Maker of religiously critical film shot dead

[slotty]

Wasn't it a film about how women are abused in islamic society,treated as second class citezens etc.I think the film did have a valid point to it. Muslims only got the arse about it because of the way he showed how the koran totally envelopes muslim females.He had them covered in koran quotes that were visible under their transparent clothing thus symbolising their opression by the koran and its followers.

 

[slotty]

Just been reported that a bomb has gone off at a muslim school in Eindhoven in the Netherlands. Don't think anybody has been hurt.Seems like a lot of mosques have been vandalised since Van Gogh was murdered as well. Surprising, i know Eindhoven very well, they are typical laid back dutch, but i suppose you can only push poeple so far. Thin end of the wedge?

 

[Bells]

Perhaps the Muslim fucks who get "very, very very offended" should move back to the fucking desert, or we should hunt them. I mean, I find there little head rags really, really offensive.

Lovely. Your reaction is just the same as that of people who murdered that director. While you may find turbans offensive, I'm sure that most human beings with an ounce of intelligence would find you and your words offensive. And having said this, no matter how offensive you may be to the human race, you still do not deserve to be murdered. That is the point of this thread I guess.

 

[slotty]

Aren't turbans a sihk thing Bells? Come to think of it, what is the muslim headress called?

 

[everneo]

It seems like all the people here who defend the murder of van Gogh, or try to justify it, seem to argue that we watch our back's, cause belief is stronger than morality, law or decency.

The film maker who mistook freedom for displaying koran in the most offensive manner did not think about morality or decency. Only the law gives him the protection, that is not enough, for someone decided to ignore it knowing the consequences.

In which case, if offending a certain minority simply with words is enough to provoke the minority to react violently and barbarically, should not that minority be removed? Obviously the minority cannot cope with modern, democratic civilization, and therefore should not be enititled to any of its rights.
Perhaps the Muslim fucks who get "very, very very offended" should move back to the fucking desert, or we should hunt them. I mean, I find there little head rags really, really offensive.

For you, freedom is a matter of your convenience not a matter of fairness. If the law does not prevent racist actions & murder you would certainly kill all the muslims just because you don't like them. Talking of freedom,morality & decency, eh?

 

[Bells]

Aren't turbans a sihk thing Bells? Come to think of it, what is the muslim headress called?

Yes sihk's do wear turbans. Muslim men are known to have some form of headwear, sometimes referred to as a kalansuwa, which is a turban wrapped around a cap, but I think that's worn by religious elders... I'm not too sure. But if you look at countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, turbans are also worn. The kaffiyeh, such as the headwear worn by some men in the Palestine (eg Arafat), Jordan, Saudi Arabia and some of the other Arab Persian Gulf States, and while not a turban, the material appears to be draped over the head and tied with a cord, usually black from what I've seen.

 

[everneo]

Just been reported that a bomb has gone off at a muslim school in Eindhoven in the Netherlands. Don't think anybody has been hurt.Seems like a lot of mosques have been vandalised since Van Gogh was murdered as well. Surprising, i know Eindhoven very well, they are typical laid back dutch, but i suppose you can only push poeple so far. Thin end of the wedge?

So, you suppose you can only push people so far, beyond that you can expect bombing, vandalizing in a free society but nothing of this sort should be from a muslim for whatever reason ? Long live freedom, your freedom.

 

[slotty]

Yes sihk's do wear turbans. Muslim men are known to have some form of headwear, sometimes referred to as a kalansuwa, which is a turban wrapped around a cap, but I think that's worn by religious elders... I'm not too sure. But if you look at countries such as Iran and Afghanistan, turbans are also worn. The kaffiyeh, such as the headwear worn by some men in the Palestine (eg Arafat), Jordan, Saudi Arabia and some of the other Arab Persian Gulf States, and while not a turban, the material appears to be draped over the head and tied with a cord, usually black from what I've seen.

Thanks :m:

 

[path]

So, you suppose you can only push people so far, beyond that you can expect bombing, vandalizing in a free society but nothing of this sort should be from a muslim for whatever reason ? Long live freedom, your freedom.

By using your line of argument the recent attempts to blow up 2 mosques are justified because of the murder of Van Gogh.

 

[everneo]

If you justify that then the whole point of your thread becomes moot. Your freedom is gone with the wind with a stupid film, a murder and a couple of bomb blasts and rioting. Where are the defenders of freedom now?!!

 

[path]

If you justify that then the whole point of your thread becomes moot. Your freedom is gone with the wind with a stupid film, a murder and a couple of bomb blasts and rioting.

Have you actually read this thread? I have to wonder because your responses are becoming contradictory to what you have been arguing.
I have condemned it from the outset you have tried to rationalize it from the outset. If you can rationalize murder because of an opinion then you must also rationalize blowing up a mosque because of an action (murder) YOU EVERNEO NOT ME simply follow your logic and this is where it leads.

Where are the defenders of freedom now?!!

Right here M8

 

[path]

One of you original replies

That may be fine with western audience. Will not work for folks for whom nudity is 'unmodest'.

It is also well known that with muslims such silly symbolism would not work but would evoke a different response ranging from strong protest to killing. The purpose of conveying the message (if that was his intention) is already lost since he misfired, it hit muslims at a different but more sensitive place. He could have done that in a different manner.

Just a few changed words and Voila' your defense of blowing up mosques

That may be fine with middle eastern audience. Will not work for folks for whom murder is much more than immodest.

It is also well known that with dutch such violent action would not work but would evoke a different response ranging from strong protest to blowing up mosques. The purpose of conveying the message (if that was his intention in murdering Van Gogh) is already lost since he misfired, it hit the dutch at a different but more sensitive place. He could have done that in a different manner.

Nice world you are working on there everneo.

 

[everneo]

Have you actually read this thread? I have to wonder because your responses are becoming contradictory to what you have been arguing.
I have condemned it from the outset you have tried to rationalize it from the outset. If you can rationalize murder because of an opinion then you must also rationalize blowing up a mosque because of an action (murder) YOU EVERNEO NOT ME simply follow your logic and this is where it leads.

The only contradiction i see is in the posts from you guys. That is, a murder because of a portrayal could not be justified but that murder can be expected to evoke any response above the law of the land. See, how deep your concern for freedom and law of the land?

 

[path]

The only contradiction i see is in the posts from you guys. That is, a murder because of a portrayal could not be justified but that murder can be expected to evoke any response above the law of the land. See, how deep your concern for freedom and law of the land?

You have a reading comprehension problem. Here is a little test then.

Show me where I say that don't be shy quote away, but read first so you don't waste any more of our time.

 

[everneo]

What's your direct comment about the bomb blasts and vandalizing, path ? Because you jumped in the middle and quoted my replies to others and now claimed your innocence. Are you following the thread or just picking on my posts?

 

[path]

What's your direct comment about the bomb blasts and vandalizing, path ?

A second ago you were saying my posts were contradictory and now you are asking me for my opinion? My reaction to the mosque bombings is the same as to the murder. It is wrong and should not be tolerated.

Because you jumped in the middle and quoted my replies to others and now claimed your innocence.

This sentence is confusing could you try and clarify it some?

Are you following the thread or just picking on my posts?

We are in a discussion thread I am responding to your commentary that is how this works.

 

[everneo]

A second ago you were saying my posts were contradictory and now you are asking me for my opinion?

I said 'you guys'. Did you read the posts of Roman and slotty, i quoted?
Instead of commenting on their posts you choose to find 'contradiction' in only my posts!

My reaction to the mosque bombings is the same as to the murder. It is wrong and should not be tolerated.

Well, then my posts are not directed at you.

This sentence is confusing could you try and clarify it some?

Still you want me clarify?

We are in a discussion thread I am responding to your commentary that is how this works.

Care to respond to fellow 'freedom' fighters' comments?

 

[path]

I said 'you guys'. Did you read the posts of Roman and slotty, i quoted?

Show me where slotty says murder or mosque bombing is right, thanks.
Show me where roman says murder or mosque bombing is right, thanks.
Roman posted an angry reply the sharp end of it is this

Perhaps the Muslim fucks who get "very, very very offended" should move back to the fucking desert,.

Here he simply says "the muslims who justify or rationalize murder for an opinion they find offensive should leave." in a rude way. If you can't abide by the rules of the land get out. I may not agree 100% with this but I have less of a problem with this than with your rationalization of murder

or we should hunt them. I mean, I find there little head rags really, really offensive.

I think he is being dramatic to make a point about your and others reasoning that if you say something someone finds offensive then you can expect to be murdered.

Instead of commenting on their posts you choose to find 'contradiction' in only my posts!

Because you have been trying to rationalize if not justify this murder from the outset and THAT I have a problem with.

Still you want me clarify?

If you want a reply, yes.

Care to respond to fellow 'freedom' fighters' comments?

Above

 

[path]

Well, then my posts are not directed at you.

So you agree that the bombings are wrong and should not be tolerated but you don't feel the same way about the murder of Van Gogh?

 

[Gravity]