It’s mostly for those who need to wake up to the threat that Islamisation presents, and don’t realize how serious the threat is, as there really isn’t much in it for those who have been studying the global hirabah, and Ol’Moh’s pathetic tome.

Wilders will be releasing an updated version soon, as the Moh-Toon with the bomb wearing Moh, is a potential copyright violation.

Left by no2liberals on March 31st, 2008 at 10:42 pm

You wouldn’t call the entire block of text you’ve quoted “editorializing”? Or is this what the Muslim leaders said about themselves?

[Editor --- yeah. I'm wrong there. That is editorializing. Though, other than that text being scrolled across the screen at the very end of the film, the film itself is just the words and actions of the Quran and Muslims.]

Left by John Jarzemsky on April 1st, 2008 at 12:47 am

In an important judgement on a case dealing with religious freedom of speech in the High Court on 23rd July 1999, Lord Justice Sedley quoted Socrates and two famous Quakers when he declared: “The irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative have a right to be heard.”

The corporate and state organs have no right to decide on our behalf what we should read, watch, or hear, even if we find the material objectionable.

The removal of Fitna from various webhosts was nothing but pre-emptive censorship!

Left by Curly on April 1st, 2008 at 6:58 am

Three points:

1. The temporary removal of FITNA by LiveLeak was not “pre-emptive censorship”. Rather it was it was a very proper concern for the safety of innocents. If I were an employer, I would take death threats against my employees very seriously. After reviewing and revising their security procedures, LiveLeak put FITNA back up.

2. Regarding all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from dar-al-Islam concerning FITNA. It’s the same story repeated over and over and over again. The scenario goes like this, pretty much every time:

First, Muslims commit acts of violence, claiming all the while that they’re doing it because the Koran told them to.

Then, non-Muslims point out the fact that this has taken place.

Finally, the non-Muslims who had the temerity to speak up are almost universally condemned as “bigots”, “racists”, and “Islamophobes”. Apparently, it’s OK to commit atrocities for your faith, but not OK for a non-believer to say that atrocities have taken place.

3. In the sacred books of almost every religion, one can find passages that can be used to justify violence, if one chooses to interpret the texts in such a way. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, et. al. are all alike in this respect.

The difference is that violence commited in the name of Islam is commonplace. This is not the case for any other religion at this point in history. Invariably, Muslims will point to the crusades. But guess what? The crusades were centuries ago, while horrific violence is being commited in the name of Islam now, today, in the 21st century.

Left by Colin on April 1st, 2008 at 7:17 am

Good points, Colin, but I might add the Crusades were a reaction to the Arab-Muslim invasion of the Holy Land, and the atrocities that were committed there by the MohMen. The Crusades were not a preemptive strike against the peaceful worshipers of islam.

Left by no2liberals on April 1st, 2008 at 3:44 pm

LBN2L

You are, of course, correct. But as always, there is more to the story.

I have heard numerous explanations for the crusades. Like most of history, the real reasons were much too complicated to be explained in a couple of sentences.

In reality, of course, like all wars, the crusades were not waged by “societies”, but by individuals, and each one had his own reasons for doing so.

So for some people, I’m sure that the Muslim invasion and occupation of the Holy Land was an important motivation. Others were probably fed up with centuries of living in constant fear of Muslim invasions of Europe. Some were probably in it for the money.

There have been volumes written on this subject, and there is nothing even approaching a consensus among (non-revisionist) historians, so you and I will most likely not figure it all out on Robbie’s website.

But thanks for the kind comment.

Left by Colin on April 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm

No probs, and as always, regarding complex historical events, I’m aware of the disputes, but the one dispute that doesn’t seem to wain with time, is the Pope’s outrage of how the spread of islam was so destructive to the world, and of the reports of the destruction of the significant sites of Christian heritage in the Holy Land. If the Pope used that as justification, or was sincerely outraged by it, and started issuing his statements that so inflamed Christendom to take action, we will never know for certain. I’m also certain that the majority of the soldiers were in it for the adventure and treasure.
Had the Arab-Islamic invasion not taken place, especially in the manner it did, I seriously doubt there would have ever been one Crusade, much less nine.

Left by no2liberals on April 1st, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Good piece by Jonah Goldberg on Fitna.
Evolution of Religious Bigotry.

Left by no2liberals on April 2nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm