Wilders' controversial "Fitna" now on web
 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Warning: Some extremely graphic images of terrorism.

I watched it, it is pretty disturbing. What I find even more disturbing is the response of entities like the UN and people around Europe who are criticizing Wilders for being inflammatory.

It is inflammatory. It is also real. There is outrage over this film, but where was the action when the images portrayed in the film happened? If Europe doesn't realize what kind of danger they're in, I suspect they'll find out soon enough.

Here is just one comment about it:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0308/west032808.php3

Note: I had to walk away from screen the first time I looked at it. Just brought up a few too many memories.

Wouldn't it be cool if instead of outrage about how the film equates Islam with terror, moderate and nonviolent Muslims used the film as an opportunity to condemn acts of violence done in the name of Islam?

You know, CAIR could go point by point through the film and condemn the commentary by extremist Muslims in the film and the acts of violence and explain how both the film maker AND the terrorists get Islam wrong.

Why don't I think that's going to be the reaction?

If there was any semblance of a widespread rejection (active, not just verbally) of extremism, I might agree that this type of tactic should be questioned.

However, when the Sec. Gen of the UN is lashing out against the film as beyond the realm of free speech, while also asking politely for CALM REACTIONS, that is beyond frightening. Free speech is necessary for the EXACT purpose of things like this. Yet the UN is condemning the film while asking for calm. The fact that they anticipate a violent reaction should be a testament to the film itself.

If Europe continues to sit idly by, they'll be made to cower later.

While looking around for more information about film I found this site.
And just by title, would seem to have some interest.
The hosting company thought otherwise!!!
http://www.fitnathemovie.com/
This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy. Network Solutions has received a number of complaints regarding this site that are under investigation. For more information about Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy visit the following URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/legal/aup.jsp

Web host suspends site planned for anti-Koran film
AMSTERDAM, March 23 (Reuters) - A U.S.-based web service, which Islam critic and Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders planned to use to show his film critical of the Koran, said on Saturday that it had inactivated the site due to complaints.

"This site has been suspended while Network Solutions is investigating whether the site's content is in violation of the Network Solutions Acceptable Use Policy," the company said on the site
http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSL23679590

I did my search using just "Fitna" and came across over 20 news stories filed in the past 5 hours about it already.
Very few, if any, of any support.

This is all interesting... The rants made on the film, I can see the fear that many people may have. All I got to say is I am not afraid of those MF's--they best be afraid of me... ;)

And since I do not want to be banned for what unintentionally say or think, I will leave it at that...

I don't know what's less "shocking" here really.... that Wilders continued is his typical bigoted and racist vein, or that Shinerblock approves or supports his views.

Wilders is your typical bigoted/racist asshole, happily pontificating about his right to "Freedom or Speech or Expression" in one breadth, while advocating the banning and censoring of things like the Qu'ran with the next.

Personally I'm hoping the one of the legal investigations by the EU (for advocating human rights violations), the Netherlands (for treason), or civil courts (for a whole slew of racist and bigoted violations) goes through and tosses this tool in prison.

IIRC the History Channel or Discovery did a program (maybe this one
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70652 )
about Islam.
It showed that today, many parts have been "co-opted by extremists".
But it also showed that this is not the very first time that has happened.
It is a religion that it seems that the masses rely a great deal upon the interpretive teaching/preaching of their religious leaders.
And those teaching can and do change.
It is all to easy to take phases out of context and link them together.
The program showed how that was/is done over the course of history.
How it has been swung both ways.
I just wish I was more sure about the program for it was very well done.

It's interesting, here in Indonesia, virtually now media coverage. Only people that actually care about it are the religious right.

Biggest news in Indonesia: gossip about one of the actor and one of the Attorney Generals being arrested for corruption.

LiveLeak has removed the film citing threats to its staff "of a very serous Nature".
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Does anyone else find it interesting or odd that films showing the actions of extremist,( AKA murders, criminals et al) are shown with pride and anything against them get threaded or belited?

So you support people being throw in jail for their speech?

I do find it ironic that a man who belong to an anti-immigration party is himself a byproduct of immigration.

I don't know that much about the filmmaker, but I'd venture to say that some byproducts of immigration are more interested in assimilating into the culture they immigrated to, and that may make a difference.

I have met him. Ironically he come to Indonesia a lot since his family is from here. Another Irony is that his family in Indonesia are Muslims. Totally ego driven man who only think about advancing his career. Nothing wrong with that, if he's in business he'll be a bloody millionaire by now.

I think he's a brilliant showman. Only people that seems to care about the movie in a real sense are the extreme rights, the extreme rights of Europe (neo-Nazi, anti-Immigration, etc) and the extreme rights of Islam (the Wahabi and their ilks).

Yes. IF said "free speech" is used to violate the rights and freedom of others - just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have freedom to commit a criminal offence or 'hate crime'. Wilders can easily be demonstrated to have a long history of 'hate crimes' as it specifically relates to immigrants, Muslims, non-Dutch speakers, non-Protestants, etc. - therefore in light of said pattern of conduct and history of attacks and violations of the criminal code of the Netherlands and the EU as it relates to discriminatory and hateful speech and acts I would happily applaud Wilders being tossed in the can (or at least fined)... unfortunately it'd only play into his hands as a "martyr" and "sufferer" for the "truth".

Wait.

Maybe I'm being naive. Your speech, i.e. words, are now considered hate crimes and criminal offenses?

Inflammatory? Yes
True? Yes

How did this movie violate the rights of others? Is that the right to not have mean things said about you? I don't think I've ever seen the right to not have your feelings hurt mentioned in Magna Carta or the Constitution.

Instead of attacking the man, attack the movie. Attack the facts in the movie... were those not quotes from the Quran? Were those Muslim clerics misinterpreted? Were there not thousands of people cheering for the hateful speech being spewed by said clerics?

My computer is acting up. Anyway, is this the film:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02968312745410

While this line of thinking might be how you all roll in Canada, I think I'd prefer to err on the generous freedom of speech side of things like we have in the US.

When speech becomes an act, then we're talking about something different, of course, but even then, I'm not 100% sure hate crime legislation makes sense to me. Does the racial or ethnic motivation really make a brutal murder worse that a brutal murder with no racial motivation? Sometimes it seems worse; other times all brutal murders seem equally as bad.

And Wilders being a jerk doesn't really change what's presented in this film really. Aren't you kind of shifting to ad hominem here? Wilders is a hateful jerk so the claims of the film have no merit kind of thing?

How do you respond to the links made by the film? Do you think the speech and actions he connects are actually just somehow coincidental?

ETA: I don't actually see myself watching the film any time soon. But the descriptions that I read of it seem well within what any society ought to allow, especially if you are linking the words of extremist with their own actions.

RA, if I ever cease to shock you, I'm going to need to rethink my positions.

Sorry, but I'm not one who is interested either in ignoring the threat of Islamic extremism or cowering to it. Further, I don't think free speech ends when someone gets offended.

To me, far more unsettling than the film itself are those who claim that this extends free speech too far. Absolutely petrifying.

Yes, it is.

True... up here the propagation of "hateful" literature or media in furtherance of an agenda of hate is considered a criminal act - this extends to "truthful" media or literature vetted to advance said agenda... it's why the likes of Fred Phelps or Jack Chick are banned up here basically.

One's legal rights to freedom of speech can't be used to violate another's right to live free from ethnic or religious persecution.

I'd say that it is worse - simply because the attacker chose the victim more or less at random from a group, not for interpersonal or criminally profitable reasons... which is more troublesome and frightening as it applies to the victim and victimized group.

Wilder's motivation plays heavily into the treatment and consideration of the film - he is a politician with strident anti-Islamic views... so if he funds, writes, directs, and produces a film on the subject of Islam, the views and motivations of the writer/producer/director should of course be considered when viewing the 'product' shouldn't it?

Not at all - Wilders carefully selected the quotes and actions for the greatest impact, and to portray both Islam in as negative a light as possible. As for how I respond to them? The same way I'd respond to any other carefully constructed hate propaganda - the best propaganda carefully manages the 'truth' to present it in a way that is as supportive as possible to the ideological 'message'.

It's impossible to separate the man and the movie, so the point is moot about 'attacking' one but not the other - like I stated in the post above it IS Wilders' film: he provided the funding, he wrote it, he directed it, he produced it, and he distributed it.

The film is nothing more and nothing less that 'hate' propaganda, no different from the shit produced by Hamas, Hezzbollah, the Aryan Nation, the Nazis, etc.

I didn't see anything in the film implying that entire ethnic groups are subhuman, which is often the case with groups like Hamas or Nazis. Instead, I saw a compilation of actual footage involving Islamic terrorists committing horrific acts of violence and others justifying those actions.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't recognize the threat Islamic extremism poses. I fear what the end result of that will be.

Agree with Shinerbock on this.

Whats hard about separating the two? A man is a living, breathing person and the film is a compilation of movie clips and text.
call it whatever you want, it was all real footage and those were actual quotes from the Quran.

Because the film is a reflection of the views and ideology of the man, literally a picture of how he sees Islam... and how he wants others to see Islam. I don't see why I should abandon reason, in addition to forgetting context, when evaluating this piece of propaganda.

Yes they were - like I said the best propaganda is the skillful manipulation of the truth to place it all in the context you want... which is exactly what Wilders does here, and I'm at a loss to try and understand why some here are so willing to buy into the carefully managed and constructed "truth" he pieces together. But then again some people are more apt to believe what they want to believe if the past decade of media and politics is any indication...

The quotes are taken way out of context, ala Emerson and Daniel Pipe style.

He gets big publicity no matter what happen.

If nothing happen, he can claim that he is happy about maturity of the debate.

If riots and stuff happen, he can say, "see, we can't trust those Muslims."

I have not seen the Wilders film yet, so I cannot comment on that. But I wonder if you feel it is appropriate to apply the same logic to the films of Michael Moore?

Are they really taken out of context??!?!
Is so, he is just repeating what the masses are being told by the current "leaders" in their studies and religious centers.:(

Yes I think it's only appropriate to apply the same logic to any "documentary" - though again to me there is a difference between a film-maker playing at politics, and a politician creating films to promote his ideology...

Of course they are taking the quotes out of context, and frankly it disturbs me that you even have to ask that...

After all couldn't an equally disturbing film be made about any faith really if scriptural quotes are "cherry picked" and matched to loosely analogous imagery? China likes to do just that when it comes to Christianity or Buddhism, and we'd all be outraged (or I hope we would be) at the portrayal of Christianity as a violent death cult obsessed with the end of the world, or Buddhism as a dangerous and murderous faith bent on destroying society.

But since it's Islam it seems that many of those already biased or "Islamaphobic" happily lap up the spoon-fed bullshit with out ever question either the motivation behind it, or the context of the content... :(

You may have missed a prior posting or two of mine.;)
If there is a problem with the way this film "cherry picked" scriptural quotes, is it not a problem as well if those same quotes and more/worse ones are cherry picked by those who are the leaders/teachers/consulars et al???
And that those same leaders, who no doudt had at least something to do with the threats against film, see nothing wrong with what they do all in the name of Islam and M-d?

Well, some things never change I guess....

Ah yes because Europe is known for cowering and being non-interventionist :rolleyes:

With those people and their use of scripture to further their own political and ideological ends yes... not with the scripture.

Hell I can think of another leader that talked about scripture, speaking to God, a crusade etc. before going to war...

No more so than any extremist - they operate by their own twisted logic to make the ideology fit their perception of reality... it's pretty much the hallmark of ideological extremism isn't it? Yet this seems to be something that Wilders conveniently neglects in his quest to ban Muslim immigrants and ban the Qu'ran - he is allowing his hate and bigotry to cloud his mind just as much as the extremists he depicts as the norm...

As I posted well up by now, I agree with you that the scripture is not wrong; just how it is being used, edited and preached.
Now I really wish that show was being repeated.

I guess what I'd like to see is reasoned response by moderate Muslims about how the scriptural quotes are also being "cherry-picked" by extremists and not just filmmakers when religious extremists encourage people to commit acts of violence or terror in the name of Islam.

But instead we get extremist interaction: some in the form of propaganda, some in the opposition to propaganda.

RACooper, the reference to Jack Chick might be a great analogy. I don't think I've ever seen a case in which the response to a Jack Chick cartoon, as offensive as they are to people who don't share his beliefs, was a suggestion to silence Jack Chick, particularly through the use of violence. As a Roman Catholic who finds his materials pretty, er, interesting, I react instead by wanting to explain how what Jack Chick said differed from actual RC teaching. As far as I know, this is the typical reaction.

Similarly, while propaganda presenting Christianity as a death cult might offend a lot of people, there'd be no global fear of widespread violence as a result of such a film and no UN officials would feel the need to make a statement about the film, I don't think. There is something fundamentally different about Islam in this regard.

So it seems to me the problem lies almost solely in the reaction to film and not the film itself.