[mike777]

What is going on in Dutchland?

A member of the Dutch Parliament is threaten with execution by Islamist extremists and her neighbors sue to make her move out the building. The Judge says yes she must move to protect the "Human rights" of her rich neighbors.

Now she may have to move to the USA for safety? The Dutch cannot protect their own or choose not?

This is Nazi appeasement at its worst. If she is a lawbreaker throw her in jail but ban Free Speech or just pass a law so her speech is illegal?

[Gerben42]

Let's stop this now from going into the wrong direction. Obviously you do not have the whole story.

[mike777]

True I may not, I just have the thousand word, page one article here in the USA, what the heck is going on in Dutchland and how can a judge make this silly ruling. If threaten with execution my rich neighbors with 1.3 million dollar apartments can make me move to where? The middle of the North Sea? Where are the street protests, it seems most just want her to shut up/ appeasement and move.

What next Sir Paul McCartney breaking up?

[hrothgar]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is leaving the Dutch paliment to join the American Enterprise Institute. The AEI is a very political right wing think tank that actively promotes the whole "Kulture Kampf" / War of Civilizations view of the World. Its entirely possible that the authors of the article that you read had an ax to grind (on one side or another).

My understanding of the events is the following:

The Dutch are tightening down on illegal immigration. When Ayaan Hirsi Ali applied for asylum she falsified elements of her application. While this has been known for some time, there have been some changes in the political climate in the Netherlands. Supposedly the review of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's immigration status is related to this and not her outspoken position on a number of issues. (its worth noting that the new hard line immigration policy is being pushed by Ali's own WD party and not her political opponents)

As for the judge's ruling: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is believed to be actively targetted for assassination in much the same way the Theo van Gogh was. I can easily see arguments that Ali's presence could constitute a danger to her neighbors. Ali has deliberately and provacatively established her self as a high profile target. There are costs associated with this...

[mike777]

Yes, all of these facts were in the article, nothing new there but thanks. Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night.

[pbleighton]

"Yes, all of these facts were in the article, nothing new there but thanks. Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night."

Yes, the U.S. picks a fight with the entire Muslim world, and there are serious repercussions thoughout the world.

Shocking!!!!!!!!!

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 18 2006, 02:41 AM, said:

Yes, all of these facts were in the article, nothing new there but thanks. Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night.

Big words when you're not the one who might need to pay the price.

Lets be completely clear:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has gone out of her way to provoke Islamic extremists in the Netherlands. In doing so she has exposed herself to great personal risk. That was her choice to make. (For what its worth, I agree with almost all of her criticisms)

However, she doesn't get to make that choice for her neighbors
They do not want to take that same risk. So be it.

I'm not going sit here in the comfort of my living room with virtually zero chance of seeing my apartment building fire-bombed or catching a stray bullet and condemn someone else for deciding that they want to protect themselves and their family.

Of course, the glory of the modern chicken hawk conservative is that someone else is always the one who will pay the price.

[mike777]

We picked a fight? Good grief get your facts straight. This thinking, not the posters, is just loony. I respect the posters for at least speaking up for what they strongly believe in rather than saying nothing.

I have many close family members in the service and know people who were in the Twin Towers. Appeasment is a strong word but sure seems to fit here for those who made her move rather than fight with their family lives on the line. As I said before there seem to be few "innocent civilians" even in the Hague. But so much for liberal Democratic values when we can just send others away.

But many still believe this is not a war but some "picked fight".

[pbleighton]

"We picked a fight? Good grief get your facts straight."

Here are some facts for you:

We invaded a country which hadn't attacked us, and which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We did this largely in retaliation for 9/11 (whatever we said), which was perpetrated by a splinter group of fanatical thugs, who hated and were hated by Saddam. We have essentially declared war on any Muslim country which has the nerve to disobey our orders. This is picking a fight on a very large scale.

9/11 itself, while horrible and unforgivable, arose from a state of affairs in the Arab world which is in large part attributable to Western policy over the last 100 years (predominantly U.S. policy over the last 50), which kept it in a permanent political infancy by installing and supporting a series of corrupt secular dictatorships. The only institution these dictatorships didn't mess with much was Islam, which became in many countries the only practical vehicle for political dissent. This is the basis for Wahabism (a historically recent phenomenon) and other anti-Western theocratic nonsense. We reap what we sow, and we don't learn from our mistakes. When you are in a hole, stop digging!

According to the British medical journal Lancet, about 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion. If you believe the Pentagon (I see no reason to), the number is 30,000. Either way, that's a lot of death, and a lot of extra motivation AND RECRUITING MATERIAL for the fanatics. You have noticed, haven't you, that Muslim extremist violence has seen a HUGE upsurge since the invasion of Iraq? You think that this is a coincidence?

Open your eyes.

Peter

[mike777]

This post was not about Iraq, I did not vote for it either in any case.
I just am not sure there has been an upsurge of violence compared to when? Comparing a few years is not very meaningful. But are not most people killing in Iraq other Iraq people, maybe not.
History and Cycles of violence is a lot longer than ten or twenty years....Seems alot more violence going back in my History lessons but anyway back to the Hague . Just think if we think these are the peaceful years down the road?

In any event are you saying the USA is mostly if not all to blame? It seems so but.....perhaps I misunderstand.

[pbleighton]

"This post was not about Iraq, I did not vote for it either in any case."

Anti-Western Islamic fanaticism is in large part due to Western policy. The recent huge upsurge in violence is directly due the Iraq invasion. You didn't bring up Iraq directly, but when you make (very heated) reference to current activity Islamist extremists, you really can't separate this from Iraq, however much you would like to.

"I just am not sure there has been an upsurge of violence compared to when?"

Prior to the invasion of Iraq. Hint: Egypt, Spain, London, etc., etc.

"In any event are you saying the USA is mostly if not all to blame?"

People who commit violent acts have responsibility for them.

Countries who commit bad foreign policy which has bad consequences have responsibility for them.

These two statements are not in any way contradictory.

Peter

P.S. Feel free to post things like "Given all these facts it still sounds like Appeasement to me. I guess I am the only one shocked by these facts. Silence is deafening as we go quietly into that night.", but if you do, expect reaction.

[mike777]

Well to get back to my thread.

Does it not shock you when someone speaks out and get kicks out the their home so their neighbors are protected?

I see not outrage, I see no protests in the streets, so .....

[pbleighton]

"Does it not shock you when someone speaks out and get kicks out the their home so their neighbors are protected?"

No, given the circumstances. It does not shock me at all. As Richard said, it is a rational action by the neighbors. They hardly cover themselves in glory, but there are larger forces at work here - OH NO, HERE COMES CONTEXT!!!

Peter

[FrancesHinden]

mike777, on May 17 2006, 11:49 PM, said:

what the heck is going on in Dutchland and

Is there some reason you can't call it the Netherlands? Or, if you are desperate not to give the country its name, Holland (the Hague is in the province of South Holland).

[helene_t]

I have to agree with Mike. Although the niegbours' reaction is understandable, the ruling of the judge is an enigma to me. The fact that her position as a terrorist target is self-inflicted is irelevant: she enjoys the right of free speak (at least, she should enjoy that right). The police must provide adequate protection for her and her neigboirs and if the neighbors are not sattisfied with that, they can move themselves. Btw, the fact that the secret adress of ms. Ali is widely known was caused by a stupid mistake by a police agent.

As for the review of her Dutch nationality,I think she's going to get it back.

As for the question: what's happening in the Netherlands? Well, we used to live in a civilized and well-governed country but since the Pim Fortuyn affaire, our political system has been a joke. Fortunately we have elections next year.

Quote

Yes, the U.S. picks a fight with the entire Muslim world, and there are serious repercussions thoughout the world.

Not shokking at all. But ms. Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such. Some people, mainly Western cultural relativists but also a few religious extremists, hate her for that. Not shokking either, we're used to that. What is shokking is the appeasement by Dutch politicians, media and even judges.

[pbleighton]

"..ms Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such."

No, but the huge upsurge in radical Islamic violence over the last few years was directly caused by the Iraq war.

Peter

[keylime]

The upsurge in violence was NOT due to the war in Iraq. It's been ongoing for decades and just not publicized to the incessant degree as the mainstream crap media has done now. I've seen FIRST HAND unlike most of you in this forum the severity of fanatical feeling. When you're in that situation, it is bluntly us or them - there is no grey area, no time out, no 2nd thought or chances. You blink and hesistate = you're dead on the streets. You don't have time to reason with a mob. You definitely can't persuade them to not kill you because you're "willing to be accepting". That is not at all how this works - the sole purpose of their viewset is to convert the world to their way of thinking, and there are NO exceptions.

Just ask my fellow comrade's family how they feel about this topic, when I had to bury their husband from being killed by a crazed lunatic in the Khobar Towers bombing. Once again, I will state quite firmly and definitively: are we willing to stand up for freedom or submit ourselves to d'hmmitude? I for one applaud quite loudly Ms. Hirsi Ali's courageous stands against brutality and oppression.

I want to ask for clarification on one point that I haven't read in earnest on the thread yet. According to the BBC, the MP in question lied on her application to "escape an arranged marriage", and that she when mentioned for the post she held declared this to be the case and the Parliament at that time voted in approved her in a majority vote.

If this is the actual case, then what the Netherlands has done is nothing short of betrayal of the highest order, and shame doesn't approach the depth of description of the wrong they have committed. The same group of elistists that think that inclusiveness and diversity equals a stronger community is the same set of shallow, symbolic Eurocrats that doesn't want this to happen in their backyards. A case of NIMBYism indeed. Then again, the EU is fast becoming a failure of significant standing...

Yet, it's the same mindset for our immigration debate right now. Folks it's only going to get a lot more testing and difficult as we wrestle with a problem that's been ongoing for 3 decades.

I'll end my thought in this way: Even though I am in the middle of some really challenging medical treatments, I know crap when I see it and hear it, and there's a lot of it flying around this part of the Forums. Get off the high horse and instead of acting in an emotional frenzy, get hard facts for once and actually debate the items instead of reacting to them.

Mike, I, alongside the quiet majority in this country that is of reasonable mindedness, owe you a beer and a thank you. Well done.

[mike777]

helene_t, on May 18 2006, 03:03 AM, said:

I have to agree with Mike. Although the niegbours' reaction is understandable, the ruling of the judge is an enigma to me. The fact that her position as a terrorist target is self-inflicted is irelevant: she enjoys the right of free speak (at least, she should enjoy that right). The police must provide adequate protection for her and her neigboirs and if the neighbors are not sattisfied with that, they can move themselves. Btw, the fact that the secret adress of ms. Ali is widely known was caused by a stupid mistake by a police agent.

As for the review of her Dutch nationality,I think she's going to get it back.

As for the question: what's happening in the Netherlands? Well, we used to live in a civilized and well-governed country but since the Pim Fortuyn affaire, our political system has been a joke. Fortunately we have elections next year.

Quote

Yes, the U.S. picks a fight with the entire Muslim world, and there are serious repercussions thoughout the world.

Not shokking at all. But ms. Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such. Some people, mainly Western cultural relativists but also a few religious extremists, hate her for that. Not shokking either, we're used to that. What is shokking is the appeasement by Dutch politicians, media and even judges.

Yes, I was quite shocked to read this in my paper yesterday.

http://who2.com/ask/annefrank.html
In the land of Anne Frank where so many very brave people took terrible risks under extreme conditions, the Netherlands was and is such an inspiration to my generation in so many ways. I have treasured my visits there.

I hope that very brave country that suffered so greatly in the last Century let alone in the Wars with Spain is not going the way of much of Europe where the attitude "I did nothing so I am innocent" prevails.

[helene_t]

pbleighton, on May 18 2006, 01:41 PM, said:

"..ms Ali did not invade Iraq, she just spoke up against female genitial mutilation and such."

No, but the huge upsurge in radical Islamic violence over the last few years was directly caused by the Iraq war.

Could be. Then again, the Iraq war was caused by the Iraqi oil resources which were caused by the huge biological activity during the carbon age which were caused by fluctuations in the sun's magnetic field which was caused by some general-relativity effect. So why blame the Hague judge(or ms Ali, or Bin Laden, or Sadam, or G.W. Bush, or whomever) when in fact it's all Einstein's fault.

But this is all off-topic. The point is that we used to have freedom of speach in the Netherlands. An unconditional right to speak up as long as you don't incite hatred, disclose military secrets (and a few other exceptions). It's a shame that brave people like ms Ali don't have that right anymore.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on May 18 2006, 03:54 PM, said:

Once again, I will state quite firmly and definitively: are we willing to stand up for freedom or submit ourselves to d'hmmitude?

I love it when the Jesus freaks start preaching about "d'hmmitude"...

As always, a bit of historical context is appropriate: The word "dhimmi" or "zimmi" is the term used to describe a non-Muslim who is living in a Muslim state. Islamic Law clearly differentiates between the rights accorded to Muslim's and those accorded to non-Muslims. Equally significant, non Mulisms are classified differently according to whether they are people of the Book (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) or whether they follow some other religious tradition. The legal traditions surrounding dhimmi arose during the earliest days of Islam and were refined as the religion and the socieities that embraced it evolved. (I'm most familiar with the Millet system which developed during the Ottoman Empire).

Lets be perfectly clear: the notion of "dhimmi" is obviously anti-thetical to a modern secular liberal democracy of the type that we see in Western Europe and the United States. However, for most of its existence Islamic Law granted significantly more rights to minority citizens than any comporable society. I'd be more than happy to compare the track record of Islamic rulers with those of the civilized west. We can start with the Crusades, Albigensian and otherwise, move over to the Reconquista and the Spanish Inquisition. The 30 Years war is always a good time. And, of course, we can wrap things up with the Holocaust.

If we want to restrict ourself to a more contemporary discussion, it might be interesting to compare theocratic tendenacies between the the different Abrahamic religions. They all have a nasty little authoritarian streak running inside them. Personally, I don't see much difference between the Mullah's on the one hand and the Christian Reconstructionists on the other. The Ultra Orthodox Jews are every bit as bad. A pox on all their houses...

For what its worth, I very much buy into the "Clash of Civilizations" model. However, for me the fundamental tension is has nothing to do with Islam versus the "Christian traditions" of the West. I'm much more concerned with the conflict between increasingly authoritarian religions and the modern world.