Geert Wilders

Northman On the other hand, if you don't agree with the radical elements of Islam and their actions, you really shouldn't make yourself a hostage of them and their deeds.

You really don't understand radicalism or what fuels it. Radicals love other radicals, muslim radicals couldn't survive without people like Wilders, Wilders couldn't survive without these radicals, they feed off each other and as much as they pretend to hate one another they are involved in an extra-marital affair.

The radicals would have welcomed Wilders with open arms then tell the muslim who couldn't care less, look what we have here, this guy wants to wipe us all out and hates us because we happen to be muslim.

The Wilders camp of racist radicals would have loved him to go so that he could try and influence people into hating muslims, join up to his ethnic cleansing program and try cause troubles and divides between muslims and non-muslims.

This decision by Britain is just keeping with the normal Brittish policy, making an exception would be bowing to the demands of Wilders gang of racists.




 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Graham   Actually Lord Nazir did nothing wrong.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by edgewaters Let's not get too distracted into a "whose God is better" sort of debate. Well if you mean me, then certainly that is false, as I believe that all of them are one and the same God.   Al of them? Or just the Abrahamic versions? Or just the monotheist versions?

More or less all of them have similar basic concepts. More specifically monotheistic/Abrahamic as those are fitting to the current conversation.

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Panther Originally posted by es_bih   He seems to go to places media wise that won't do that to him. Even his O'Riley interview went "well" all things considered, O'Rilley did his usual spin of looking balanced, but more or less gave him a good boot shining - of course Fox News isn't exactly the sector that warrants common sense, but it still gives him a voice to talk to a few of our own extreme right wing nutters. See... that's part of our problem here in the US. Writing off  O'Reilly's program and the Fox network as heavily biased against the left, is the same as a conservative saying most or all tv programs as being liberally biased against the right? That is something which i have been coming too grips with over the past couple of years, these little petty shots at commentators we don't agree with. If people really want the change that they voted for 3 months ago, then it needs to start with them and not look to the their elected officals to do it for them? I mean, Keith Olberman doesn't drive me anywhere near to "going crazy" or writing him off, as Bill O'Reilly and fox does to it's critics. I still will watch them both wtih an open mind, if or when i so choose too watch their programs!   FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Media Matters for America are two groups that have called Fox a network with an extreme right bias. Fox News Controversies

To be quite honest with you es_bih, they themseleves are not without their own controversies. I don't trust any news reporting organization that entirely defines itself,  especially openly, as either representing a progressive, centrist, leftist, rightist or even this supposed neo-conservative viewpoints, that was incidentally IIRC... supposed to have turned me and the rest of America into a bunch nazi's! This includes FAIR or Media Matters!

Hell, i don't even trust my own original opinions on plenty of things, most especially when it comes too politics! Nor do i  trust Fox anymore than i do MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC & ect... I don't trust any one organizational thing too form my opinion's. I prefer to do the research myself since the advent of the internet, and then perhaps discuss with someone when i have the time.

 Not saying that these news orgs.  are entirely useless, or that i always disagree with them, but that they do not and will not have the final last say in shaping or forming my view's just too reflect theirs!

Regards,
 Panther

I will go over those links es-bih was so kind to send me, but saying Ibn Warraq is not a credible source is like the time I talked to some Mormons and challenged their religion from material I got from a former Mormon. They would not accept it because he is an apostate so I tend to believe this about some Muslims- some not all. I am sure you would say the same about Walid Shoebat or Nonie Darwhish; the former was a PLO terrorist and the latter parents were also terrorist. They have death sentences over them but I suppose all they want to do is sell books.

AL Jay man - I wonder if your interpretation of limits on free speech means blasphemy laws for criticizing Islam or its prophet. You have every right to defend your beliefs just as Geert or other people have the right to criticize it and he is only repeating the sayings and actions of the extremist.   I showed Obsession to a friend in my old city who used to believe that all the Muslims should be put on a boat and shipped back. I told him that was wrong and after he saw Obsession he realized that most Muslims in America are not that extreme and his view changed from hating all Muslims to hating only those who cause violence and want to replace our form of government. I feel the same way about Nazi’s, or extreme communist or even the Neo cons and I will support any Muslim here who believes in our nation and pluralism. I agree with him that non-citizens who are guilty of a violent crime or ideaology should be deported. This could also includes other groups, such as, non Muslim immigrants from Russia/Ukraine who are violent and involved with the Russian Mafia.   So I still stand by my support for him but enough because this only goes in circles and I am not trying to change your mind but just saying what I think I must read those links es- bih sent me first because I keep my word but for now we can agree to disagree about Geert.

Al – read First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Originally posted by es_bih Well eaglecap... would you take a convicted Klan member's critique and condemnation of Christianity as the ideal source about Christianity. The people who are at a sudden cross roads and have a sudden shock to their world view usually will criticize something else rather thans themselves for their condition. It is a universal standard of humanity. I still say that it is him and the one who taught him that are responsible not the Bible for being there.

Anyone who knows what the Klan stands for and what the Bible says also should know how false and taken out of context their views are but a klan member still has free speech but I think you are comparing apples to onions and I do not see the comparison. Ibn is not a convicted criminal and he is free to speak his views.   For anyone who knows the Bible, even a non Christian like me, knows their brand of hate is not there but….. I will leave it at that since I have not gone over those links on Islam yet.

Remember – Isa/Jesus said love your neighbor as you love yourself.

If a Klan man's view can be torn about by simply using the Bible then why can't you use the same reasoning against Geert. I have read the Bible many times - how many times have you read it? The Qu'ran once but that is more than many people here.

but what do I know, like spencer and Geert, I am just a silly KUFAR- Unbeliever.

I will read those links first you sent me so I will not respond to this until that is done. I tried saving it on my flash drive but my home computer would not open it for some reason so I will have to print it at the college.   

You mean Kaffir, not Kufr/Kufar.

And that means someone who is rejecting after he has gained the knowledge not someone who doesn't know nor someone who believes in a greater architect...


Also lets take these silly terminologies out of the discussion, because if applied in the context you applied we are all unbelievers to someone else.

A Muslim to a Christian and so forth.... obviously those silly things should be relegated to the uneducated babblers that try to make a buck of people's faith rather than a serious discussion.

Originally posted by es_bih I'm not saying that they should even shape your outlook on media networks, just that there is enough of this type of criticism going around for at least a good chunk of it to be credible across party lines. Not like this is the first time that Fox has been under fire for this. Just take a look at clips describing one even a conservative is involved in lets say 2 years back - and almost always they will be excusing the fellow - if a liberal or their definition of a liberal is involved in the same - they will not excuse him, but tear to pieces. Personally I don't watch any of them including MSNBC and CNN. I prefer to get my sources from more open minded sources.

Ok, if this is an inter-party problem, Why does it seem or appear's to me like it is only Fox that gets more vocal hatred from among all it's  quite expressive critics considering the other stations on tv/cable/satellite? Is it because Fox doesn't toe a specific line with it's critics?  Is it because it challenges it's critics too prove them wrong? Does it's critics feel insulted whenever they watch their programs? Is it just because of who owns Fox that drives it's critics mad? Or is it simply because it's supposive political views aren't necessarily aligned with or come across as being on the same side with it's current critics? BTW... That fox controversy link was quite interesting. Hell, the more i think about it...  i think i would respect the hell out of any network that would just lay all of it's politcal cards out on the table for all too see. Just dump all that rubbish about trying to be balanced and objective when it comes to political commentary!

However, i do have too say, i agree with you all the way on going to other sources for information. Still, if i ever watch news and commentary show's i'll watch any of them when or if i ever feel like it, and only for the sake of their entertainment value!

Now to all opposing points of view about Mr. Wilder: from my pov... the man is a politican. If he weren't then i suppose i "might" have succumded to all the views & vehement protest's against him on this board and just have dropped the issue entirely!

If this were a Muslim politican, my view would have still been the same as it is for Mr. Wilder's situation!

 I don't see why many consider views like mine to be the actions of a bunch of right wing hypocrites?

Originally posted by es_bih Because Fox News does this on a daily basis - compare clips of their treatment of people - O'Rilley a great example of bias and duplicity. If they had slip ups once in six months no one would be complaining, but a constant barrage of this definitely has people doubting their intent to broadcast news as news rather than a political springboard. Fox News tags itself as fair and balanced to boot, which is laughable in its own right.

Aaaannnnndddd..... i suppose Keith Olberman is the symbol of virtue and balanced objectivity that all political commentators or reporters aspire to be? uh, yeah! Olberman views lean left and O'Reilly's leans to the right! Neither of these gentlemen capture my views in it's entirity! And yet, for some strange reason, i don't know why... but i feel no animosity towards them that other people "seem" to hold! Maybe i was born on a different planet or i just don't interpret their views as being a stake through my heart.

Anyways, i'm not overly concerned with defending Fox news & how they wish too portray themselves. In my view they do what all other news corporations do, say they are fair and balanced and you know somewhere out there, there are a ton of people scoffing at these self-righteous statements coming from the press.

Originally posted by es_bih Fox News tags itself as fair and balanced to boot, which is laughable in its own right.