Dutch MP Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film sparks protests

[Gardener]

BTW, anti-semitism is not a word. Antisemitism, on the other hand, is.

I knew that you would eventually write something with which I could agree.

 

[mbig]

Can you prove it is a "best seller" in the Arab world? I note it sells 15,000 copies a year in the US. Where are you getting your sales figures from for the Arab world?

Do you know Google?
Did it Occur to you to just type the Essence of your query into it before posting?

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4EGLC_enUS336US336&ei=3t6kS6ygDcWblgeM1ZSbAg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAUQBSgA&q=mein+kampf+best+seller+arab+world&spell=1]mein kampf best seller arab world - Google Search[/ame]

which Also Yields.... So Sorry, Here's the BONUS for not doing it yourself. (or doing so and withholding it which would be par for the course)

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006690.html

Mein Kampf a Bestseller in Turkey
By Joe Katzman on April 20, 2005

Well, it's Wildly Popular elsewhere in the Mideast and the Islamic world... so why not in Turkey too? ....

"Booksellers in Turkey are reporting Soaring sales figures for "Mein Kampf," or "Kavgam" in Turkish. Hitler's political manifesto has been a top 10 bestseller in the past two months...and at least Two new Turkish language versions of "Mein Kampf" are now out in Paperback.

Asked to comment on the phenomenon, government spokesman Cemil Cicek said: "There is no racism in this country." Homocon has more about Turkey's new bestseller. http://www.homocon.com/archives/2005/03/booksellers_in.html​

A while ago, Winds of Change noted the popularity of Hitler's Mein Kampf in the Arab world.
National Review did a whole article on the subject, and "Their Kampf - Hitler's book in Arab hands" is excellent. (MBIG Note, I posted this Article in My last)
This isn't a fringe phenomenon, either... as MEMRI's translations often remind us it's a mainstream thing in government newspapers. Ahmad Ragab, a columnist for the Egyptian government paper Al-Akhbar, is only one example among many opinion-makers to "give thanks to Hitler, of blessed memory," and whose only expressed regret is that Hitler had not murdered every last Jew. There are many other examples.
[............]
UPDATE: A small glimmer of light. After getting a lot of press attention in Europe, Turkey banned the second printing of the Turkish translation

 

[Andalublue]

Do you know Google?
Did it Occur to you to just type the Essence of your query into it before posting?

mein kampf best seller arab world - Google Search

which Also Yields.... So Sorry, Here's the BONUS for not doing it yourself. (or doing so and withholding it which would be par for the course)

Mein Kampf a Bestseller in Turkey - Winds of Change.NET

I see. Two bloggers say it is a best seller in Turkey, so that proves it IS a best seller in the Arab world.

This is such pathetic bilge that one doesn't know where to begin.

1. A blog is a work of opinion by an individual, perhaps someone like you, sitting sadly in front of his computer making stuff up.
2. Arab world means places where Arabs live. Perhaps you don't know the difference between Turk and Arab, and that's half the problem here. Ignorance.
3. Proof of a best seller comes from audited sales figures. Please go and find some before posting on this subject again.
4. There was a blip in Turkey in 2005, following a misleading and mischievous TV programme, when it sold a lot of copies in a short period. What does that mean?

 

[Picaro]

I love how kids use words incorrectly. In what way is a point by point rebuttal a hyperbole? Seeing as how the points raised are specific and literal, raging that they are hyperbole is utter crap.

So, you can't substantiate their rants on your own. I thought so.

BTW, anti-semitism is not a word. Antisemitism, on the other hand, is.

BTW, it's a common usage, but it's telling that you now have to resort to shifting the topic, and still won't provide any real evidence of Wilders' 'racism' and 'fascism', which you cited and are pretending to address. Here's some information for you:

The database in your Spellcheck doesn't have the entire English language in it; you have to actually be literate to know it's weaknesses, since it's not comprehensive.

Antisemitism (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism]Antisemitism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

If I chose to refute Geert Wilders' film, then that would mean Geert Wilders' film is actually worthy of intellectual scrutiny. His film is mere propaganda, and propaganda deserves no rebuttal. Out of context verses contrasted against horrific scenes is not worth my time.

In other words, you can't. Thanks for playing.

And as you are incapable of reading comprehensively, I already stated I had read the Qur'an multiple times.

Obviously not.

It's quite funny you say that, as Wilders' has yet to respond to the rebuttal of his film by the AEL.

I haven't seen his rebuttal of Art Bell's theories on Reptiliean Shapeshifters, either. Good Point!!!! ....

I moved them? Short term memory loss?

The question posed by Djoop:


To which you responded:


That is called moving the goalposts or raising the bar. So besides engaging in a fallacy and personal attacks, do you have anything substantial to add?

Lame attempts at sophistry, at which you have no skills. As for 'personal attacks', shall we quote some fo your posts in the last week? ...

Which raises the question of how many mods here are ever thread banned for trolling, baiting, and flaming ...

Get back to us with all those 'rebuttals'; it's fun reading 'news' sites that obviously never heard of proofreading their articles; the site in general looks like it's run by high school kids with big allowances.

 

[Picaro]

Do you know Google?
Did it Occur to you to just type the Essence of your query into it before posting?

Of course not; informing oneself on issues before posting is beyond the pale. Even at if they did, it's not immediately obvious they know enough to recognize what it is they're reading, anyway.

 

[Picaro]

I knew that you would eventually write something with which I could agree.

I use both, depending on the context; there is a difference between the two, a slight one, true.

 

[Picaro]

Name me one point the link rebutted.

:2wave:

He can't; he's just playing 'I Touched You Last!!!'. He trolled me in another thread, and got nowhere, so he's probably just hoping to annoy somebody enough to run and whine in the Mod Lounge about. That seems to be the usual tactic with some here.

 

[Degreez]

Name me one point the link rebutted.

:2wave:

The first verse shown in Wilders' film:

You Shall Be Prepared: A Divine Commandment

8:60:You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster

The rebuttal:

It is amazing that a fragment has been taken from 8:60. The verse after 8:60 which is 8:61 is not listed. Obviously Mr. Wilder did this for effect. However he loses credibility when some may try to read the next sentence also which negates his original assertion.

[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

Also the ref to context in 8:60 is the story of Moses from the Bible and the Torah. The story is simply repeated in the Quran.

Do you honestly believe out of context scripture deserves intellectual scrutiny?

 

[Degreez]

So, you can't substantiate their rants on your own. I thought so.

I don't have to substantiate anything. Wilders' has already been clearly refuted (multiple times). Although, it is hilarious to see what you will spew when you get caught using wrong diction. Hyperbole :rofl

BTW, it's a common usage, but it's telling that you now have to resort to shifting the topic, and still won't provide any real evidence of Wilders' 'racism' and 'fascism', which you cited and are pretending to address. Here's some information for you:

The database in your Spellcheck doesn't have the entire English language in it; you have to actually be literate to know it's weaknesses, since it's not comprehensive.

Just because it's common use, doesn't make it correct. Using the hyphenated spelling suggests, according to Emil Fackenheim, the notion that there is an entity 'Semitism' which 'anti-Semitism' opposes." Semitism is not a word, which renders the usage wrong.

And having the "complete" spell check is irrelevant. Antisemitism is how it is spelled in dictionaries and on spell check.

In other words, you can't. Thanks for playing.

Nah, not in other words, as I prefer my wording much better. Why would I rather use the words of a person whose comprehension of the English language is laughable. This coming from someone who learned English as their third language.

Obviously not.

Care to prove that I have not read the Qur'an? Otherwise I will just take this for the rambling bull**** it exemplifies.

I haven't seen his rebuttal of Art Bell's theories on Reptiliean Shapeshifters, either. Good Point!!!! ....

Reptiliean? I think you mean Reptilian. :roll:

Lame attempts at sophistry, at which you have no skills. As for 'personal attacks', shall we quote some fo your posts in the last week? ...

Which raises the question of how many mods here are ever thread banned for trolling, baiting, and flaming ...

Get back to us with all those 'rebuttals'; it's fun reading 'news' sites that obviously never heard of proofreading their articles; the site in general looks like it's run by high school kids with big allowances.

Quote away.

 

[Red_Dave]

U.K. police estimated the crowd size of the hizb ut tahrir sponsored rallies at 500-700, and membership in that particular group is, of course, much higher.

This is in London I assume? A city with a population of over 7,172,036 8% of whom are Muslim. Less then 2 hours drive away is Birmingham, a city of over 1,000,000 people 14.3% of whom are Muslim. 800 people at a protest is hardly impressive. Not that I wouldnt like to leave both Hiz bu Tahrir and the EDL together on a desert island

 

[mbig]

I don't have to substantiate anything. Wilders' has already been clearly refuted (multiple times). Although, it is hilarious to see what you will spew when you get caught using wrong diction. Hyperbole :rofl

.

Leon de Winter: Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders - WSJ.com
A Dutch court is forced to compare Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' and the Quran.
JANUARY 26, 2010

"....More importantly, Mr. Wilders's prosecution may in the end inadvertently create a crisis between the Netherlands and the Islamic world. On trial is not so much Geert Wilders, but the Holy Book of Islam. On Jan. 20, the first day of the case, Mr. Wilders's defense team presented the court with a list of expert witnesses. It is indicative of his strategy. The expert witnesses, a group of internationally renowned academics on the one hand and, on the other, radical Islamists (among them Mohammed Bouyeri, the killer of Theo van Gogh, and the influential Iranian Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, an outspoken anti-Semite and religious mentor of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad), are requested to testify about the Quran's message and Mr. Wilders's comparison of the Quran to "Mein Kampf." As Mr. Wilders stated on the first and, so far only, session in court, if his statements about the Quran and "Mein Kampf" are correct, he cannot be convicted for telling the truth. So Mr. Wilders's defense team will concentrate on the extreme and violent paragraphs in the Quran, and compare them to paragraphs in "Mein Kampf."

The prosecution did not object to calling the witnesses for the purpose of shedding light on the Quran and "Mein Kampf" and only objected to the high number of witnesses named (17). The court will thus most likely allow most witnesses on the list to testify. Without doubt, there are many anti-Jewish remarks in the Quran.
According to some researchers, there may be More of these in the Quran than in "Mein Kampf." So it is quite conceivable that the court will judge that Geert Wilders was within his Right to compare the Quran to "Mein Kampf." Anything is possible in this absurd trial...."

 

[Grant]

Do you honestly believe out of context scripture deserves intellectual scrutiny?

But you're using out of conext material yourself!

Check out 8:65] and [8:66]. Doesn't that square with terrorism today?

Sura 8, Spoils of War (Al-Anfãl) Quran The Final Testament, translated by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.

 

[Grant]

This is in London I assume? A city with a population of over 7,172,036 8% of whom are Muslim. Less then 2 hours drive away is Birmingham, a city of over 1,000,000 people 14.3% of whom are Muslim. 800 people at a protest is hardly impressive. Not that I wouldnt like to leave both Hiz bu Tahrir and the EDL together on a desert island

How many Muslims do you think there would have to be before they assume control?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

How many Muslims do you think there would have to be before they assume control?

Indeed. Most Muslims aren't terrorists or extremists (as we understand the term), yet they scarcely make waves over those who are.

Come the day when a 'putsch' can be instigated, the Muslim 'sheeple' will very quickly snap into line with a new Sharia order. Most wouldn't weep at the loss of democracy and freedom for a minute I fancy.

 

[Picaro]

But you're using out of conext material yourself!

Check out 8:65] and [8:66]. Doesn't that square with terrorism today?

Sura 8, Spoils of War (Al-Anfãl) Quran The Final Testament, translated by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.

There are other factors to consider when reading the Koran; I'll list some of them later when I have time. One is that later verses supersede and replace all previous verses, which of course makes it easy to fool people who aren't aware of that.

And yes, he will pretty much have to use material out of context, since he doesn't know anything and has never really read it, much less read it correctly.

 

[Picaro]

Indeed. Most Muslims aren't terrorists or extremists (as we understand the term), yet they scarcely make waves over those who are.

Come the day when a 'putsch' can be instigated, the Muslim 'sheeple' will very quickly snap into line with a new Sharia order. Most wouldn't weep at the loss of democracy and freedom for a minute I fancy.

See Lebanon's fate for a great modern example of what happens when Islamists take over a country.

 

[Picaro]

Leon de Winter: Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders - WSJ.com
A Dutch court is forced to compare Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' and the Quran.
JANUARY 26, 2010

This is going to be one hilarious trial, if they actually go through with it. I don't think they intended to have to go all the way with it; they likely thought he would censor himself under the pressure and they could move on to intimidating their next victims, but he called their bluff and now they're panicking and getting even more shrill and absurd in their claims. Even their plans of holding a kangaroo court will do them no good, given all the international scrutiny they will be under now.

I'll also note the compelling lack of evidence he's a 'racist' or a fascist by anybody on this board, once again. It's safe to say they're done and have nothing left but inane rhetorical fantasies.

 

[Andalublue]

I post this article for those who believe the anti-Moslem groups are merely federations of concerned citizens worried about the rise of Islamic extremism in Europe. Here is the reality of where Geert Wilders style of politics is leading us.

This is England: On the trail of the English Defence League | Mail Online

Please note the source. For those unfamiliar with it, the Daily Mail is the cheer-leader of the anti-Islamic lobby in the UK.

I am not saying for a second that Wilders would support the violence and aggression of these people, but there are number of clear problems with his approach:

1. He raises false fears of the Moslem communities seeking to dominate Western societies and impose the kinds of regimes which many of the Moslem immigrants to Europe have fled. Those small, extremist groups which do espouse the imposition of Shar'ia in all nations where the Ummah (the community believers live) are rejected by the vast majority of Muslims and their organisations. Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Sharia4UK, for example, are constantly attacked and rejected by the main representatives of the Islamic community.
2. He wrongly identifies literalist interpretations of scripture as uniquely a problem of Islam. "There is no room for much interpretation when it comes to the Qu'ran... It's a difference with the Old or the New Testament." He said earlier this month. This is either wishful thinking or deliberate selective blindness.
   
   Biblical literalism within conservative Christianity is the norm and there is a strong movement to impose the 'grammatical-historical' aspect of the Bible on Christians. In 1999 People for the American Way found that 29% of Americans believed that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory with the same weight as evolution. 13% believed that ONLY creationism should be taught in science classes.

This man is not a racist, he's not anti-semitic (quite the opposite, he is a strong supporter of Israel), he's not a homophobe and he's not a neo-Nazi. He is an Islamophobe however. He makes the big mistake of presenting mainstream, moderate Islam as a part of a fundamentalist, extremist and potentially violent ideology known as Islamism. He says on the one hand that "the terrorists are a minority of Muslims" but that Islam per se is an ideology, not a religion and a totalitarian ideology that should be compared to Nazism and Communism, rather than to Christianity or Buddhism. Again, it is only that small minority of Muslims that believe Islam to be an ideology. They, the minority, are the problem.

The key to understanding him , I believe, is when he says:
"I believe that the vast majority of Muslims in the West are as law-abiding as you or me, but I still want to stop immigration from Muslim countries because they bring with them a culture that is not ours." There are two glaring problems with this.

Firstly, any immigration brings people of a different culture to a country. Some cultures are more distinctive than others, but to stop any 'dilution' of a culture you must stop ALL immigration. In the Netherlands much immigration has taken place by people from Indonesia, a country from which Wilders grandfather migrated to Holland in the 1930s. It is a Moslem country. This goes some way to explaining his political position.
nrc.nl - International - Geert Wilders' Indonesian roots define his politics, says anthropologist
The second problem is that to discriminate specifically against one culture or religion is, in itself, a denial of the very Western values that he claims to want to protect from the 'totalitarian' influence of Islam. This same contradiction applies to his support for detention without trial of terrorist suspects. That is a circle that neither he nor many Western governments have been able to square. You cannot counter a totalitarian creed by adopting one yourself. You can't fight for liberty by adopting repression and while sometimes, in time of war, certain liberties may need to be restricted, by declaring a state of war without end, you turn your society into one more akin to the society with which you are at war.

Neither Wilders nor many of the Western "Hawks" have ever been able to explain this contradiction.

The quotes I have attributed to him came from this interview:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GanFV4b1wvk"]YouTube- Ban the Koran? Geert Wilders speaks out on his radical views[/ame]

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

....fears of the Moslem communities seeking to dominate Western societies and impose the kinds of regimes which many of the Moslem immigrants to Europe have fled. Those small, extremist groups which do espouse the imposition of Shar'ia in all nations where the Ummah (the community believers live) are rejected by the vast majority of Muslims and their organisations. Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Sharia4UK, for example, are constantly attacked and rejected by the main representatives of the Islamic community.


Indeed. There would be no fears, justified or otherwise, had government after government, council after council not seen fit to needlessly grovel to Muslim communities to grub for votes.

Both Mayors Livingstone and Johnson lecturing us on how great the Muslims are and how rubbish we are by contrast, special exemptions from animal rights law, enshrining Sharia principles as equal to those of British Common Law, etc. Union Jacks are banned in case they're offended and people have been in trouble over the display of Piglet from Winnie The Pooh. Plus the Muslim Council of Britain has been allowed to advise the Cabinet again after even Tony Blair found them a bit too hot to handle. Baroness Warsi says there is no need for all these special concessions which can lead to ordinary Muslims being embarrassed and the rest of us annoyed.

(But having said that, the Muslim community is not as snowy white as the socialists often project. Evidence has, of course, flooded these boards. And I suppose it is indeed up to the main representatives of the Islamic community to condemn the extremists, as other Muslims won't do it unless they're badgered into it.)

 

[Grant]

There are other factors to consider when reading the Koran; I'll list some of them later when I have time. One is that later verses supersede and replace all previous verses, which of course makes it easy to fool people who aren't aware of that.

And yes, he will pretty much have to use material out of context, since he doesn't know anything and has never really read it, much less read it correctly.

I've read the link involved and feel the context is quite clear. This "taken out of context" excuse is just an excuse. This is especially clear when the context is not being explained.

What evidence do you have that he never read it?

 

[Degreez]

But you're using out of conext material yourself!

Check out 8:65] and [8:66]. Doesn't that square with terrorism today?

Sura 8, Spoils of War (Al-Anfãl) Quran The Final Testament, translated by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.

Care to provide evidence of me using out context scripture? Otherwise I will take this babbling for what it usually is: nonsense.

 

[Degreez]

There are other factors to consider when reading the Koran; I'll list some of them later when I have time. One is that later verses supersede and replace all previous verses, which of course makes it easy to fool people who aren't aware of that.

And yes, he will pretty much have to use material out of context, since he doesn't know anything and has never really read it, much less read it correctly.

Hey genius, it was you who was supporting out of context scripture as if it does anything to prove a point. Maybe if you stopped the marijuana use, your short term memory wouldn't resemble someone with Alzheimer's.

 

[Degreez]

I've read the link involved and feel the context is quite clear. This "taken out of context" excuse is just an excuse. This is especially clear when the context is not being explained.

What evidence do you have that he never read it?

He has no evidence that I have not read the Qur'an. Take a look at some of my posts in the R&P section. I have destroyed idiots before who use out context scripture to make moronic claims.

It's almost as if you two are completely ignorant to context. Maybe I should school you kids with a lesson on context clues:

This is a normal sentence. The purpose of this sentence is to tell you the next sentence is false. Picaro and Grant are geniuses.

If I only quote sentence 3:

Picaro and Grant are geniuses.

There's no logical way to conclude this is true without the context it was put in. Therefore, we add sentence 2:

The purpose of this sentence is to tell you the next sentence is false. Picaro and Grant are geniuses.

See how easy it is to change the meaning of things when they are put in context? Or are you that oblivious to understanding something this simple?

 

[Djoop]

The first verse shown in Wilders' film:

The rebuttal:

Do you honestly believe out of context scripture deserves intellectual scrutiny?

Yes, I think it’s important you mentioned this context. I wouldn’t call it a rebuttal, Wilders did not lie about the Sura, but 8:61 does change ones perpective on 8:60.

This man is not a racist, he's not anti-semitic (quite the opposite, he is a strong supporter of Israel), he's not a homophobe and he's not a neo-Nazi. He is an Islamophobe however. He makes the big mistake of presenting mainstream, moderate Islam as a part of a fundamentalist, extremist and potentially violent ideology known as Islamism. He says on the one hand that "the terrorists are a minority of Muslims" but that Islam per se is an ideology, not a religion and a totalitarian ideology that should be compared to Nazism and Communism, rather than to Christianity or Buddhism. Again, it is only that small minority of Muslims that believe Islam to be an ideology. They, the minority, are the problem.

The key to understanding him , I believe, is when he says:
"I believe that the vast majority of Muslims in the West are as law-abiding as you or me, but I still want to stop immigration from Muslim countries because they bring with them a culture that is not ours." There are two glaring problems with this.

Firstly, any immigration brings people of a different culture to a country. Some cultures are more distinctive than others, but to stop any 'dilution' of a culture you must stop ALL immigration. In the Netherlands much immigration has taken place by people from Indonesia, a country from which Wilders grandfather migrated to Holland in the 1930s. It is a Moslem country. This goes some way to explaining his political position.

The second problem is that to discriminate specifically against one culture or religion is, in itself, a denial of the very Western values that he claims to want to protect from the 'totalitarian' influence of Islam. This same contradiction applies to his support for detention without trial of terrorist suspects. That is a circle that neither he nor many Western governments have been able to square. You cannot counter a totalitarian creed by adopting one yourself. You can't fight for liberty by adopting repression and while sometimes, in time of war, certain liberties may need to be restricted, by declaring a state of war without end, you turn your society into one more akin to the society with which you are at war.

Neither Wilders nor many of the Western "Hawks" have ever been able to explain this contradiction.

Wilders simply isn’t the messiah the right wing is waiting for, only few really support his authoritarian ideas. I wouldn’t want to stop migration completely, just bring it back to proportions. When it comes Wilders’s discriminative solutions, I can only agree with your assessment of problem no2. At least I’m glad that, with your post, we have returned to sensible criticism.

 

[Grant]

Care to provide evidence of me using out context scripture? Otherwise I will take this babbling for what it usually is: nonsense.

I sent you the entire text. You quoted just one line from it, just as you accuse Wilders of doing.