Fitna: Controversial Film On Islam

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism - he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles - I just believe in me". A good point there. Of course, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus - I'd still have to bum rides off of people.

[texaspackerbacker]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Milosovic. These are not Muslims. The chinese brutalizing Tibet are not Muslims. These are relatively recent events.

What in the name of Jehosaphat are you talking about?

For the sake of discussion, lets accept your ridiculous proposition that past barbarism is reflective of nothing, just the way of the world. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisiton, but perhaps they should have.

Finish your thought, and please be specific. We agree that part of the muslim world in our era is violent, why do you suppose that is so?

First of all, historically speaking, I stand by what I said. All those examples except China recently and possibly Milosevic, are a long time ago--a different mindset altogether of people. What China did or is doing in Tibet is literally nothing compared to bad acts and bad intentions of Muslims worldwide in the past decade. And Milosevic may have been as barbaric in a very limited area and group of people, but there was nothing religious and probably little or no popular support for his acts.

Realistically, any argument to try and paint any other religious, ethnic, or national group as morally equivalent in their abject evil to the Muslims falls way short.

The line about "the Spanish Inquisition .... perhaps they should have", that didn't come from me. In fact, I don't recall anybody writing it. I did, however , make the comment that Christians for the most part aren't trying TO CONVERT Muslims--perhaps we should be. That--converting them--is a far cry from an inquisition of them.

And what was that thought you wanted continued? Why do I suppose Muslims are so violent and barbaric in the current era? I hope you aren't looking for some namby pamby maybe-we-are-doing-something-wrong type answer. If you want that, talk to Obama, not me.

My theory would be a population predisposed to buying into the radically barbaric, tyrannical, and genocidal interpretations of the Koran that many of the clerics are pushing. What would be YOUR answer or theory about that, Harlan--or anybody else thinking it isn't merely a matter of evil on their part?

[Harlan Huckleby]

First of all, historically speaking, I stand by what I said. All those examples except China recently and possibly Milosevic, are a long time ago--a different mindset altogether of people

So you're saying all that is relevant here is history from the last 30 years. And you define the evil-doers to be "Muslims." So somehow the 500 million muslims in the world have all been infected by this evil in the last 30 years.

Realistically, any argument to try and paint any other religious, ethnic, or national group as morally equivalent in their abject evil to the Muslims falls way short.

If you want to paint all Muslims with this broad brush, you are in a world of hurt. And you are creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

My theory would be a population predisposed to buying into the radically barbaric, tyrannical, and genocidal interpretations of the Koran that many of the clerics are pushing. What would be YOUR answer or theory about that, Harlan--or anybody else thinking it isn't merely a matter of evil on their part?

I can't explain why the fundamentalist movement has spread so far. I just don't know. It started in the 1890's with the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, but i don't think they were violent. The Muslim Brotherhood started back in the 1950's, gradually became more and more violent.

The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism.

I guess the movement is spreading because of oppressive governments in the Muslim world, and resentment at outside cultural threats. the Muslim Brotherhood grew in Egypt because they hated the government, which was cracking down religion & torturing people. Now what the fundamentals seem to want most is all Western influence out of Islamic countries.

[texaspackerbacker]

The reason I am saying recent decades are the only really relevant time is because, as I have said, the whole rest of the world has progressed beyond that kind of barbarism and hate, while Islam seems clearly to be moving in the opposite direction. You wouldn't disagree with that, would you?

And "all" Muslims, no. However, "most" seems like a very valid description if you are talking about support for the bad acts committed worldwide and support for pushing the evils of Sharia Law. Just look at the riots in France last year; Just look at the reaction to a movie in Denmark (was that the one the title of this thread is about? I don't remember); Just look at the poll of Palestinians about murder of innocent Israelis; Just look at how virtually any Muslim you ever hear strains to find some way to diminish the badness of and to fail to condemn the barbarism. The ONLY way you could possibly claim that the huge majority of Muslims are NOT likeminded with the evildoers is if you assume that huge majority is intimidated into giving a false impression of their views. And I don't really buy that theory.

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

You say maybe the spread of the movement of barbarism and evil is the result of "oppressive governments". I think you have that backwards. The oppressive governments are the result of promoting Sharia Law and overall attitudes of hate and violence. Oppressive government is exactly what the fundamentalist Muslims crave.

You say all they want is getting "western influences" out of Islamic countries. I'd have to agree with you on that. But what exactly ARE those "western influences"? Just little insignificant things like FREEDOM, COMPASSION, HUMANITY, ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, EDUCATION, PROSPERITY, etc. Could you possibly agree that 500 million Muslims (I think it's more like 600 million) or whatever percentage of them aren't part of the problem, should be deprived of those "western influences"?

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

[Iron Mike]

OK.....back on topic:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Article...C-AA6AC5784BA8

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Article...C-AA6AC5784BA8

As a free speech issue, sure, people should be allowed to view any political film.

I really doubt that the proponents of that FITNA documentary are primarily interested in expanding free speech. Altho I can't say exactly what their motives are.

The film sends message that Muslims are inherently evil, because their religion is inherently wrong and evil.

I would like to hear from Kiwon or Tex or Iron Mike or anybody else that thinks this documentary makes a postive contribution to the world. Explain where you think insulting the Muslim world and inflaming passions will lead.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

OK, Tex, I won't attempt to disabuse you of your stark theories. I'll just say that the way you are thinking is exactly what the Muslim terrorists were hoping westerners would think when they began their violent activity about 20 years ago.

[mmmdk]

I have a Muslim buddy who reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition days when we discussed the radical fundamentalists in his religion.

He draws a comparison based on the age of either religion at the time of both fundamentalist periods.

Islam is what, 600 years younger than Christianity?

We're gonna have to wait awhile for them to catch up, I guess.

I think the invention GOOGLE will cut it to 300 years, maybe 275...

[falco]

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

OK, Tex, I won't attempt to disabuse you of your stark theories. I'll just say that the way you are thinking is exactly what the Muslim terrorists were hoping westerners would think when they began their violent activity about 20 years ago.

i almost wonder if TPB hasn't been lurking here the last two years and it finally took this thread to get him to post...

[texaspackerbacker]

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

OK, Tex, I won't attempt to disabuse you of your stark theories. I'll just say that the way you are thinking is exactly what the Muslim terrorists were hoping westerners would think when they began their violent activity about 20 years ago.

Harlan, how is it a "stark theory" that the fruits of Islam are evil? You didn't really answer any of the questions in my last post. I really think I am merely stating the obvious--simple normal common sense--in response to the totally wrongheaded concept that the behavior and attitudes of the huge majority of Muslims are somehow equivalent to that of Americans/that of Christians.

How could you examine history over recent decades and NOT come to the obvious conclusion that America and western/Judeo-Christian nations represent good and Islam represents evil in a good versus evil world?

How is that not just a slam dunk to you?

And since some of you want to get back to talking about this movie, why the big deal about insulting Muslims--as if telling the truth somehow does that? Probably half of all the movies that come along these days are insulting to Christians in one way or another. Why no similar outrage about that? Is the same free speech argument that's used to defend the most vile hate imaginable toward America, Christianity, etc.--basically anything good--somehow invalid when it comes to insulting TRUE EVIL--Islam?

Mohammed sucked donkey dicks! And I've got a shotgun for any Muslim that wants to come and tell me how insulted he is (just a harmless example of free speech in action).

Apologies to any normal Americans that may be shocked by the previous paragraph, but my point is, similar attitudes are shown toward Christians all the time and nobody thinks anything of it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, how is it a "stark theory" that the fruits of Islam are evil?

if violence is endemic to Islam, why did it take so long for Islam to bear this evil fruit?
the violence has only broken-out in last 20 years.

hint: the violence comes from Islamic population, but really has nothing to do with Islam.

You didn't really answer any of the questions in my last post.

I will look again, but your conclusions are based on a series of facts that are mostly false. And in some cases, there is just enough truth to base your opinion on that it would be difficult to dissuade you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The reason I am saying recent decades are the only really relevant time is because, as I have said, the whole rest of the world has progressed beyond that kind of barbarism and hate, while Islam seems clearly to be moving in the opposite direction. You wouldn't disagree with that, would you?

I don't directly disagree with this.
I would put it this way: the Islamic World has a fierce sickness attacking it from within.

However, "most" seems like a very valid description if you are talking about support for the bad acts committed worldwide and support for pushing the evils of Sharia Law?

Absolutely not true. How well did the Sunnis of Anbar Province cotton to Sharia Law? Fundamentalist Muslims are clearly a small minority.

Just look at the riots in France last year

And what were these riots about? Completely unrelated to Jihad. Job discrimination was one issue. Plus an odious national law prohibitting head scarves.

Just look at the reaction to a movie in Denmark

they don't share our view of free speech. Again, this has ZERO to do with terrorism or extremism.

Just look at the poll of Palestinians about murder of innocent Israelis

This is mostly a local conflict unrelated to the Islamic movement. Unfortunatley, Israili policy played right into the hands of Hamas, facilitated their growth. But Hamas is NOT engaged in international terrorism.

The oppressive governments are the result of promoting Sharia Law and overall attitudes of hate and violence.

The whole Islamic violence movement came out of Egypt, which certainly does not have Sharia Law. The Islamic Brotherhood arose out of a brutal secular crackdown. I believe Saudi Arabia is the only country out of 20 or so Islamic majority nations that has anything like Sharia Law. Sorry, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

The ONLY way you could possibly claim that the huge majority of Muslims are NOT likeminded with the evildoers

If even 10% of Muslims embraced terrorism, we would be seeing a 1000 times the attacks in Europe & U.S. that we currently do.

You are not seeing the forest for the trees.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's a little more than 20 years. The Muslims who took Americans hostage in Iran in the 70s come to mind. Maybe you will say THAT event wasn't "religious" just like you claimed about some others. The fact is, though, is was fundamentalists--followers of Ayatollah Khomeini--who were pushing SHARIA LAW--austerity and tyranny, rather than western-style enjoyment of life.

Why did we not see much of that sort of thing sooner? Maybe because of colonialism--that horrible anathema to liberals where mostly compassionate and enlightened westerners kept the violent and barbarous element in check? You might respond that colonialism ended several decades earlier in the middle east. Yes, but ....... after colonialism, the British and other colonial powers mostly installed monarchs who had been educated and conditioned to western views and values. Jordan, one of the most peaceful and decent Muslim countries remains as an example of this, along with Kuwait and Morocco, and even Saudi Arabia (where you can cite the fact that many of the 9/11 and other terrorists came from, but which has relative peace and harmony within its borders).

As one by one, these monarchs faded away, the bad element took over--usually WITH POPULAR MUSLIM SUPPORT. Sometimes it had a religious tinge to it; Sometimes it did not, but it was basically Muslims being Muslims--brutal and barbarous, as they had been prevented from being before.

In a lot of cases, you are right, it had nothing to do with religion--although in a lot of cases it did too. However, it was Muslim people--which is and has been my point.

And though I'm not a student of the Koran, it certainly seems like they have a lot easier time using the Koran to justify their attitudes and bad acts than to condemn or prevent them.

The events in France indeed WERE as much about religion as jobs or whatever. They wanted, incredibly, to establish Sharia Law and Sharia Courts in France, countermanding the secular laws and courts already in place.

In Denmark, it was all about outrage over a movie and some cartoons ridiculing Mohammed--and Muslim desire that Denmark should change its whole system of free speech in reaction. I'd call that "religious", wouldn't you?

And how does the fact that Hamas generally confines its terrorism and barbarous acts to Palestinian areas, in your mind, mitigate the fact that 84% of the Palestinians in a poll approved of murder of innocents as a tactic?

When you talk about "even 10% of Muslims embracing terrorism", it's unclear whether you are talking about actually doing the deeds, or merely cheering on the evildoers. For sure, the actual terrorists are less than 10%. The supporters? I'd say many times that much. Would you actually disagree with that?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's a little more than 20 years. The Muslims who took Americans hostage in Iran in the 70s come to mind.

OK. The Palestineans have been violent since the 1940's, but obviously that has to do with their ongoing war with Israel. And the Iranian Revolution really isn't connected to the Al-Qaeda, Sunni fundamentalist movement we are facing now. Remember, Al-Qaeda types consider the Shiah in Iran to be infidels too. Palestine and Iran really are mostly apart from the main problem we're facing.

The Sunni Fundamentalist extremism got started in Egypt back in 70's, went international in 80's and 90's. Well, it was a tiny movement going all the way back to the 50's.

but it was basically Muslims being Muslims--brutal and barbarous, as they had been prevented from being before.

so you think colonialism kept a lid on Muslim's naturally violent tendencies.
I'd suggest that you believe these outlandish theories simply because they fit your ideology and world view.

When you talk about "even 10% of Muslims embracing terrorism", it's unclear whether you are talking about actually doing the deeds, or merely cheering on the evildoers. For sure, the actual terrorists are less than 10%. The supporters? I'd say many times that much. Would you actually disagree with that?

I think 95% of the people in the Muslim world view the fundamentalist terrorists with great suspician and fear. They REALLY don't want to see themselves under fundamentalist rule. I do agree with you that a much larger percentage of Muslims take some satisfaction when they see Westerners blown-up by terrorists, maybe 30%, just guessing. And perhaps 90% are very angry at the publishing of the pictures or videos that make fun of their religion, and they may even demonstrate over it.

[texaspackerbacker]

You keep trying to divert from the main point--not whether it is pure religious motivation, but the fact that it is Muslims perpetrating the bad acts and advocating even worse. Whether it's mostly religious or not, it's happening, they're doing it, and it is getting worse at the same time the mindset of the world in general is moving the other direction.

The Egyptian thing you keep coming back to was under Nassar--a mainly secular tyrant who sought to spread "Arab nationalism"--and tyranny--throughout the Muslim world. And he was very successful because the people EMBRACED THE IDEA OF TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION--maybe not always in the name of Sharia Law in the early days, but IT WAS THE SAME PEOPLE USING THE SAME TACTICS TO ACHIEVE THE SAME SINISTER GOALS.

Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree about what percentage of the Muslim population is cheering on the bad guys--you're getting closer to reality with the 30% figure. I think you'd have a very hard time finding 30% who do not think and feel that way.