Wilders' controversial "Fitna" now on web

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

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".

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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?

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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".

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?

[preciousjeni]

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

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

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

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

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

Yes, it is.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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?

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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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.

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.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Whats hard about separating the two? A man is a living, breathing person and the film is a compilation of movie clips and text.

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.

call it whatever you want, it was all real footage and those were actual quotes from the Quran.

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...

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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...

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?

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by jwright25

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?

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...

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

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.

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."

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

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."

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.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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.

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...