Dutch critic of Islam murdered
 

Anyone (outside of the Netherlands) heard this news? A rather famous Dutch columnist and filmmaker, known for his outspoken views on religion in general, and Islam in particular, was murdered last week (november 2nd) by an Islamic fundamentalist guy. The murderer was a second generation Dutch-Moroccan, born and bred in the Netherlands.

<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/02/netherlands.filmmaker/index.html">Link to story</a>

I posted this story in order to highlight the growing unrest in my country. People are pissed off about this, and many Muslim immigrants don't seem to understand why.

Just to provide some background material:
- Muslims, specifically of Moroccan descent, are angry at being linked to the murderer. They see the murderer as an insane deviant, who isn't even a real Muslim (because of his crime).
- Some Muslims say that van Gogh deserved to be murdered because of what he said. Some say he didn't deserve it, but they can understand the murderer. Some say he didn't deserve it, but that he should have expected it.
- A lot of native Dutch people have been angry at Moroccans in general for a while now, for their unwillingness to "blend in". There have been many incidents of Moroccan kids being a pain in the arse to other people. Only two weeks ago there was a story on the news about a Dutch family practically forced to move from a predominantly Moroccan street; the kids there bullied them on a daily basis, until they finally left. There's Moroccan kids calling Dutch girls whores, there's Muslim clerics denouncing gay people as diseased, there's Moroccan kids playing soccer with packs of flowers on our national day of mourning for the deaths of WW2... tons and tons of stories, all supposed to be "incidents".
- A lot of the Muslim immigrants, specifically Moroccans, have a hard time getting a job. Partly because of their lower social class and education, partly because of the bad examples set by some of their kin.

Now, what do outsiders think of this? Does anyone know how we can get out of this mess?

I heard about it but another post about Islamic intollerance wouldn't make a difference.

Want to get out of it? Close the border to them before its to late.

Solid solution ....we all know how well isolationist countries fare in the long run.

Closing the border does not equal isolationist, not by a long shot.

The two are not related at all in fact. You can be isolationist with an open border, you can be active in world affairs with a closed one.

Since that's not going to happen, why even bring it up?

I read about this murder, I may be wrong, but it seemed like a one-off rather than a trend....I might be out to lunch though... ;)

Well... it's a bit late for that. There's over a million Muslim immigrants, with a total population of 16 million, and they're getting more kids than the natives...

The Dutch government is doing *something*, though. They're talking about taking away dual nationalities (Dutch *and* Moroccan) from people that misbehave too much (violent crime), allowing us to expel them. They're doing what they should have done years ago.

A problem is that the more we do to stop Islamic extremism, the more moderate Muslims will feel unwelcome and misunderstood, making some of them turn to extremism as a response...

It's indeed a first. However, it's the second murder of a prominent Dutch "right-wing" person in the past few years (against none in the decades before). It's more of an escalation of a process that was already underway. Other Dutch anti-Islam politicians have been threatened in the past, and this has continued after the murder; some people are afraid to speak out because of it. Dutch people fear another such murder is going to happen soon...

So, although it's a one-off, it's part of a dangerous trend.

Yes. It has gotten nationwide TV coverage here.
Terribly sad but in some sick way not surprising anymore.

I came across the story below as well.
Is it too alarmist to accurately reflect the sense of things there?
...............

Netherlands braces for 'jihad'


By Anthony Deutsch
ASSOCIATED PRESS


THE HAGUE — The Dutch government yesterday vowed tough measures against what a leading politician called "the arrival of jihad in the Netherlands" after a death threat to a Dutch lawmaker was found spiked with a knife to the body of a slain filmmaker by his radical Muslim attacker.
A five-page letter released Thursday night by the justice minister forced political leaders — including Amsterdam's Jewish mayor and members of parliament — to take on bodyguards.







The document, attached to the body of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, was titled "An Open Letter to [Aayan] Hirsi Ali," referring to a Somali-born member of parliament. She had scripted Mr. van Gogh's latest film, "Submission," which criticized the treatment of women under Islam.
Miss Hirsi Ali, who calls herself an ex-Muslim, has gone into hiding.
"Death, Ms. Hirsi Ali, is the common theme of all that exists. You and the rest of the cosmos cannot escape this truth," the letter said.
"There will come a day when one soul cannot help another soul. A day that goes paired with terrible tortures, ... when the unjust will press horrible screams from their lungs.
"Screams, Ms. Hirsi Ali, that will cause chills to run down a person's back, and make the hairs on their heads stand straight up. People will be drunk with fear, while they are not drunken. Fear will fill the air on the Great Day," the letter said.
"I know definitely that you, Oh America, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Europe, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Netherlands, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Hirsi Ali, will go down," it said.
Deputy Prime Minister Gerrit Zalm agreed with comments by other politicians who called Mr. van Gogh's slaying a declaration of Islamic jihad, or "holy war."
"We are not going to tolerate this. We are going to ratchet up the fight against this sort of terrorism," he said. "The increase in radicalization is worse than we had thought."
Among measures under consideration is an emergency law to enable authorities to revoke the Dutch nationality of dual citizens suspected of terrorist activity so that they can be deported.
Mr. Zalm said the intelligence service, which already has expanded since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, would receive more funding to help it monitor potential terrorist recruits.
The suspected killer in the van Gogh case, a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan national, was arraigned on six terrorism-related charges.
Mr. van Gogh, a descendant of 19th-century Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, was fatally shot and stabbed Tuesday while cycling down an Amsterdam street. The remains of the provocative social commentator and author, whose throat was slashed in the attack, will be cremated Tuesday in a public service.
The slaying is testing already strained relations between the ethnic Dutch population and the Muslim community. There are about 300,000 Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands out of a population of 16 million.
Mr. Zalm said talks were ongoing with Muslim groups over how to avoid a violent backlash against Muslims.
Arsonists are believed to have set fire to a mosque in the central Dutch city of Utrecht, police spokesman Peter Keijzers said. There were no reports of injuries.
Jozias van Aartsen, parliamentary speaker for the nationalist People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), the second-largest party in the government of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, issued a statement that called Mr. van Gogh's slaying tantamount to a declaration of war.
"The jihad has come to the Netherlands and a small group of jihadist terrorists is attacking the principles of our country," he said. "I hope the Netherlands will now move beyond denial and do what is fitting in a democracy — take action.
"These people don't want to change our society, they want to destroy it," he said.
The terrorist threat left by Mr. van Gogh's killer carries the ideology of a terrorist movement, Takfir wal Hijra or "Repentance and Flight," which advocates isolation from what it calls the sinful world, Dutch press reported.
Chief prosecutor Leo de Wit said the suspected killer, identified only as Mohammed B., faces at least six terrorism-related counts, including charges of murder and "participating in a criminal organization with terrorist characteristics."
The suspect, wounded in the leg in a shootout with police, has refused to talk to investigators. He was arrested with a note in his pocket titled "Drenched in Blood."
Authorities arrested eight other suspects in Mr. van Gogh's slaying and are looking into any links between the suspects and foreign terrorist groups.
Two suspects were released, Mr. de Wit said yesterday. Six will be charged with conspiring to commit murder, he said.
Prosecutors said all are Islamic radicals of North African ancestry. Four also were arrested Oct. 23 on suspicion of plotting a terrorist attack but were released for lack of evidence. Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner told parliament the four had contacts with a suspect in last year's Casablanca bombings.

Words won't make it go away.

Either you fight it, or you are beaten by it.

Europe is getting ready for another fight against Islam, and most don't even know it. It is best to start this fight now, as each year you let it go it will only be harder to win. I have a very good Dutch friend, and hes been warning me about this since 1996 (and he is a left wing socialist, 55 years old).

great answer, ustwo
just what we need now
the "logic" of religious war.

and so the most bankrupt elements of samuel huntington's "clash of civilization" thesis persist, continue to "inform" thinking on where we are today.

excellent.

Keep your head in the sand and maybe it will go away.

Excellent.

what i am saying, ustwo, is that your entire position is not defensable.
islam as the enemy in itself.
well, that is certainly the way to a far right position on the matter.
that way you get to act as though you have a handle on the situation at hand in holland, say, without having to interact with teh complexity of it, and maybe indulge a little good ole american racism as a side benefit.

yes, islam as a whole is clearly the problem.
maybe they should all be forcibly converted to american style protestant fundamentalism and there would be no problems in the world.
its just as ann coulter said it is.
and we all know what a great thinker she is.

The "open letter" that was planted on the body of van Gogh was apparently a mixture of internet-based anti-Jewish propaganda, extremist Islamic bits and a lot of pure anger. According to a leading Islamic scholar, the murderer has cut 'n pasted various bits of info, took the bits literally, and used them to pretend the end result was justified by his holy scriptures.

He was *not* a loner, though - he was a friend of another guy arrested on terrorism-related grounds a while ago. (there's lots of questions about that - the intelligence service *should* have been following this guy after they learned of the connection, months ago.)

In the past days, there have been a few attempts to attack Muslims and destroy their possessions (including Mosques) - some right-wing Dutch people are trying to increase the tension.

Let's put it this way: a lot of Dutch people, me included, are afraid someone from either side will go too far one day. We're all just waiting for that single spark to light the fuse.

So no, it's not alarmist at all...

dragon: could you maybe give a bit more background on this matter? on how the muslim community in holland has surfaced as a cultural politics issue, the role of the far right in it, that sort of thing? everthing i have been reading about this indicates it happened in a complex and unnerving bigger context...that goes beyond the article art posted. links are fine. thanks....

Okay, here goes.

The Muslim community started in the 1970's, when we needed a lot of extra workers. We basically said: anyone is welcome. Most immigrants were poor, under-educated men from the hillbilly areas of Turkey and Morocco. Nobody asked them to learn our language (they were supposed to go back anyway). Their culture was interesting and deserved to be celebrated.

After the economic boom times, a lot of them became unemployed, and, naturally, we decided to let them stay and share in our wealth. In fact, we let them bring their family (poor guys must have missed them!).

Fast forward 20 years. The immigrant families are generally poor, under-educated, very traditional in their (Islamic) views, and passed all of that on to their kids. A large subgroup still focus on their former home countries, and mainly watch Arabic satellite television. In their home countries, especially in Morocco, society was responsible for raising their kids (if you did something wrong, anyone could and would stop you). Over here, we don't have that system - the Moroccan parents are very strict, but the Dutch police is *not*.

More and more of the immigrants start living in the big cities (Amsterdam amongst them), while a lot of natives leave for the quiet towns surrounding them. Add to this equation the higher rate of reproduction of Muslim families (4+ kids as opposed to 1 or 2), and we see a problem beginning to emerge.

I'd say you can compare the Islamic youths of today with the US' Hispanic minority. They even use the same images and music to express themselves. The main difference is that they're Muslims, not Christians. And a difference is that we in the Netherlands have had *very* left-wing governments (especially by US standards). Political-correctness and a climate of ignoring problems led to the current situation. At the moment, an overly large part of the prison population is from Moroccan descent, but that's not the only minority that's over-represented, so it's not out of the ordinary.

Some recent situations that led to mutual anger:
- Occasional riots between Moroccan kids and Dutch police, with the police being accused of instigating the riots with their very presence...
- More and more stories about Moroccan youths attacking/robbing poor old Dutch people, all of which get a lot of media attention. Naturally, Muslims see this as one-sided, which is true to an extend.
- More and more stories of Moroccan youths abusing Dutch girls verbally and physically. Everyone claims to have seen it, and every Muslim claims it's isolated incidents by annoying youths.
- After 9/11, there are rather embarrassing reports of (duh!) Moroccan kids celebrating. The Muslim community denies this incident happened, or says it's an isolated incident.
- Pim Fortuyn, outspoken Dutch politician, says a lot of bad things about Muslims (in their view). Most Dutch people agree with what he says, because he's basically telling the truth. Most Dutch politicians are angry at his attack at them and their politically-correct world-view. Fortuyn is murdered by a left-wing animal rights activist, for being a danger to society.
- Last year, we had the whole Remembrance Day situation, with some Moroccan kids playing soccer with wreaths placed at historical sites. The reason is that they're angry at the Jews/Israelis for their actions, and they see the day as a remembrance of dirty Jews. It also emerged that Dutch school teachers have a hard time giving classes about the Holocaust, because Muslim kids tend to protest too much.
- A school decided to ban head-scarves because it interfered with the teaching - it was a school for sociology, teaching people to deal with kids. They said that someone wearing a headscarf wasn't going to be able to relate to Dutch kids. Muslims were outraged, Dutch people were outraged at that.
- A Moroccan guy was shot by a Dutch-Turkish policeman, for threatening him with a knife. Muslims claimed this was a clear case of racism, Dutch people were outraged at the claim.
- After the murder of van Gogh, news emerged that Muslim youths are not getting their extremism from Dutch Mosques, but are getting it directly from... Saudi-Arabia.

Well, the list goes on and on. All isolated incidents, all getting nationwide press coverage. A lot of Dutch people are starting to feel like strangers in their own country (especially in the big cities), and want to go back to the olde days. A lot of Muslims want the government to intervene, to stop the annoying youths from ruining their reputation. A lot of Dutch people see all Muslims as being the same as that annoying youth, while a lot of Muslims see all Dutch as being racist.

As for the role of the far-right: there's pretty much no such role. There *is* no far-right in the Netherlands. The "worst" (or best) we have is people like van Gogh or Fortuyn, who aren't right-wing at all, but don't like political-correctness, and state the obvious. I'd say the lack of right-wing politicians led to the situation in the first place...

And for that, they are killed.

Sounds great.

Fight now or fight later, thats your choice.

Fight whom, pray tell? Fight with what?

Are you suggesting that we kill all Muslims in my country? Or are you suggesting we kick them out? Or should we only fight the extremists?

What exactly are you suggesting???

It would appear it's all about to kick off there:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3991547.stm

"A Dutch Islamic school has been hit by an explosion, as tensions run high following the murder of controversial film director Theo van Gogh.
The door of the school in the southern town of Eindhoven was damaged in Monday morning's blast.

Police say it could be a revenge attack after the killing of Mr van Gogh by a suspected Islamic radical last week.

Mosques in several Dutch cities have been the targets of vandalism and failed arson attempts over the weekend.

The explosion in Eindhoven comes a day after Dutch police arrested two men who had allegedly called for the beheading of Geert Wilders, a member of parliament, in the name of Islam.

Mr Wilders has said he will set up an anti-immigration party, following Mr van Gogh's death.

The controversial film-maker was shot and stabbed in Amsterdam on Tuesday.

Several men, all believed to be Islamic radicals, have been arrested."

DJ Happy, I wouldn't exactly say it's about to kick off. As on the Muslim side, there's a small vocal minority trying to get attention. The idea behind these attacks on Mosques is to get a violent reaction from Muslims, which then leads to more hatred, and (they hope) an explosion of anti-Muslim riots.

I doubt it'll happen soon, though. There needs to be at least a few more "incidents" on both sides before the whole situation explodes. And even then, it'll be the extremist minorities fighting, not the rest of us. As always...

wow dragonlich... sounds like a difficult situation. i've read things about this happening all over europe in varying degrees. i flew into heathrow a couple years ago for an extended backpacking trip. one of the first things that struck me about london was how many signs were in arabic and the number of middle eastern people. some parts of paris were similar... i wasn't expecting to see that.

i think what you're seeing in the netherlands will be played out in some way all across europe.

the situation is really complicated, it seems--as i think it is in most western european countries where you have parallel things happening--but it seems that the parallel is quite limited in that you dont have much in the way of far right parties invovled in stirring the pot (as you do with the front national in france).

i was reading about right politics in holland, however, and it sounds like there are some significant groupings that have emerged in the past few years---

i have been looking around a bit on fortuyn--i can see from the various summaries that they are confusing if you try to map them straight onto other right movements in europe: like this does:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,711990,00.html

either way, this does not look pretty.
and i expect that there is an extreme right, that it might be growing a little now, and that it is filling with people who think like ustwo.

*raises hand*

I guess I'm starting to think that way too.

While we could argue percentages of who is radical and who is not, the fact remains that if you get killed by 5% vs 50% you are still dead.

I am beginning to think that radical islam and hate speech from it should be treated like Nazism in Germany; engage in it and you are arrested, and if possible, deported.

Which is exactly what I mean by fight.

this is crazy:

to go from a complex situation (holland) about which it is really difficult to work out a clear sense of what exactly has been happening--i know the parallel scenario in france pretty well but am waiting to learn more before i try to map the two onto each other--because i dont think it works well---to a call for religious war is wrong.

it is wrong analytically: all you do is recapitulate the logic of the far right, which is itself a party to creating this conflict.

it is wrong politically in that it abandons having to interact with situations in favor of a murderous simplicity.
.
it is wrong ethically. when i read this, i think about how this same logic would impact on me, on those close to me who are muslim. it is irresponsible to indulge this kind of racist logic. particularly if you are going to cover it by accusing the "enemy" of being fascist.

i find it unnerving, the ease with which folk are able to make move uncritically.
just goes to show that we have learned almost nothing from the last century and its flirtation with this kind of thinking.

There is a difference between moving uncritically and between getting the job down.

There is also a difference between moving critically and overanalyzing a problem to the point of mental gridlock.

I see neither Ustwo nor myself advocating "religious war" as you put it.

What I do see us and Dragonlich advocating is common sense, i.e. act or die.

This does not preclude further thought, nor does it advocate a steadfast, unwavering, and unanalyzed course of action.

what is "the job" then?

i would be interested in seeing how you could read ustwo's posts in particular and argue that what is being adovated is not some kind of "war on islam" cloaked as "war on muslim extremists" which you do not and cannot define--particularly not in this context.

i see maybe little other than "common sense" as well, but i doubt we have the same relation to the term.

caveat: this is getting into an area of great sensivity at my end---it does not please me at all to see how easy it seems to be becoming to elaborate waht i view here and have veiwed as basically racist arguments with the figleaf of pseudo-precision brought into the mix by the term "extremism"--if you are seriously going to link what is going on in holland to this category, then you would need to make the argument and not simply revert to the category. which would mean that the burden of argument rests on you. so please, make the argument: even by trying maybe i can see this as a different kind of conversation.

source

I would say that its just a simple coincidence of numbers. A splinter radical minority of such a huge number is a huge number. In the case of the Dutch filmmaker who was killed, I can see this happening to anyone taking a controversial stand of a religious nature. This could have happened to a person speaking out sharply on Catholic matters, or Christian matters, or Jewish matters. I would imagine there are radicals motivated enough to kill whoever speaks out against any given faith.

Dragonlich, thanks for the concise yet penetrating and insighful recounting and analysis (post #15) of the situation there. Seeing the way things go in a political climate much different than we have here in the US helps us to comprehend the scope and scale of the fundamental problems we face as a global civilization - culture clash, indeed.

...And just to quickly add, that I do think that such attention given to singling out one religion - and the largest one, at that - as being the cause of all the world's ills is a dangerous precedent to set. Obviously, there are radical elements present in all religions. They need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and they need to be dealt with comprehensively.

how far is this from civil war?

Dutch Muslim school hit by bomb


A bomb explosion has hit an Islamic school in the Netherlands, as tensions run high after the murder of controversial film-maker Theo van Gogh.
Monday's blast in the southern city of Eindhoven caused heavy damage, destroying doors and windows.

Police say it could be a revenge attack for the killing of Van Gogh by a suspected Islamic radical last week.

Mosques in several Dutch cities have been the targets of vandalism and failed arson attempts in recent days.

The Eindhoven explosion - which occurred around 0230 GMT on Monday - was caused by a "strong bomb or explosive", a police spokesman told the BBC News website.

Windows in neighbouring buildings were shattered, he added. No-one was hurt.

Police are investigating possible links between the attack and Van Gogh's killing.

Backlash?

The authorities have been on alert for revenge attacks on Muslims.

Over the past three days attempted attacks against Muslim targets have been reported in the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Breda and Huizen.


Van Gogh directed TV series and wrote newspaper columns
The film-maker was shot and stabbed in Amsterdam on Tuesday.

Several men, all believed to be Islamic radicals, have been arrested.

The Dutch government has vowed to take tough action against Muslim militants.

Police say they found a letter signed by an unknown group on Van Gogh's body containing threats to kill liberal politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Ms Hirsi Ali is a Somali refugee who wrote the script to Van Gogh's controversial film Submission, which criticised the treatment of women under Islam.

On Sunday Dutch police arrested two men who had allegedly called for the beheading of Geert Wilders, a member of parliament, in the name of Islam.

Mr Wilders has said he will set up an anti-immigration party in the wake of Van Gogh's death

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3991547.stm

The truth is that many of us are becoming afraid to a more or less degree. The root of this fear is rational-in fact, there are a very large number of these Islamofacist barbarians who have infiltrated western nations with the intent of doing us harm. In public pronouncements they have made clear their goal. They desire nothing less than the destruction of Western liberal society-- the assassin of Theo van Gogh being a clear example of their method and goal. Part of the note left on van Gogh's body said, "I know definitely that you, Oh America, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Europe, will go down. I know definitely that you, Oh Netherlands, will go down . . ." This Islamist killer is one of many who are working for our absolute destruction.

The real question is how to deal with this threat. Perhaps it is easier to discuss first how we must NOT respond. A pervasive, irrational fear is more dangerous to us than to those who wish us harm. The suggestion of a mass deportation to Arabia is unquestionably premature, as many American Arabs and Muslims also loath the jihadists, and will prove to be important allies in clandestine operations. The opposite response, denial, will also prove to be self-destructive. It is fashionable among some in the United States to deny that we are, in fact, at war. When discussing the enemy, I've had left-leaning friends (Michael Moorean types) say to me with a sneer, "Who are they?," as if the they that flew airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, the they that cut off the heads of innocents in Iraq, the they that murdered Spanish commuters, as if they are some kind of mythical Islamic Sasquatch!

As for Holland, welcome to the nightmare. The Islamists won't be defanged by a change in your behavior. Throwing more Gilders (gee I miss those) at Arafat or the Iranians won't help you. Continued self-loathing over your imperialistic history won't make you safe, only more despicable. Loud denounciations of Israel will only make them loathe you as a coward. Never forget: your enemy is not annoyed at your behavior. He is sickened by your being. You are the infidel, and he knows that Allah wants you dead.

The U.S. election results show that the majority of Americans understand this enemy. A majority of Americans have come to the conclusion that the only answer is to identify the enemy and kill him before he kills us.

So the question is, do the Dutch have the resolve to kill the snake before the snake kills them? Do they?

I understand why Allah wants America to burn in hell, but why does he also want The Netherlands & Europe at large to burn in hell, too? Europe isn't protecting the Saudis or Israelis are they? Europe isn't trying to democratize Iraq. What's the beef with The Netherlands and the rest of Europe? Doesn't the Muslim World just want to be left alone in peace, as bin Laden has repeatedly said?

Europe has been at war with Islam since the first invasions. Europe escaped a full Islamic invasion due to the dying remnants of the Roman empire making a remarkable defense. They eventually fell but they bought Europe time. Time to advance and grow strong enough to resist, and even take back a little that was lost.

Our very nature these days makes us forget this. We have changed, but many of them have not. Our cultures are not compatible.

There's no question that, particularly in the States, the response requires the most carefull of treading.

Don't think for a moment the fact is lost on the nasties that the most effective way to deal with terrorist threats is to circumvent the rights we hold most dear here.

Many could pose a valid arguement that in some small measure they have succeded. Some of the provisions made in the name of homeland security have invariably changed to some degree, for good or bad, the way we live.

The question of course that causes this rift in people is where do we draw the line? Fucked if I know.

I think many, like myself, just feel entirly overwhelmed by the enorimity of the situation. I'm from a generation too young to have an undiluted concept of the magnitude of presence of the fight for Civil rights, or the possible implications of an world event like the 2nd World War.

This will in no doubt be one of the times I will look back on later and see as defining part of my existance.

I cant dismiss ustwo's opinions or any that differ even if I find them somewhat brash, to dismiss is to eliminate options which might be the most dangerous thing of all. Agree or disagree, I don't fault them for an outlook.

If there is such a thing, this is most certainly a no win situation.
Regardless of how it's handled some will have to think the handling was wrong, it's the nature of the beast.

As to the importance that the extremists are a minority, One can't deny that the actions of a minority will undoubtedly change the opinion of the group as a whole to outsiders. The first example that comes to mind is the Klan. Denounce them as we may, those crazy bastards make all us crackers look worse.

Religion by it's nature is one powerfull effect. Mix violence with religion and you get one bad son of a bitch. Look at the problems in Ireland. There's no way in hell you could get people to hate that much over trivialities like money or politics. I'm not religious myself but my family was, love it or loath it, it's foolish to deny the potency of it's effects, either good or bad, on a persons life.

man I'm ramblin', I'll stop there for a bit.
-fibber

in general i agree with powerclown (no. 29)

i find arguments like ustwo's entirely ahistorical, for all their tossing about of "historical" data--it operates at such a level of generality as to be arbitrary. it is the logic of a religious crusade--and at this point i doubt anyone could seriously argue that ustwo has not been advocating religious war the whole time on this thread. the only caveat there is so far is that, according to the post above, there has always been such a war. so he need not call for something that is already ongoing.

the viewpoint is perfectly consistent with what you would find talking to jean-marie le pen or bruno megret or any of a wide range of neofascist organizations in western europe. point for point.

i still maintain that the onus is on the folk from the right to make specific their notion of "extremist"--without some social specificity, it simply becomes a pretext for attacking whomever you do not like.

worse still, it slots directly into the self-confirming logic of the far right in europe (and in the states). here is an idea of how the pattern goes:


you draw a discursive line around a population--say muslims--now they are outside the community of "americans" or "dutch" folk----which in turn gets defined along ridiculous lines--now "they" are muslim and "we" are christian--a set of wholly inoperative terms in the modern world, which is built around the notion of a secular state---are made operational again because of the actions of the right.

from start to finish, this drawing of a line is about something othere than what motivates it--say shrinking job possibilities, a sense of insecurity, wahtever--it is a diversion from the beginning.

next step is usually this: a sequence of actions might follow that make the community you have quarantined feel under direct attack--how do you expect them to react?--usually this action gets reciprocated, or is presented as if there had been reciprocity--now the conflict appears justified on the lines set out by the far right to being with.

and sometimes you land here: someone does something stupid--maybe something like the murder at the top of the thread--and in order to jsutify a murder, makes a letter linking himself to the discourse of "extremism" in general: now all brakes are off, the right logic of "exclude the aliens" finds a foothold.


every step of this is the typical pattern followed by radical right movements in the last century. every step was grounded "empirically" in exactly this way.
this discourse is racist.
it is dangerous.
the only thing that is of any solace seeing how easily folk here fall into it is that none of you have any power politically.


fact is that the category of "extremist" assumes that you cannot define it.
if you invest in the discourse, you have no real interest in defining it.
they are, everywhere and always, where you say they are.

Like I said, it has NOTHING to do with behavior or with foreign policy. It has to do with who they are. It has to do with unalterables. To the jihadists, American, Dutch, French-- it matters not-- because are all evil westerners. The only thing we can do to satisfy them is die. Got it?

That is exactly what the Nazis said about communism. Yeah.

I agree with Dragonlich:
Fight who? Fight what?

Fighting is the exact problem that started it all. Trying to bring any of these issues to a forcible resolution is just going to be more blood.

Ustwo...that's a statement of fear, plain and simple.

No, thats a statement of history.

We have had our heads in the sand too long, hoping they would adopt our way of life in our lands.

Its not going to happen.

I use the term extremist simply because it has a generally accepted social definition. I need to define a subset of an immense group like "folk from the right". I use the term specifically to make sure that I don't include anyone disagreeing with their tactics. If there's a term that would be certain to not to become a pretext for attacking others I'll be all over it.



-fibber

To our great surprise, they did not like being treated as second class citizens, kept in poverty and subjected to racism. How this prevented adoption of Western values is not yet known.

Yes my parents actually live about 15 mins from Amsterdam. I talked to my dad and he could hardly say it without sounding like the devil but he said maybe the Dutch can somewhat see what the Americans are dealing with and see how they feel. I think he is sick of the anti-american crap. Although they may run and hide like spain

Ironic isn't it? After three thousand people are murdered by Islamofacists in Manhattan, the Americans retalliate by destroying barbaric dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ninety percent of Europeans agree that the Americans are the real threat to world peace, and take to the streets in protest by the hundreds of thousands. Bush lied people died, blah blah blah. Then, exactly 911 days after the twin towers fall, one infamous Dutch film-maker, Theo van Gogh, gets his head sawed off by a jihadist while biking through Amsterdam. Suddenly, calls for war against the terrorists are more common in Nederland than stoned tourists in the Melkweg. Go figure.

I hope this means an awakening for the Dutch nation. Please don't go the way of the Spanish.

I'm afraid I don't see this happening, people are lazy and they will look for the easy way out which will be talks and sensitivity training. They will blame themselves more than the people that did the murdering. It will keep getting worse until no one will be able to ignore it, but by then the cost to fix it will be far greater.

ustwo: i'll repost something.

your viewpoint is perfectly consistent with what you would find talking to jean-marie le pen or bruno megret or any of a wide range of neofascist organizations in western europe.

Actually... The Dutch are much more pro-American than some other European countries. And the Dutch actually have troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment. We well not run and hide, we will fight back.

Just like Spain isn't running and hiding, actually... they're very active in the war on terror; just because you think they "caved" in by bringing their troops from Iraq, doesn't mean they suddenly turned into supporters of radical Islam. I may not support their decision or their timing in the matter of Iraq, but I do support their other anti-terror actions. The Spanish have a *bit* more experience in fighting terrorism than the USA, IMHO - or did you forget the ETA?

As for the bombing of an Islamic school - that's not a sign of civil war. Most Dutch people agree that that was simply a very stupid/insane/criminal thing to do. Of course, a reaction by a supposed Islamic terror group saying that "we should stop attacking Islamic sites or else" doesn't help to pacify the situation.

I'd say there's a huge amount of anger and resentment on both sides. As long as idiots keep inflaming the situation, this will only increase. I doubt it'll turn into a civil war at all; if it escalates, it'll turn into a tit-for-tat terror race, with the rest of us caught in the middle.

I am constantly amazed to hear statements like this. This isn't even applicable in the story of this thread, yet it pops up time and again.

It pops up because it is reassuring...that whatever America or the West is doing in the world is just, and if there are objections, they are invalid. If there are violent objections, they are to be crushed.

It takes away any responsibility for thinking about why the extremists have sympathizers, why governments are willing to risk basing terror activities, and why the slums of the middle east have become a breeding ground for militant groups.

Well the Saudi gov't is pro U.S. but the people are not. I think it is the same way in the Netherlands

Comments like this take away from moral fortitude and responsibility.

Just because someone supports a cause that is evil, doesn't make it justifiable. Nor does that allow for a situation to condone state sponsorship of terror. The world is black and white, evil is evil.

This really pisses me off how people here harp and ridicule the American government so harshly and without repent, yet at the same time you actually go and try to sympathize with, and justify what a bunch of amoral sociopaths are doing. It is truly disturbing.

Did they catch who did the bombing?

To me it sounds like something a radical islamic group would do just to help their own cause.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3994539.stm

reactions to the funeral. note the official response. note too that this response does not in any way double the far right response, which you see repeated again and again here, wrapped in a veneer of "common sense"....

Your "constant amazement" may be amusing to you, DJ Happy, but it is not evidence for anything, except for an emotion that you are experiencing. It's hardly the basis for evidence in a debate.

It is believed by Dutch authorities that van Gogh's assassin was a member of a terrorist group with ties to Islamist murderers in Morocco. The note that he left behind (pinned to van Gogh's body with a knife) was a clear call to jihad, meant as a rallying cry to those who are working for the destruction of western civilization. If you wish to read the note, I've posted part of it above. The entire thing can be found on various sites, and in a number of news stories.

If you have evidence that these jihadist barbarians are after something less than the end to western society, please present it here. I'm open to whatever evidence you have.
:thumbsup:

I worry about how they will react. I think a lot of europe is very strange about thier loyalty to thier country. I had an Italian friend who said the only time the country is united or patriotic is during the world cup. They care more about thier region than thier country. This is very evident in Spain, go to Barcelona and you will not see the flag of Spain often but the flag of the region. Why do people get confused about whether it is Holland or the Netherlands? Because people from Holland say they are from Holland and not the netherlands. I am rambling but it is something to think about

I think this is indicative of your mindset. You appear to have already decided this "war" must, and is probably beginning, to take place.

Most of your evidence of this war are anecdotal stories that could be related about any high tension ethnic area.

The solution to the problem, as I see it, is to give it time for assimilation to occur. In the US, muslims have assimilated remarkably well for a religion that many would like to paint as constantly calling for America's demise. There has not been a single American muslim charged with attacking America in its homeland with the possible exception of the Mohammed/Malvo sniper attacks. And the sniper was clearly a nutjob. American Mosques have vandalized, Muslims have been killed for their religion, mosques have been bombed, in America, and America is clearly not in a "war" with its own muslim citizens.

I think the Bush doctrine is elegant with its simplicity. If a non-democratic country cannot control problems that extend beyond its borders, then someone needs to step in. The trouble is that our government appears to focus only on Islamic Terrorism, and ignores Terrorism in the many other forms it appears in

So it is our fault that they want to kill us.
I get it now! :rolleyes:


Do you have any economic statistics on the arabic immigrant sector of the US workforce? I can tell you from my experience that most of them are well paid, well educated and hard working.

This is a european discussion, if memory serves. Problems with non-integration and systemic poverty are an issue there... America's race problems are just as severe, but configured somewhat differently. I'm also referring to the under-development of arab nations and the effects of colonialism.

No. Not what i'm saying by a long shot.

We've managed to have a forgien policy that makes them by comparison, look a whole lot better to the desperate masses than they have any right to. Their ability to recruit has been enchanced by our missteps and inattention. Remember the Shah of Iran. We got to have a pro-Western government there...at the price of having the whole country go off the cliff. Remember Iran/Iraq war? We contained Iran. At the cost of giving Saddam WMDs and munitions. Remember the House of Saud? We get a western friendly government...but the people are being fed Whabbism, a dangerous perversion of Islamic doctrine that breeds terrorists. Those faults are now costing us lives...a situation that i for one, believe to be rather urger.

How is this different from the US, where people are proud to be from Texas, for example? :)

I'm sorry, but that last statement is just plain wrong. The name "Holland" comes from the historic region of that name, which just happened to be the richest area of the Netherlands. Over the centuries, the Netherlands and Holland became pretty much synonymous. When I say I'm from Holland, it's precisely because of that reason, not because I feel some sort of connection to my region. Perhaps this is different for the Spanish, but typically not for the Dutch. Okay, maybe for those in the southern part of the country, but they're almost Belgians anyway. ;)

(If you want to compare it to something: if you are from the United States, you are also from America. Officially, an American could also be someone from Canada, given that they're from North-America, the continent.)

Fair enough. You know better than i do. Where do you live in the Netherlands. I am from Texas but my parents just moved over there to i think Vassinar (I probably didn't spell that right)

That's probably "Wassenaar". :)

I live in Hoorn, a city north of Amsterdam. Nobody here tried to burn anyone or anything yet, though... Strangely enough, it seems to be concentrated in the south.

Although there was this long, boring incident in the Hague today, where supposed extremists threw a friggin' handgrenade at policemen trying to storm their house, injuring three (all are alive, luckily).

We saw the resulting siege on live television, and I can assure you that 8 hours of "no, nothing's happened yet" gets pretty damn boring. At the end, they arrested two people there. People were kinda expecting a repeat of that raid on terrorists in Madrid, where the house was blown up, but nothing serious happened. Well, except for that hand grenade...

Hey, Dragonlich,

If I ever make it to Amsterdam, want to hook up? :D

Ha Ha you can't use Texas as your example Dragonlich, we're a weird breed. When I went to England last year, a guy in the group of ppl we were drinking with asked where I was from. I of course responded Waller, Texas, every Englishman there at the table bust out laughing. I asked why and one told me that "Whenever a yank tells you where he's from, they all say "The States" "America" etc.,but it never fails, if that yank happens to be from Texas, he will ALWAYS say Texas, and usually tell you the tiny town too."

bit off topic I know but it still cracks me up.

-fibber

More fuel for the fire:

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.ph...ews/dutch.html

The International Herald Tribune

For Dutch, anger battles with tolerance
By Craig S. Smith The New York Times
Thursday, November 11, 2004

AMSTERDAM Anger toward the Netherlands' Muslim community percolated among the crowd that gathered outside the funeral for the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was killed by an Islamic extremist a week ago.

The public debate over how conservative Islam fits into Europe's most tolerant, liberal society had already become a no-holds-barred affair before the killing of van Gogh, who had publicly and repeatedly used epithets against Muslims. But his killing has now polarized the country, giving the rest of Europe a disturbing glimpse of what may be in store if relations with the continent's growing immigrant communities are not managed more adeptly.

The anger is such that for the second time in two days an Islamic elementary school was attacked Tuesday, this time in Uden, part of what Dutch authorities fear are reprisals after van Gogh's killing. The authorities said that Muslim sites had been the targets of a half-dozen attacks in the past week.

In apparent retaliation, arsonists attempted to burn down Protestant churches in Rotterdam, Utrecht and Amersfoort, the police said.

The attacks have scratched the patina of tolerance on which the Dutch have long prided themselves, particularly here in their principal city, where the scent of hashish trails in the air, prostitutes beckon from storefront brothels and Hell's Angels live side by side with Hare Krishnas. But many Dutch now say that for years that tradition of tolerance suppressed an open debate about the challenges of integrating conservative Muslims.

Jan Colijn, 46, a bookkeeper from the central Dutch town of Gorinchem who was at the funeral Tuesday night, complained that the Netherlands' generous social welfare system had allowed Muslim immigrants to isolate themselves. Because of that, "there is a kind of Muslim fascism emerging here," he said. "The government must find a way to break these communities open."

Another man, who declined to give his name, was more succinct: "Now, it's war."

For many years, such criticism of Islam and Islamic customs, even among Dutch extremists, was considered taboo, despite deep frustrations that had built up against conservative Islam in the country.

Many here say that began to change after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, when the Netherlands, like many other countries, began to consider the dangers of political Islam seriously. The debate fueled an anti-immigration movement and helped propel the career of the populist politician Pim Fortuyn, who was murdered by an environmental activist shortly before national elections in 2002.

By all accounts in the Netherlands, Fortuyn's murder removed any remaining brakes on the debate surrounding immigrants.

"After Pim Fortuyn's murder, there were no limitations on what you could say," said Edwin Bakker, a terrorism expert at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. "It has become a climate in which insulting people is the norm."

He and others said the public discourse, even among members of government, reached an unprecedented pitch and included language that went far beyond the limits set for public forums in the United States.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of Parliament and one of a handful of politicians threatened with death by Islamic extremists, publicly called the prophet Muhammad a "pervert" and a "tyrant." She made a film with van Gogh condemning sexual abuse among Muslim women, who were portrayed with Koranic verses written on their bare skin.

Van Gogh himself was one of the most outspoken critics of fundamentalist Muslims and favored an epithet for conservative Muslims that referred to bestiality with a goat. He used the term often in his public statements, including a column he wrote for a widely read free newspaper and during radio broadcasts and television appearances.

The cumulative effect made van Gogh, a distant relation of the painter Vincent van Gogh, a kind of cult clown on one side of the debate, and a reviled hatemonger on the other.

The debate became so caustic that the Dutch intelligence service, AIVD, issued a report in March warning that the unrestrained language could encourage radicalization of the country's Muslim youth and drive individuals into the arms of terrorist recruiters. The agency has warned repeatedly in recent years that such recruiters are active in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

While only about 20 percent of the Netherlands' estimated 900,000 Muslims practice their religion, according to one government study, officials say as many as 5 percent of Muslims in the country follow a conservative form of Islam. Most are from the Netherlands' Moroccan community, which has its roots in the Rif, an impoverished, mountainous Berber region in the north.

There are about 300,000 people of Moroccan descent in the Netherlands today, and the intensified anti-immigration debate has alienated many of them from Dutch society and, many people argue, has also helped fragment the Muslim community.

Jean Tillie, a professor of political science at the University of Amsterdam, says that the debate has broken down a network that connected even the most extremist Muslim groups to the more moderate voices within the Muslim community. He cited an Amsterdam government advisory board that brought together all kinds of Moroccans and fostered communication and cohesion within the Muslim community.

"Those groups participating didn't agree with each other, but they met together with the collective mission of advising the city government," he said.

The board was abolished a year ago, he says. He claims that funds for other ethnic organizations have shrunk and outreach policies have also been abandoned.



At El Tawheed mosque, considered by many people to be the epicenter of extremism in Amsterdam, Farid Zaari, the mosque's spokesman, argues that pressure from the debate has hindered the Muslim community's ability to control its radical youth.

"If we bring these people into the mosque, it is possible to change their thoughts, but few mosques dare to because if you do, you're branded," he said.

Dutch media reports insist that van Gogh's killer attended the mosque, and though Zaari says the mosque has no record of his ever being there, he said that political leaders and the media should encourage the mosque to reach out to the community's radical youth, rather than stigmatizing it for doing so.



The mosque was previously associated with a Saudi-based charity, Al Haramain, which American and Saudi Arabian officials accused earlier this year of aiding Islamic terrorists. The mosque has since severed its ties with the charity, but more recently it has been criticized for selling books espousing extremist views, including female circumcision and the punishment of homosexuals by throwing them off tall buildings.

Several legislators have called for the mosque to be shut down, but under the Dutch constitution it is difficult to do.

Zaari admits that the Muslim community was slow to respond to the fears within Dutch society. "We didn't feel it was our responsibility to bridge the gap, but now, with the murder, the gap has gotten wider," he said. "All of us want to begin a dialogue now, but the language of the political right is too extreme, and that's preventing discussion," he said. "We all have to cool down and be careful what we say."

The problem is how to bridge a gap that has yawned dangerously since van Gogh's murder.

The Amsterdam Council of Churches published paid notices in some Dutch newspapers pledging solidarity with the Muslim community. But the government's response has been to promise more money for fighting terrorism and stronger immigration laws.

"Islam is the most hated word in the country at this point," said Bakker, the terrorism expert.




IHT Copyright © 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

Have you ever been to Japan?

You ever been to Manchuria or Korea? They usually have something to say when people call the Japenese isolationist.

I wasn't claiming that no isolationist country had done poorly.

I was pointing out that the generalization did not apply in every case.

SIDETRACK:The Japanese were weak and backwards until they woke up when Perry showed up with his battle ship train.

Now back to the comming war:
Yep, no problem in Europe, its just all a few radicals......no culture war looming....

this is ridiculous, ustwo.

is this board a space that you use simply to run out the most superficial possible understanding of complex situations as if superficiality was the goal of some parlor game?

is it too much to ask that you elaborate an actual analysis?

the request applies to this:

to this:

the list goes on.

i assume that you cannot possibly believe this, that you post this kind of line here as an act of provocation. on the other hand, there is the possibility that the reverse is true, and you actually believe what you post, in which case i (for one) would like to see, for once, arguments in support of it rather than soundbytes in their place. because all you are post are interpretive argument without the slightest presentation of justification for it. you act as though there is no need to make the actual argument. well, there is.

Roachboy, I must disagree with you, or otherwise admit to my own confusion about what your position is in regards to the subject at hand. It is not Ustwo who has offered argument without evidence.

This thread is full of news reports which support his contention that Western civilization is engaged in a real war with a determined enemy who wishes our destruction. Quotes from the jihadist leaders abound proving that our demise is their intent. Usama bin Ladin and followers have been very plain spoken with regards to their goals. If you which to read their various pronouncements, do a google search.

With respect, and with no intention of personal attack upon you, I must posit that it is your position (if I understand it correctly) that lacks evidence.

what the general position is--i'll route this through the situation in france, which i know better--you have the rise of far right political movements like the front national in response to problems to do with the status of the nation in the context of the e.u. (among other things, but for simplicity's sake, and because once again i post while on the run). the basic dynamic of their politics in this regard is to force a definition of the nation around religious/ethnic criteria by using the question of nroth african immigration and--in particular--the persistence of islam within these populations--how it has worked in france is that the north african population is defined as an internal other, with religion and race being the wedge. the result of this move (as it circulates publically, through the press coverage of actions, through the pluralism of coverage) is that france, say, gets defined reciprocally--france is white and catholic--the question of french identity gets re-articulated on those grounds. in a situation characterized by an increasing defunctionalization of the nation-state, this argument resonates because it speaks to anxieties that operate at a number of registers (economic, social, etc.) by condensing them around matters ot identity articulated in these terms.

it looks like something parallel is happening in the netherlands, and that it forms a kind of context for thinking about all this--in this reading, the agressor discursively is teh far right. they are the parties who draw the lines, they are the parties who set up the kind of "culture clash" view.

i do not think anything about what ustwo has been posting is adequate as an explanation for what is happening--instead it is simple recapitulation of the logic particular to these neofascist groups as if that logic explained the situation in general.

that is an outline of my position.
what i find fascinating is how easily american conserrvative ideology dovetails into what is understood as neofascist ideology in france (again becaue i know the situation there best).

Roachboy it really doesn't matter what your views are on this issue. The issue will force its hand sooner or later, and the declining populations of Europe will soon face a crisis. At some point there will be enough fear of the balance of power shifting that full scale violance will erupt, and the 'neo-fascists' will become the dominant parties of Europe yet again. They are already gaining sizeable vote shares, and that will only continue to grow.

What I offer is a last ditch attempt to avert such a crisis by forcing the issue now. I do not expect Europe to follow as the European leaders are currently to weak willed.

good post roachboy, i think you cut to the heart of the discussion...

so you've described the way that the european conservatives frame the discussion... but i'm still unclear as to why you consider their model to be either inadequate or unjust. what if what it means to be french actually is to be a white catholic who has a penchant for cheese and wine? i know that is a gross trivialization of the french way of life, but from my brief visits to france it has been made clear to me that the north african population in france (look to marseilles for a prime example) does not understand or identify with any concept of what it means to be french in the way the historically traditional inhabitants do. the divide between the traditional french and their north african immigrants goes much further than religion and skin color. a country is far more than its geographic location for the people who live and work in it. i understand what you're saying about france... i'm not sure i grasp your objection to it.

if you object to framing the discussion around cultural/religious/traditional grounds... in what other way would you understand the situation? if those criteria are irrelevant, then you would soon end up with a france-shaped morocco on your hands. surely you can't fault any frenchman for considering that undesirable.

hopefully this side-discussion about muslim immigrants in france has something relevant to say to the situation in the netherlands.

roachboy wrote
"i do not think anything about what ustwo has been posting is adequate as an explanation for what is happening--instead it is simple recapitulation of the logic particular to these neofascist groups as if that logic explained the situation in general.

that is an outline of my position.
what i find fascinating is how easily american conserrvative ideology dovetails into what is understood as neofascist ideology in france (again becaue i know the situation there best)."

Your main objection seems to be that the French neofascists may have stumbled upon the truth about the religious and cultural nature of the conflict we now face. Look, a pig may be able to sniff out a truffle, but that doesn't make it a culinary expert. During the 1940s, German fascists supported euthanasia and abortion, as does the Dutch state today. Does that mean that the current Dutch government is fascist? Hardly. I could point to areas where the American left and Pol Pot were in agreement. That doesn't mean the American left favors genocide.

I hope you will respond with evidence of why the fight against these Islamofacists should not be viewed in terms of a clash of culture. I for one, cannot understand how it can be viewed in any other context.

Roachboy et al.

I'd say most Dutch people and most Muslims want to live in peace. I'm pretty sure most Muslims even share a lot of our values. It's not the mainstream that's the problem, generally; it's the extremists on both sides that fuck things up for the rest of us. A problem when dealing with this particular situation is that most of the extremists have no problems whatsoever of blending into the mainstream crowd. That makes it nigh impossible to find them and stop their lies. One solution is to talk to the moderates, and hope they'll betray/change their extremist brothers, one solution is to kick them all out. The former solution is the way of political correctness, the left, the liberals, etc - it takes a long time, and doesn't appear to work because of that. The latter solution is the direct "easy" approach, which appeals to a lot of people because of it's supposed simplicity and timespan.

Ustwo and others also seem to feel that the problem with Islam in the west goes deeper than that. They seem to say that there is a fundamental difference between the Islamic culture and the European culture, a difference that is so great that it is (nearly) impossible to bridge.

I feel that there might be such a fundamental difference; if it is there, it's religion, and the history of that religion. Europeans have been moving to a secular society since the middle-ages, whereas the Muslims have not. The difference may seem small, but after centuries of cultural development, it's become huge.

It may be possible to find common ground, as we are all fundamentally humans, but that takes time. We might need to compromise on some of our most deeply-rooted ideas, something that's hard, if not impossible. For example, when we look at the position of women in society, it's kind of hard to compromise - either she's equal to men, or she's subordinate. I can't see how there can be a compromise over that... The same goes for many different subjects.

Oh, I can!

- One can see it in the context of a power struggle. Muslim states are less powerful than European ones, and they want to be able to boss us around. Muslim extremists fit into this picture because they believe Islam is superior to Western culture.
- One can see it as a class struggle, in the Marxist sense. Muslims in the West are generally low-paid, and they want to fight their evil oppressing bosses.
- One can see it as a battle between good and evil, where one side is out to destroy the other. That's probably the extremists' viewpoint.

I could probably make up a few others... ;)

A question to dragonlich, I've just read some more informations about Theo van Gogh and do you think he was a fair dealing, constructive critc of islam?
From what I've read o far I would call him a racist asshole (he called Muslims "goatfuckers" and Mohammed a paedophile). But perhaps this was just his way of "artistic provocation".

Of course this would in no way justify the murder, but I'm just wondering.

BTW: The latest movie "submission" can be downloaded here:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2655656

Well, just for the record, Mohammed was a paedophile.

Damn! I believe any discussion of van Gogh's views is a subtle admission that well, maybe this "racist asshole" deserved to have his head sawed off! Afterall, he was a "rightwinger." Theo van Gogh may have offended many a Muslim, but if they choose to live in a western liberal society, being offended is simply something they will have to live with. That's the nature of our culture. That's what it means to be tolerant. And this gets to the very heart of our discussion. The radical muslims do not want to assimilate. Instead, they demand that their host culture change to reflect their beliefs.

Democracy DEMANDS open debate and the expression of even the most unpopular ideas-- how many times have you heard that from people who are defending "art" that insults and mocks Jesus, Mary, Christianity, and other religious and cultural icons?

Mmm...fire quenching gasoline. Nothing else like in the world.

" I believe any discussion of van Gogh's views is a subtle admission that well, maybe this "racist asshole" deserved to have his head sawed off!"

Any discussion? The proper way to honor someone who died in part because of his outspoken views is to NOT discuss those views and the effect of their espousal? Now, call me crazy, but that doesn't make a whit of sense.

I agree that one can "see" the conflict in any of the ways you have postulated. But which hypothesis most closely matches with the situation on the ground. How do the terrorists view it? What do they say their goals are? What do their actions reveal?

Well, what would you consider a guy that took a nine year old girl for a wife?

You are right, Martinguerre, I have overstated my case. I just hope no one here believes that van Gogh's murder is a good reason to limit free speech. Any person who believes in civil liberties should make it clear to one and all that those who use murder in response to unpopular speech will be treated with the full wrath of the law. I am reminded of the artist in Holland who put up a sign that said "Thou shall not kill" as a memorial to van Gogh. "But because the head of the nearby mosque complained to the police that this was 'offensive' and 'racist', the cops came and sent in city workers to sandblast the mural. A local journalist, Wim Nottroth, who wanted to protest against this by standing in front of the mural was arrested." This kind of response sends the message that we have no confidence in our own civil values. It says we can be intimidated.

Like I said
Of course this would in no way justify the murder
I'm just wondering what kind of "critic" he was.

This is no different than arguing that "that slut provoked me into raping her."

As for the "we kept them in poverty" hypothesis, it simply doesn't hold up under careful examination. The world's best known terrorists, Usama and Yasser (RIP) are multimillionaires. The 19 Jihadists who hijacked the planes on 9-11-01 were from middle and upper class families. Then there's the actual research:
"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin." For the entire article go to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...05-terror.html

I like that challenge. Here's the flip side:

Would someone please demonstrate that these quotes are not accurate?

“They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper … Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn (Jews) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush.” (Sura IV.89)

“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.” (Sura IX. 5-6)

"Fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5)

"Murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123)

They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected
(Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one
another). So take not Auliyâ' (protectors or friends)
from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to
Muhammad SAW). But if they turn back (from Islâm),
take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find
them, and take neither Auliyâ' (protectors or friends)
nor helpers from them (Koran 4:91 )


You will find others that wish to have security from
you and security from their people. Every time they
are sent back to temptation, they yield thereto. If
they withdraw not from you, nor offer you peace, nor
restrain their hands, take (hold) of them and kill
them wherever you find them. In their case, We have
provided you with a clear warrant against them. (Koran 8:60)

If it wouldn't justify the murder, why would the type of critic matter?

because i'm curious.

curious about how dragonlich sees him and I want to if my information is correct.
Is that so difficult to understand?

No, I think I understand perfectly. I doubt that anyone else is having difficulty understanding where you're trying to go, either.

interesting responses yesterday...thanks...i'll post a more detailed reply when i have some more time to devote to it....

whatever i will say will presuppose an attitude toward the idea of nation---toward nationalism--at bottom that will shape everything else. if you take seriously the idea of nation as an formation that is like an object, that is determinate, therefore necessary both in itself and as a framework through which you think about collectivitie or communities or identity, then you will think maybe one way about how nationalisms come to define themselves; if you do not see nations in these terms, you will think another. this is the political core of the question.

whatever conversation is either prompted of snuffed out by a more detailed response will turn on this question anyway--it will be the point across whihc positions may be unable to talk in the same register to each other, so i figured i might as well say it up front.

He was not a fair dealing constructive critic of Islam. He also wasn't a racist asshole. He had a tendency to go waaaaay overboard with his columns, but that was his role - he was the court jester, so to say. He was equally brutal to Christians, Jews, and basically anyone that deserved to have some sense slapped into them. It is interesting to note that nobody besides Muslims ever threatened him with anything but a lawsuit...

If you look closely at his columns, movies, and other works, one sees the deeper meaning. When he blasts Muslims, he does so for a reason - he wants to show their hypocracy over certain central issues.

The Mohammed/Paedophile comment was used at a time when certain (Dutch) Islamic clerics were claiming that Western people were degenerate because of our sexual livestyle; Homosexuality was a disease, that sort of thing. Van Gogh replied with his comment about Mohammed, to show that the supposedly holy father of their religion was in fact (by modern standards) a paedophile... That makes the core of their culture just as degenerate, or more so, as ours was supposed to be.

So yes, that was indeed "artistic provocation". Many people who knew him personally (including Muslims, by the way) called him friendly, open, caring and extremely funny; not a racist asshole at all, in fact. It just seems that many Muslims are unable to accept any criticism of their religion at all, no matter how minor. And of course, the Dutch are notoriously brutal and blunt; he was a prime example of that culture. :)

ok...this may be late in the game of this thread.

north african folk were welcomed into most western european countries through most of the period of heavy industrialization to deal with labor shortages primarily at the assembly-line level of production. they also had the advantage of not participating easily in already existing unions, so there was a political motive from the outset. and you see something of the pre-history of current stuff in this: in france, algerian workers formed seperate political organizations that played an important role in the earlier phases of the anti-colonial movement in algeria: the political focus of these organizations was algeria; the politics that informed it drew heavily on what was going on in the french left in general.

the pre-history is in the seperation. i do not know exactly how it came about: if it was the french unions and/or political organizations that refused to mobilize north african workers, of if it was north african workers who chose to form seperate organizations: either way, the political seperation was evident in the choice of "home" as an orienting point.

keep in mind that alot of these folk were and are citizens.
but they maintain ties, personal, political, religious, to north africa.
and then there is the question of ethnicity.
and the association of maintaining a connection with family history through teaching arabic.
none of these features is necessarily a sign of a refusal to integrate into the nation-state. rather they can be seen as a particular frame of reference within which the process of integration unfolds--a kind of syncretism in operating that includes these elements. you can easily see it either way.

the preamble to this is meant to state that the far right did not invent the distinctions between the modes of integration particular to north african communities and those elaborated by other groups in parallel situations. rather, they took advantage of them and reframed them in a particular way. which required a political argument be floated and that it resonate for these elements to be framed as indices of non-integration. that is what, starting in the early 1980s and continuing today, the front national did.

what is the problem?

first there is nothing necessary about the front national's argument. they chose for particular political purposes to route their definition of frenchness through categories of religon and race. they did it in order first to use for tactical advantage tenisons between communities generated by the implosion of the labor market that drew most north african workers to france in the first place. it resonated in part because the ideology recoded (misdirected) resentments about the consequences of economic reogranization. it turned outcomes of this economic reorganization into matters of religion and race.

second, it presented an idea of nation that appeared stable and more or less trans-historical. this functioned as reassurance in a situation where not only were there economic problems being generated by the processes associated with globalizing capitalism at the local level, but more importantly the notion of the nation-state was itself coming under significant pressure as a function of the e.u. this can be seen as setting into motion a crisis of identity at some levels. the front national ideology is an attempt to react--i use the word deliberately--to this anxiety, and to defend the notion of nation precisely by shifting how it is understood away from any historical role into the realm of the transcendent.

one way of seeing the consequences of this is that it shifts the question of national identity into a register that is not open to feedback loops. it then also builds a logic of racism, covered by arguments concerning religion, into the centre, and uses these elements to generate a sense of inside and outside "the nation"....it situates these racist elements by linking them to a pseudo-history of the nation which reinforces the tendency to eliminate feedback loops and writes the race/religious war dynamic into the center of how an entire far right community defines itself.

once people start to act in the basis of this way of thinking, you get a situation that looks alot like what you saw in germany during the 1930s with reference to the jews getting under way. you can see entire histories of integration wiped out, the sense of being-part of a national community erased on the basis of race and religion. you would maybe understand if this would prompt a defensive reaction on the part of the folk who now find thsemvles written out of any sense of belonging to the space where they live. but any defensive reaction can be interpreted as confirmation of the racist/religious war dynamic the right itself puts into play--the right forces the debate into this area, uses it for its own political ends--it generates responses from the communities it attacks--it uses these responses to reinforce its intitial argument--and because the premises of the argument have functioned to eliminate feedback loops up front, it sets into motion an entirely self-confirming dynamic.

is the far right's ideology "true"? does it speak about nation in "accurate" terms?
no. what is "true" in a political context? what matters is how compelling the arguments presented are: how they resonate with people---but this resonance needs have no relation to accuracy--it can just as easily speak to a vague sense of unease or dislocation. it can speak to ways of thinking that understand religious belief as teh central set of dispositions around which a sense of being-in-the-world is articulated--which means that arguments about nation would resonate because of formal symmetry with religious arguments, rather than resonating because the content of those arguments is "correct"---so no, this kind of nationalism is not "accurate" is not "true"---what makes it dangerous is the process outlined above" the centrality of a particular way of defining the nation that sets in motion a self-confirming logic of racism and religious dsicrimination set up in a framework that eliminates dissonant information by eliminating feedback loops altogether, if possible.

it is a dangerous, dangerous ideology. it is very close to american conservative ideology. except that in the states, you have no residual left that functions to name it neofascism. here, it is common sense for many. and that is terrifying.

Film at 11
 

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2655656&refsite=6721

This is his film

A small update:
- The guys arrested in the Hague the other day (with the grenade throwing) included two *DUTCH* converts to Islam. Turns out they and their friends wanted to kill Hirshi Ali (the woman that made the "Submission" movie with van Gogh), and Mr. Wilders (A rather right-wing member of the Dutch parliament, known for his criticism of Islam).
- There have been a few attempts to burn Mosques and Islamic schools (one school was burned to the ground), and a few attempts to burn churches.
- There is more and more proof that most recent Islamic terror strikes (including 9-11) were planned in Spain, and there is a definate link between terrorists there and people recently arrested in the Netherlands (including van Gogh's killer).
- The Dutch secretary of Justice announced that he wants to make more use of the existing Dutch laws against Heresy (which hasn't been succesfully used for decades!), to protect religious people from insults. The Dutch secretary of Integration is angry at those comments, and says that would be akin to rewarding Muslims' reduced tolerance. Other Dutch people, including comedians and artists are protesting. I'd say most Dutch people disagree with the comments.
- The Dutch secret service and police fucked up dramatically before the murder of van Gogh. The secret service didn't bother to keep an eye on the murderer, even though he was a known extremist, linked to other terror suspects. The police didn't bother to check the source of threatening letters send to various newspapers, and van Gogh himself.

and no, there's no civil war yet.

*GASP*!!!


ISLAM! THE RELIGION OF PEACE!?

/end sarcasm

As I mentioned before- maybe there is a problem with the religion as a whole...

I'd say that the problem is a bit more complex than that. There's a problem, but that problem is with the fundamentalist, backwards version of Islam.

I hate terrorists as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to blame every single Muslim for the actions of a few extremists. I do blame them for not speaking out against these people, and to an extend for not stopping them.



By the way, there is more and more evidence of links between terror groups all over Europe. Everyone seems to be connected in some way... This is indeed a sure sign that we're dealing with a real, tangible enemy here, not some abstract concept ("terror") at all... (And that means we're not going to stop terror by trying to understand them, or by stopping our "hostile" actions.)

what kind of connections? letters exchanged? email traffic? i am not sure that communications between "groups" amounts to anything organizationally. i have studied revolutionary marxist groups in france for years and know from that context whereof i speak...

just saying.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_...arms%20Germany

Perhaps the rest of Europe is waking up too Dragonlich, for your sake, and Western Civ, I hope its sooner than later.

Such finatics really hurt their cause more than they help.

Closing borders to immigrants isn't a good way to deal with this problem. That's like imposing protectionist tariffs to suppress economic competition. Everyone ends up losing.
Greater effort in compelling them to acculturate might be a more viable solution.

in what way could you compell them to adopt a culture?

there is a higher res version of the video at www.suprnova.org under the movies section.

very disappointing that this has to happen in NL. i do think it takes a special kind of zealot to kill in this manner. sure all religions have their problems, but the jihadists are causing some particularly serious problems. i never hear much about any muslims against terrorism group (there has to be more than a few by now)...it would be great if a large scale muslim org made meaningful progress. the gov'ts can only become more invasive or restrictive, barring some genius idea.

speaking of ideas, now the reputed capital of tolerance is considering a revival of blasphemy laws.

maybe nothing will happen, but this seems to be pandering to the murderers.