason they threaten violence to try to silence opposition. And it sure as hell isn't because they want more of it. Theo van Gogh wasn't murdered in order to encourage more anti-Islam movies.

What Islamic actually fear are the films, music, television, and Barbie Dolls that our culture produces and transmits/transports around the globe.

They fear that as well. I never claimed otherwise, nor does their fear of such cultural influences in any way preclude their fear of speach criticising radical Islam.

but they recognize that our societies, more than theirs, provides people with greater freedom to engage in self-shaping behavior, which still holds tremendous appeal. Soft power.

Which is precisely why criticism of radical Islam cannot be tolerated. If westerners are allowed to do it unmolested, next thing you know muslims might start doing it too. And that cannot be tolerated by the radicals, who have used violence and the threat of violence so successfully against their own populations.

[Tony]

Wrong. There's a reason Bin Laden is getting his panties in a twist over these cartoons. There's a reason they threaten violence to try to silence opposition. And it sure as hell isn't because they want more of it. Theo van Gogh wasn't murdered in order to encourage more anti-Islam movies.

Cain has a point here. It does play into Bin Laden's hands when westerners criticize Islam. It allows him ammunition when he engages in his "the West is satan" rants. However, it doesnt change the fact that the great mass of Islamic ignoramuses in the ummah would still love to silence any and all speech critical of islam or speech deemed "anti-islamic".

[Ziggurat]

Cain has a point here. It does play into Bin Laden's hands when westerners criticize Islam. It allows him ammunition when he engages in his "the West is satan" rants.

It gives him far more ammunition when people see that violence and the threat of violence work to silence criticism. The fact of the matter is that the jihadists and their ideological kinsmen aren't wanting for grievances, real or imagined. But they are scrambling for every actual success they can grab hold of.

[Tony]

It gives him far more ammunition when people see that violence and the threat of violence work to silence criticism.

You think so? I'm not sure. Regardless, we still need to be critical of religious violence and fanaticism. If it makes the baby jesus or profit mohammed cry, too bad.

The fact of the matter is that the jihadists and their ideological kinsmen aren't wanting for grievances, real or imagined. But they are scrambling for every actual success they can grab hold of.

I agree.

[Cain]

First off, I don't pretend to be most Americans, I'm just me. And second, if the outcome depends so much on the phrasing of the question, then that's a pretty damned good indicator that the outcome doesn't mean much at all.

No, look at the polling: http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm

The less enthusiastic responses for outlawing come when the question is put in the frame of amending the Constitution. Presumably this is because the Constitution, like the American flag, is an idol symbol not to be questioned. When asked straight out if flag burning should be illegal, the answers are considerably more lopsided, but generally a majority seems to favor restricting this form of speech, even when the Constitution is mentioned.

Wrong. There's a reason Bin Laden is getting his panties in a twist over these cartoons. There's a reason they threaten violence to try to silence opposition. And it sure as hell isn't because they want more of it. Theo van Gogh wasn't murdered in order to encourage more anti-Islam movies.

Novice. "Silence opposition"? They're interested in maximum attention, Bin Laden in particular, and this type of incendiary material makes for perfect propaganda. The brand of vulgar liberalism lauded in the article is not going to do much -- if any -- good. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where a dentist apparently converts to Judiaism just for the jokes. In the original post Tony says the "hope" rests with the right-wing. Well, as in the case of the dentist, I do not think it's totally unreasonable for a person to believe these things are cynically printed because to be insulting rather than as some lesson in free speech. You can print or say whatever you want, but don't disguise it as a plea in favor of a cherished principle. These sort of people do more to trivialize speech instead of promoting it. I recall some of the newspapers justified the printing as saying that ridiculing Muslims was a way of actually welcoming them into their political culture because other groups are ridiculed more or less the same way. :rolleyes: Yes, nicknames and pranks create solidarity in the locker room, but I think if you're genuinely seeking to make someone a member of the team then you probably do not start with "your mama" jokes.

They fear that as well. I never claimed otherwise, nor does their fear of such cultural influences in any way preclude their fear of speach criticising radical Islam.

Do you sincerely believe they fear cartoons? Do you honestly believe that? Here's my hypothesis: these types of cartoons simply validate in their minds what the West really thinks. It's a handy symbolic symptom of the real threat. The last part of the above sentence on "radical Islam" ties into the final paragraph:

Which is precisely why criticism of radical Islam cannot be tolerated. If westerners are allowed to do it unmolested, next thing you know muslims might start doing it too. And that cannot be tolerated by the radicals, who have used violence and the threat of violence so successfully against their own populations.

... which is crazy. The problem with the cartoons is not that they criticize/piss off followers of "radical Islam." The problem is that they alienate more moderate Muslims. I wish I could find polling on how many Americans believe it should be illegal to burn the Bible.

You think Westerners need to show Muslims how to criticize radical Islam so that they can follow our lead? If you want to have any hope of reducing radicals to nuisance levels, then you're going to start with second and third generation Muslims, the exact people who are most likely to feel pressures from religious conservatives with regard to personal lifestyle choices, political beliefs, and so on. And to win them over you need to earn credibility. Bob Wright had a diavlog posted today on bloggingheads.tv where he says he's told by a Saudi Arabian human rights group that the worst thing that could happen to them is a Bush endorsement. He also discusses how a blogger/critic of the government was released from jail, saved via the awareness raised by other blogs. Liberation technology.

[Tony]

Cain, I understand your point in bringing up American opposition to flag and bible burning, but I think its a distraction. Even if a majority of Americans support restrictions on the aforementioned expressions of opinion, they're still wrong. I would ridicule and insult them just as readily, if not more, as I would muslim fundies. It doesn't help your case using wrongheadedness to defend wrongheadedness.

[linusrichard]

the only ones who are seeking to undermine my civil rights are right-wing republicans and neo-socialist democrats a.k.a George Bush and Michael Bloomberg.

Yes.

Someone remind me, was it a bunch of radical Muslims that somehow got themselves elected to Congress and passed the USA PATRIOT Act? Was it a bunch of radical Muslims that got into the executive branch and held a US citizen for years without charging him or giving him access to counsel? Was it our radical Muslim president and cabinet who gave the order to start a disastrous war of choice in Iraq?

I'm not saying radical Islam isn't a threat. I'm saying it isn't a threat to our civil rights. Any terrorist or criminal can injure or kill us, Muslim, Christian, secular, or otherwise. Only the government can threaten our rights. How many Muslims are there in Congress? One? How many on the Supreme Court? None? How many in the Cabinet, on the Federal Bench, heading federal agencies? How many governors, state legislators, state attorneys general, state supreme court justices? Heck, how many state judges, prosecutors, how many cops? Of those, how many are radical Muslims?

[Morrigan]

Yeah, so go burn an American flag already. :rolleyes: "Appeasement," hmmph. Bah. So says the strident supporter of unchecked U.S. aggression and imperialism. And like the stupid, immoral, pointless war you naively supported, and probably still do support
Wow, strawman much? So refusing to tolerate threats of violence from the Islamists = being a supporter of the war? That's one of the biggest leaps of logic I've ever seen.

[Ziggurat]

The less enthusiastic responses for outlawing come when the question is put in the frame of amending the Constitution. Presumably this is because the Constitution, like the American flag, is an idol symbol not to be questioned. When asked straight out if flag burning should be illegal, the answers are considerably more lopsided, but generally a majority seems to favor restricting this form of speech, even when the Constitution is mentioned.

Cognitive dissonance much? How is it that the constitution is simultaneously "not to be questioned" and ignored? Those crafty rednecks!

They're interested in maximum attention, Bin Laden in particular, and this type of incendiary material makes for perfect propaganda.

They're interested in far more than that. Why do you choose to remain willfully blind to their explicit calls for doing away with freedom of speech? Why do you continue to deny theat they want what they say, time and time again, that they want? Why are you, in short, making excuses for them?

The brand of vulgar liberalism lauded in the article is not going to do much -- if any -- good.

I beg to differ. As Sun Tzu said of enemies, "If angry, irritate him."

In the original post Tony says the "hope" rests with the right-wing.

Did I ever say anything in support of that conclusion? No, actually, I didn't. You presume too much. Hope rests with whoever is willing to stand up for western values. That includes people of both the right and the left. It must include people of both the right and the left, or we're really up a creek.

Do you sincerely believe they fear cartoons? Do you honestly believe that?

Over a thousand years of history indicate that indeed they probably do. It wasn't simple vandalism which caused muslims to scratch out the faces of people in church murals across Turkey. It wasn't annoyance at an insult that lead the Taliban to blow up the Buddhas of Bamyan. In fact, Mullah Omar explicitly stated that his reason for doing so was fear of judgment by Allah had he refrained from doing so. It may not be logical, but religious motivation on the topic or representation (especially of Mohammed) runs deep.

Here's my hypothesis: these types of cartoons simply validate in their minds what the West really thinks.

Your ignorance of radical Islamic thought is showing. Sayyid Qutb wasn't disgusted by the west because of what we thought of them, he was disgusted by what we were. Bin Laden and his ilk are the same. You are simply kidding yourself if you think it is enough for the jihadis that we like muslims. We must either become muslims (and ones which follow their extremist viewpoint on what that means) or accept a state of dhimmitude. Do not kid yourself that their ambitions are any more constrained.

The problem with the cartoons is not that they criticize/piss off followers of "radical Islam." The problem is that they alienate more moderate Muslims.

I disagree. I think they rather nicely help to identify who is, in fact, a moderate muslim and who only pretends to be.

You think Westerners need to show Muslims how to criticize radical Islam so that they can follow our lead? If you want to have any hope of reducing radicals to nuisance levels, then you're going to start with second and third generation Muslims, the exact people who are most likely to feel pressures from religious conservatives with regard to personal lifestyle choices, political beliefs, and so on. And to win them over you need to earn credibility.

And credibility starts with showing that you are willing to fight for your professed ideals, that they are not for sale, that they cannot be taken away by threats of force. Bin Laden was right about one thing: people tend to follow the strong horse, not the weak horse. We will convince no one to adopt western values if we show ourselves willing to compromise on those values.

[Tony]

The problem is that they alienate more moderate Muslims. I wish I could find polling on how many Americans believe it should be illegal to burn the Bible.


If "moderate" Muslims are alienated by people exercising their free speech by insulting Islam, then they are obviously aren't very moderate or compatible with liberal values. Christians and Christianity are insulted and parodied constantly in the media and culture (thats a good thing), but for some reason, they're not alienated by Western Civilization as a whole, hell, they even join in the fun sometimes. Why is it that moderate Christians don't feel alienated, but "moderate" Muslims, as you claim, do?

[Cain]

Tony wrote:

Cain, I understand your point in bringing up American opposition to flag and bible burning, but I think its a distraction. Even if a majority of Americans support restrictions on the aforementioned expressions of opinion, they're still wrong. I would ridicule and insult them just as readily, if not more, as I would muslim fundies. It doesn't help your case using wrongheadedness to defend wrongheadednesI think people are missing my central criticism, which is that the controversies discussed in the article are relatively minor. We have mainstream Americans right here who want to legislate speech. Combine this with the fact Muslims are a stigmatized minority and it's not surprising they go bananas when the "prophet" is depicted, let alone in a negative light.

That's one of the biggest leaps of logic I've ever seen.

Yep, and you just made it. Where do I say what you attribute to me? Read the quote over again. Removed insult. And while we're on that subject...

Ziggurat writes:
Cognitive dissonance much? How is it that the constitution is simultaneously "not to be questioned" and ignored? Those crafty rednecks!Um, the same way the Bible is not questioned and ignored. Are you familiar with the Bible?

They're interested in far more than that. Why do you choose to remain willfully blind to their explicit calls for doing away with freedom of speech? Why do you continue to deny theat they want what they say, time and time again, that they want? Why are you, in short, making excuses for them? Because I'm a terrorist-lover. There, I said it. The second to last sentence is not a model of clarity. You do realize there is a gap between what they want and what they are likely to achieve in a best-case scenario? It's not a matter of making excuses for them but countering this ridiculous, self-fulfilling fear-mongering,

I beg to differ. As Sun Tzu said of enemies, "If angry, irritate him."Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've seen Wall Street, too. Sun-Tzu: "Every battle is won before it's ever fought." Now, instead of relying on out-of-context quotes, maybe you can, you know, actually draw on material evidence to support this claim. Or you could actually pay attention to what Tzu, a political realist, has to say about international relations.

Did I ever say anything in support of that conclusion? No, actually, I didn't. You presume too much. Hope rests with whoever is willing to stand up for western values. That includes people of both the right and the left. It must include people of both the right and the left, or we're really up a creek.Jesus, why don't you buddy up with your soulmate Morrigan. Oh, I just love it when people make assumptions about what I have written in order to accuse me of making assumptions about them. Did I ever say you agree with Tony right there?

Over a thousand years of history indicate that indeed they probably do. It wasn't simple vandalism which caused muslims to scratch out the faces of people in church murals across Turkey. It wasn't annoyance at an insult that lead the Taliban to blow up the Buddhas of Bamyan. In fact, Mullah Omar explicitly stated that his reason for doing so was fear of judgment by Allah had he refrained from doing so. It may not be logical, but religious motivation on the topic or representation (especially of Mohammed) runs deep.

Your ignorance of radical Islamic thought is showing. Sayyid Qutb wasn't disgusted by the west because of what we thought of them, he was disgusted by what we were. Bin Laden and his ilk are the same. You are simply kidding yourself if you think it is enough for the jihadis that we like muslims. We must either become muslims (and ones which follow their extremist viewpoint on what that means) or accept a state of dhimmitude. Do not kid yourself that their ambitions are any more constrained.You are missing the point, as usual. Removed insult. I do not dispute the grand ambitions of Osama Bin Laden; the majority of my posts deal with effectively combating the threat, which is to say the brave culture warriors in the 81st Chairborn division based at the Manhattan Institute are full of it. If you do not want Islam to overwhelm liberal democracies, then you bring in moderate Muslims. Profiling Muslims, bombing their countries, and supporting dictatorships, among other things, is not helpful. You're one of the people who insists on feeding the beast, peddling stupid, easy aphorisms "if angry, irritate them." The problem is that you're irritating the wrong people. You don't want an Islamic government in Iran, then hey, maybe it wasn't exactly a brilliant idea to support the Shah. You don't like Hamas in Palestine, then hey, maybe it wasn't exactly a brilliant idea to marginalize secular Palestinians.

And credibility starts with showing that you are willing to fight for your professed ideals, that they are not for sale, that they cannot be taken away by threats of force. Bin Laden was right about one thing: people tend to follow the strong horse, not the weak horse. We will convince no one to adopt western values if we show ourselves willing to compromise on those values.Again, total loss of perspective. The article discusses how newspapers white-wash Muslims when they actually white-wash state-violence, state-terror, support for authoritarian regimes. Of course we back up our ideals -- freedom to consume, among others -- with brute force. We send people out to kill and be killed for those ideals.

Tony:
If "moderate" Muslims are alienated by people exercising their free speech by insulting Islam, then they are obviously aren't very moderate or compatible with liberal values. Christians and Christianity are insulted and parodied constantly in the media and culture (thats a good thing), but for some reason, they're not alienated by Western Civilization as a whole, hell, they even join in the fun sometimes. Why is it that moderate Christians don't feel alienated, but "moderate" Muslims, as you claim, do?Because they're undeniably part of our society. Hell, they make up the "heartland" and insist this is a Christian nation with a distinctly Christian founding.

Keep the personal insults out of it, Cain, otherwise I'm simply going to start deleting entire posts instead of spending time writing mod boxes, edit boxes, and so forth. Attack the argument; keep the person out of it.

[Ziggurat]

Combine this with the fact Muslims are a stigmatized minority and it's not surprising they go bananas when the "prophet" is depicted, let alone in a negative light.

Once again, you are ignoring that the specific religious prohibitions against negative depictions of Mohammed. This isn't simply about them feeling stigmatized, and it cannot and does not explain the violent reaction the cartoons caused in places (like Pakistan) where muslims are neither the minority nor stigmatized.

You do realize there is a gap between what they want and what they are likely to achieve in a best-case scenario?

What they are likely to get is a different argument than what they want, and you were not simply saying that they won't get what they want, your argument essentially said that they didn't want what they say they want.

Jesus, why don't you buddy up with your soulmate Morrigan.

Strange, but I don't even know who Morrigan is.

If you do not want Islam to overwhelm liberal democracies, then you bring in moderate Muslims.

Funny, but I always figured it was rather more important to kick out the radicals. Having moderates on board does very little good if you don't actually get rid of the trouble makers.

Profiling Muslims, bombing their countries, and supporting dictatorships, among other things, is not helpful.

Yeah, umm... neither the original article in question, nor Tony's posts, nor mine in this thread, advocated any of those things.

You're one of the people who insists on feeding the beast, peddling stupid, easy aphorisms "if angry, irritate them." The problem is that you're irritating the wrong people.

Wrong again. The exact right people show their irritation rather visibly and vocally in regards to speech such as the cartoons. And if "moderates" can't learn to ignore a little irritation, they're not really moderates. Ever wonder why nobody got killed or had to go into hiding over Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)? It's not because nobody was offended.

[Darth Rotor]

Wrong... why suicide bomb when we can send the world's most expensive military to blow up countries that have never attacked us... oh, wait, we already have. Sucker.
I refer you to The Clash, Tommy Gun. He was singing to the urban guerillas of the seventies. Guess the song is timeless.

Tommy gun
You ain't happy less you got one
Tommy gun
Ain't gonna shoot the place up
Just for fun
Maybe he wants to die for the money
Maybe he wants to kill for his country
Whatever he wants
He's gonna get it!

Tommy gun
You better strip it down for a custom run
Tommy gun
Waiting in the airport 'till kingdom come
An' we can watch you make it
On the nine o'clock news
Standing there in Palestine lighting the fuse
Whatever you want
You're gonna get it

Tommy gun
You'll be dead when your war is won
Tommy gun
But did you have to gun down everyone?
I can see it's kill or be killed
A nation of destiny has got to be fulfilled
Whatever you want
You're gonna get it!

Tommy gun
You can be a hero in an age of none
Tommy gun
I'm cutting out your picture from page one
I'm gonna get a jacket just like yours
An' give my false support to your cause
Whatever you want
You're gonna get it!
*drum roll*
Boats an' tanks and planes,
It's your game
Kings an' queens an' generals
Learn your name
I see all the innocents
The human sacrifice
And if death comes so cheap
Then the same goes for life!
Nope. You outed yourself as a bigot, which I appreciate. Better than if you were to hide your disgusting true colors, right?
Tony, a bigot? Nope. That hair trigger of yours needs some gunsmithing, Joe.

*Flash to Hendrix*

Hey, Joe
Where you goin' with that gun in your hand . . .

@ Tony:

Islamofascist is a sloppy term. Islamist is a better one. I'll nag you as I nagged Mycroft. If you think rights are being undermined, as your source article so suggests, then consider the fused role of apologists and Islamists, even though their aims are not necessarily bound together. They have a common enemy, even though they are not ideologically aligned. (Not all that new an idea, the US and USSR aligned for a while against a common enemy.)

@linus:

as we discussed in the other thread, scope and scale of the threat, and manner of response. The threats to our Constitutional forms and statutes can be addressed by non violent means.

Can the Islamist problem, or challene, be so addressed? So far, that is an open question, given the chosen means and ends.

DR

[linusrichard]

@linus:

as we discussed in the other thread, scope and scale of the threat, and manner of response.
I couldn't agree more. Scope of the threat. This thread (based on its title) is about threats to our rights. "Islamofascists" (:rolleyes:) don't pose a threat to our rights - at least not in America. Easy.
The threats to our Constitutional forms and statutes can be addressed by non violent means.
Yes! Let's be thankful for that!
Can the Islamist problem, or challenge, be so addressed? So far, that is an open question, given the chosen means and ends.

I think you're probably right. I think there are probably effective and ineffective violent responses, and effective and ineffective nonviolent responses. The best response will unfortunately probably involve some violence, but will hopefully be mostly non-violent.

[Morrigan]

Why do I have to deal with criminally stupid people?

Gratuitous insult reported. And at least now I know never to deal with someone who's clearly not interested in discussion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I'd hate to say it, but I guess the hope for the West rests with the right-wing.:dl:

[Cain]

Once again, you are ignoring that the specific religious prohibitions against negative depictions of Mohammed. This isn't simply about them feeling stigmatized, and it cannot and does not explain the violent reaction the cartoons caused in places (like Pakistan) where muslims are neither the minority nor stigmatized.

You're missing the argument. Again. For some reason you insist on compounding your errors, and here you lay on a doozy, citing a spectacularly bad example. The U.S. props up the military dictatorship in Pakistan, which is partially why this plea for "human rights" would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously demented.

What they are likely to get is a different argument than what they want, and you were not simply saying that they won't get what they want, your argument essentially said that they didn't want what they say they want.I've retraced the threading on this and it apparently goes back to my claim that Bin Laden welcomes hostile, easy to propagate imagery like the cartoons. You're totally failing to distinguish between short and long term interests.

Yeah, umm... neither the original article in question, nor Tony's posts, nor mine in this thread, advocated any of those things.This is B.S., and I hate the auto-censor because B.S., let alone the asterisks, can never capture what the full-word connotes. For as long as I can remember you have been an apologist for U.S. imperialism, and Tony's post explicitly endorses the right-wing approach.

Wrong again. The exact right people show their irritation rather visibly and vocally in regards to speech such as the cartoons. And if "moderates" can't learn to ignore a little irritation, they're not really moderates. Ever wonder why nobody got killed or had to go into hiding over Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)? It's not because nobody was offended. Removed insult.The moderates get irritated more or less the same as your typical crazy Christian does; the problem is that you generate sympathy for violent radicals who are willing to go further. What the mainstream media generally does not do -- at least here in the United States, I cannot speak to Europe -- is validate those views, which is exactly what the article is criticizing. Even the President gives the token speeches, "Islam is a religion of peace" and so on. Maybe you could council him otherwise: "No Mr. President, this line would work great in the State of the Union. Say it one more time, 'the ragheads are in retreat.' It's all about Sun-Tzu."

Keep the personal insults out of it, Cain.

[Chaos]

Hey Chaos, its been a long time, thanks for answering.

Do you think it was a mistake to import those foreign workers into your country those decades ago?

No. They needed additional workforce very badly back then; they had the choice between importing workers or suffering a serious economic downturn.

What should the leaders at the time have done to better integrate the Turkish worker coming into your country?

They could have made provisions for those workers who planned to stay... for example that they, and the family members they brought from back home, should be required to learn German in order to be allowed to stay - to remove the most obvious obstacle to integration.

A more liberal approach to granting German citizenship, especially for children born here, would probably have been a good idea as well.

Do you think Islam is compatible with modern German values? If so, what gives you reason to think so?

Islam, as such... that´s hard to say. Radical Islam, certainly not. But an Islam that has become as much of an institution (read: as boring and formalized) as Christianity has, around here, and that is as non-interventionist and tolerant as mainstream Catholic and Protestant Christianity is around here, that might very well be compatible with German values... and I think Islam in Germany might well have become like that, had there been an effort to integrate Turks into our society more than it historically happened.

[Ziggurat]

You're missing the argument. Again. For some reason you insist on compounding your errors, and here you lay on a doozy, citing a spectacularly bad example. The U.S. props up the military dictatorship in Pakistan, which is partially why this plea for "human rights" would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously demented.

So in other words, it's logical for Muslims in Pakistan to violently react to Danish cartoons about Mohammed... because the US support Pakistan's government (which recently had elections in which Musharaf's party lost). Winner of an argument there, Cain. Funny how it has no connection to your earlier argument for why those cartoons upset muslims.

I've retraced the threading on this and it apparently goes back to my claim that Bin Laden welcomes hostile, easy to propagate imagery like the cartoons. You're totally failing to distinguish between short and long term interests.

Not so. You, however, have totally failed to figure out what Bin Laden's interests actually are. You continue to deny that they want exactly what they say they want: to silence criticism of Islam.

This is B.S., and I hate the auto-censor because B.S., let alone the asterisks, can never capture what the full-word connotes. For as long as I can remember you have been an apologist for U.S. imperialism, and Tony's post explicitly endorses the right-wing approach.

I see. So this thread isn't really about the topic Tony posted about: it's about your past disagreements with me. Screw having to form a coherent argument on this topic, I'll just engage in ad hominem. How... special. But then, you've been like this for as long as I can remember too.

[Cain]

So in other words, it's logical for Muslims in Pakistan to violently react to Danish cartoons about Mohammed... because the US support Pakistan's government (which recently had elections in which Musharaf's party lost). Winner of an argument there, Cain. Funny how it has no connection to your earlier argument for why those cartoons upset muslims.

:rolleyes: You said Muslims in Pakistan are a majority and not stigmatized. The fact they're a majority aggravates the injustice. The historically imperial west has imposed itself on them for years. Fault lines and triggers.

Cain: You're totally failing to distinguish between short and long term interests.Z:
Not so. You, however, have totally failed to figure out what Bin Laden's interests actually are. You continue to deny that they want exactly what they say they want: to silence criticism of Islam.I do not see how to make headway here. You're just hopelessly naive. You don't think Bin Laden sees a benefit that he can capitalize on?
Do not ignore mod warnings. You were advise to stop making personal insults.

[Ziggurat]

:rolleyes: You said Muslims in Pakistan are a majority and not stigmatized.

Yes. You have not contradicted that statement.

The fact they're a majority aggravates the injustice.

Oh, but now you're talking about a different injustice than them being stigmatized. It's also hilarious that on the one hand you say that anger is justified because muslims are a minority, but then when they aren't a minority that only makes it worse. Win-win, I guess.

The historically imperial west has imposed itself on them for years.

And it's because of Danish imperial oppression of Pakistan that they got in a huff about those cartoons. What with forcing the citizens of Waziristan to wear wooden shoes, or something. How on earth do you expect anyone to take your argument seriously?

[ddt]

I read it all. With nearly every example from the Netherlands - and there are quite a few - I thought: that's not how I remembered it.

So I'll write the rest of this reply mainly from a Dutch standpoint.


Which right-wing? The morally conservative Christian-Democrat CDA, the ministers of which investigated possibilities to ban Wilders' movie? The right-liberal VVD, which didn't want to extend Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protection while she lived in the US? Or the populist Wilders, who for over a year shouts that the Quran should be banned but doesn't have the guts to argue that in front of a judge?


I'll be glad to take up the challenge.


There's much more to Pim Fortuyn than his view on Islam:

The focus on a single person as opposed to a party, more than before in Dutch political culture; he was the first in a string of populists to emerge in Dutch politics;
His socio-economic program which promised more breaking-down of the social security system than the social-democrat/liberal coalition before him had already done;
His call for abolishing article 1 of the constitution, the anti-discrimination article, arguing that emancipation had been completed.
His remarks against immigrants in general; specifically, his call for a general immigration stop, because we'd have enough foreigners to cope with.

With his remarks against immigrants he clearly catered to feelings of unrest under the populace, as all populists tend to do, but he also offset them with remarks as "I don't want to offload our Moroccan hooligans to king Hassan".

His view on Islam was best pronounced in a Volkskrant interview (http://web.archive.org/web/20020212063049/http%3a//www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws/denhaag/1013147690985.html):

(translation from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn)).

I don't know why the NYT has called him "marching the Dutch to the right"; but the Dutch Greens and Socialists did that mainly because of (2) above.

I couldn't find any editorial by Parool or Volkskrant comparing Fortuyn with Mussolini; Volkskrant columnist Jan Blokker may have done so, knowing his writing style. Nevertheless, I don't see what that has to do with his view on Islam.

The likening with Hitler in Trouw wasn't an editorial either but a sports column (source (http://www.trouw.nl/hetnieuws/sport/article614799.ece)). The writer saw Fortuyn in a TV program, angered about his immigrant-phobia, and imagined sitting there himself and what he'd say to him: "You ugly, bald fake-professor! with the intelligence of Hitler and the charm of Heinrich Himmler" and ends with "it was just an impulse".

As to Fortuyn's killer, Volkert van der Graaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkert_van_der_Graaf): he was concerned about all vulnerable groups in case Fortuyn gained power; not just muslims, but also asylum seekers, disabled on social security, etc.

Summarizing, the points raised by Bawer around Fortuyn here are at best a very one-dimensional picture.


Of course, "quite a number" is very vague. The wiki page on this lists major newspapers from all continental European countries - and Bawer is mostly worried about Europe, isn't he? See the end of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109973) about this discussion.


The precise quote both of Buruma and what Cohen has said would here be in order. Cohen may be a man of the soft approach, but I can't remember him condoning discrimination; the juxtaposition with rape and murder is outright smearing.


I don't know the context in which Garton Ash said this. However, recalling Ayaan's viewing of "Submission" with four women in a women's shelter, and in the subsequent discussion insisting that their woes were purely to blame with Islam - on which one of them walked out - I can see his point. Or recalling her visit to an Islamic school, and asking in her own broken Dutch whether the children learned the language adequately.


Though also the Dutch press misinterpreted the quote from Mr. Donner, I get the impression that Bawer deliberately botches it for his own purposes. What Mr. Donner actually said was:

"If there were a majority in Parliament in favor of introducing sharia law, that should be possible in a democracy."

Translation mine, from memory. Note the subjunctive, though. Note also he said Parliament. The remark that muslims would soon be a majority in big cities - if it were true, I don't have numbers on this - is pure fear mongering as it is besides the point. There hasn't been any call for introducing sharia from Dutch muslims AFAIK.


... and the city council censured the Mayor, who subsequently extended his apologies to the artist.

Thanks ddt, I'll be reading this while I work. I'll address it when I am finished.

May I kindly remind you of this one?

[RandFan]

However, recalling Ayaan's viewing of "Submission" with four women in a women's shelter, and in the subsequent discussion insisting that their woes were purely to blame with Islam - on which one of them walked out - I can see his point. Or recalling her visit to an Islamic school, and asking in her own broken Dutch whether the children learned the language adequately.A little bit of poisoning the well?

These are two anecdotes. I don't know if they are true but even if they are they are but two incidents compared to a life of other acts that have earned Ayaan respect from many on the left and right. FTR, Ash took the comment back (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2002,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-versus-Timothy-Garton-Ash,Axess-TV).

[RandFan]

BTW, for those of you who haven't seen the debate between Ash and Ali (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2002,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-versus-Timothy-Garton-Ash,Axess-TV) I highly recomend it.

[ddt]

A little bit of poisoning the well?

These are two anecdotes. I don't know if they are true but even if they are they are but two incidents compared to a life of other acts that have earned Ayaan respect from many on the left and right.
They're not just two anecdotes; they're two well-known cases where Ayaan discussed with muslims for the prime Dutch opinion TV show.

You can judge for yourself:
Ayaan discussing with women in a women's shelter (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=2946)
Ayaan visits an Islamic school (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=2158)
Just click on the camera icon next to "BEKIJK ITEM".

They clearly show the wide gap between Ayaan and the muslims she's debating with - and the preconceived notion on Ayaan's part in these cases that there must be something wrong and it's due to Islam.

[RandFan]

They're not just two anecdotes; they're two well-known cases where Ayaan discussed with muslims for the prime Dutch opinion TV show.That's not what I meant by anecdote. I'm talking in the statistical sense of the word. Two incidents, assuming there is something wrong with them, are hardly enough to negate her reputation and credibility.


You can judge for yourself:
Ayaan discussing with women in a women's shelter (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=2946)
Ayaan visits an Islamic school (http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=2158)
Just click on the camera icon next to "BEKIJK ITEM".
How can I judge the context of these given that I don't speak the language?

They clearly show the wide gap between Ayaan and the muslims she's debating with - and the preconceived notion on Ayaan's part in these cases that there must be something wrong and it's due to Islam. ?

Odd that you know so much better than her.

I have no idea whether what you say is true. However I've read her book and watched her in many interviews and debates and she is quite remarkable and well respected around the world.

Perhaps there is something wrong. Perhaps it is due to Islam.