[Poltics] THis is just sad.

Well, considering that one politician was murdered by an Islamist extremist.... Though if they really don't want to be protected, I guess that should be their choice.

THey want protection. However the protection they want is not given. Philosophically why should the threatening Islamists own the streets, and the politicians be prisoners? The report cited here:
http://dutchreport.blogspot.com/2005/02/slaying-of-dutch-filmmaker.html
believes that our actions in Iraq have resulted as one of the Main motivating efforts inciting these radicals to killl politicians. Actually no, Radical Islamism, or "Salafism" as the moslem clerics call the al queda ideology, the inital cause is the brin the "Dar al Harb" which is defined as every area not islamic, under the umbrella of "dar al Islaam". which in their case is under Sharia law, and has been since Dr. Zawahiri convinced Usama Bin Lauden what the motivations for his attack against the monarchy and it's supporters should be.

They want to be protected, in their opwn homes, and those that espouse life threatening rhetoric should be the ones in prison.

Scott

What do you think of former CIA agent Michael Scheurer, until recently known only as 'Anonymous'? Or should I not ask? ;) There's far more to be said on the subject, but basically, no Moslem has the authority to declare empire-building religious war against non-Moslem nations. They need a Caliph to do that and, as I understand it, they don't currently have one. The current situation is that they are retaliating against American (and to some extent western industrialized civilization in general) as a result of insults and attacks against them (or at least which they perceived as such). According to their religion, they are only defending themselves. This is supposedly not (yet?) about conquering and converting the rest of the world to Islam. If Michael Scheurer is right about all that (see his book, Imperial Hubris), American imperialism is the main motivation behind the uprisings and terrorism, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'll have to read your links in further depth before I can comment on whether these recent developments are really so reprehensible or if it's just beauracracy and the politicians acting like spoiled brats. At this very moment, though, I have to say that I'm not sure any non-totalitarian government has the right to jail someone for mere rhetoric even if it is life-threatening. Just look at the way hate speech and even (I think) burning crosses on someone's lawn are protected by the First Amendment in the United States.

"Annonymous" has something of a point. The Arabs gained independance from Britain, and the Ottoman Turks. Yay! and as a result they tried to adopt the latest and greatest new governmental fad: Socialism. It resulted in the set up of many dictatorships. Boo! THose that were too conservative for Socialism, returned to the monarchy system. The Arabs enjoyed few of the benefits of modernism, as only oil was seen as something useful enough to trade for, and the monarchies and some of the dictatorships had it. Those without oil, languished. The Muslim Brotherhood, started in Egypt, by a scholar that was traumatized by seeing couples dancing in (your home state of) Colorado, started on the theory that to regain the supremacy they had during the Caliphate, they need to adopt strict interpretations of Sharia, and use that as the basis for a moral society. The ideas spread, despite the brotherhoods ties to the Nazi's, in fact that may have been a bonus.

But attcking the "modern world" for implicit "insults" to Islam, and for their lack of success, is still a lose/lose situation down the road. Here'san English Expat in Hong Kong's take on the situation:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

Hubris? probably likely, the same sort that on the bad side, saddled us with the "New Deal" but on the good side won us WW2. It's not just a personal, but also possibly a generationa rewsponse. See this article from the SF Gate
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/06/INGH7B39Q01.DTL

Hope I haven't buried you in readin yet :-)

Scott

Oh, and in California, Hate Speech is prosecutedmore harshly,. I can say "I'm gonna kill you!", and nothing will happen, but if I say, "You're a fag!", I can be prosecuted.

I found this response from a Norwegian very telling:

This in order not to stir unnecessary anger among broader segments of the Diaspora communities and create new incentives for joining militant groups. On the political level, as much as possible should be done to reduce social and political grievances locally and internationally, that might motivate Islamist terrorists, and might be interpreted in terms of al-Qaida's ideology that Islam is under a worldwide attack by the US and its allies. This type of appeasement mentality is exactly what Theo Van Gogh was demonstrating against every time he called them goat-neukers. It is disheartening to me that even in Norway, where the murder did NOT happen, the murderer was successful in making his point not to mess with Al Qaeda anymore. Government reports advocating suppression of free speech and expression because it might anger the criminals who killed the icon of free speech and expression.

In Europe, it seems the terrorists have already won.

It's almost starting to look like it. Holland in particular is just bending over and taking it up the ass from extremists.

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't, really. Someone on my FL came awful close to calling them bigots for closing their borders to immigration while they attempt to figure out what the heck to do.

In their situation, Bigotry in self defense, is justifiable. It's a conspiracy attacking their principles, and government. The More I reae about Theo Van Gogh, the more it seems I would have enjoyed hearing him speak...

Scott

I agree, sort of. I say "sort of" because I don't agree that closing the borders in self-defense, to get some breathing room, necessarily equates with bigotry in the first place. Basically, I find no inherent fault with their attempts (if clumsy) to defend themselves, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that bigotry is justifiable--but that's just my liberal opinion. I agree with Meneer Van Gogh on some points, but don't know quite enough about him to know if he's too conservative for my tastes. ;)

Well, I'd say what would preserve the livesand safety of the majority population, in a crisis, would justify it, temporarily. Clumsy it may be, but in survival situations, some things may have to be questioned.

Scott

In Europe, it seems the terrorists have already won.

Not unless you concede that they've won here as well, because you're citing the same developments as criteria for that defeat that have already taken place here (i.e., the Patriot Act, free-speech zones, and other weakening of our rights, laws, and principles in the name of national security).

But yes, the situation sucks.

I won't say they have won, because the econo,y has not gon into crisis mode, but I will not deny they have had an effect. And in every previous war, we have implemented many rather draconian laws, with far greater effect, during the duration of the war. Look up "The Smith Act" sometime, or Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. I do think the Dutch have to re-examine their immigration policies and figure out if their culture will survive a massive influx f muslims, and whether they think their culture is worth preserving.

Scott

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm sure we've done plenty of not-exactly-right things in past wars. Our wars in general have not been the noble, shining accomplishments we've been raised to believe they were.

As for immigration, that's a tricky issue all-around. I'm still not sure which 'side' I'm on, whether it be regarding illegal immigrants in the States or immigrants who seem determined to take over their host country in Europe. Obviously, I don't want that to happen, but I don't know what sort of policy could be implemented to 'fairly' mitigate the problem. :(

True, but fair, one has to ask, fair to whom? to those allready obeying the laws , and the natives, or those migraing away fromjoblessness and poverty? Personally I side on the issue of law and order, in these cases, where immagrants should be welcomed if they are legal and prosecuted if they are here not. Look at Canada. they have a strict immigration policy, a large change from when my mother's father's brothers family colledted after the Second World War. If you had been reading Sue's adventures with Canadian Immigration you would have seen they only admit folks who are either political refugees, or persons that can prove they can support themselves in work.

Scott

I wonder what the dead threat looks like. An old fish in newspaper on the front porch? Head of a favorite horse in the bed?