Thursday, November 11, 2004

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

My comments at http://www.di2.nu/blog.htm?20041111a

Francis Turner (ip:81.249.34.231) 11 November 2004 - 12:02 uur

I doubt that Theo Van Goth really infuriated his killer personally, I wouldn't compare the mindset of the Islamofascist hitmen (or spies) to the mindset of mosque arsonists. The later might have been only temporally out of control, possibly willing to comunicate and maybe even regretful. The Islamists on the other hand surely are much more firm in their convictions and they won't respect you enough to even listen to you.

Indiscriminately burning down muslim targets is surely foolish and bad, but trying to communicate with Jihadis and addressing Islamofascism as just another form of urban violence also is foolish if honorable.

Your well meant appeals are random noises in the ears of terrorists. The destruction of mosques might be highly counterproductive for the ideal solution, the peaceful integration of the growing muslim minority in western society (I therefore suspect delinquents that were xenophobic from the beginning and now just see an opportunity to act under the shelter of general outrage), but unlike your words it is something that at least gets the attention of our islamist enemy and his sympathizers.

The terrorists have to be brought down not persuaded. Good thing the Dutch government starts to act accordingly.

christian (ip:213.23.157.134) 11 November 2004 - 13:34 uur

What an insulting piece of pseudo-intellectualism on the part of Index!

Not knowing a whole lot about Theo Van Gogh's history, I will take their description of him at face value. OK, so he liked to ostentatiously court controversy. Big deal, lots of artists, and dare I say academics and politicians do this.

Average people court controversy every day. Have you ever talked sports with someone who keeps rattling on about how his team is going to deliver a beating to anyone who gets in their way. Have you ever suspected that said person is just hoping that you will jump in on the other side of the conversation, so he can REALLY get started?

Now, you may wish that said sports fan would just shut up and watch the game. You may even quit on your half of the conversation, hoping that the sports fan will quietly get the message, or at least pipe down due to a lack of stimulus on your part. None of that means that you are entitled to shoot the obnoxious sports fan, and leave his body in the gutter.

There are also other interpretations of Theo Van Gogh's behavior. If for example, if he would "seek out the most extreme and ignorant opponents for public battles" maybe it was because he wanted to point out extremism and ignorance? What a concept! If he spoke out, even crudely, on issues of immigration and cultural clash in the Netherlands, does that mean he invented those issues?

These issues were bound to explode someday. In reality it is probably better that they do so now, even if it did cost Theo Van Gogh his life. Ten years from now, the Islamist elephant in the room that everyone was trying so hard to ignore would be that much larger and more dangerous. Now that the issues are out in the open, a real debate can begin on how to best address them.

Was Theo Van Gogh the best-of-all-possible spokesmen for freedom of speech? Definitely not. Was he an opinionated lout? I really wouldn't know. Did he fully understand the personal danger to him? All evidence seems to indicate that he didn't.

None of that excuses his public execution by the jihadi set. Nor does it mean that he planned his death as some sort of performance art exploration of civil liberties martyrdom, done out of some sense of his own self-importance.

Steven Kraft (ip:24.6.101.118) 11 November 2004 - 13:58 uur

@Christian, I am puzzled. You seem to be responding to things that were never said here, at least not by me. The 'infuriate' part is something I am criticizing above, it's a quote from another website. And for the terrorists to listen to me, I first would have to make an attempt to talk to them, which I didn't. Nor do I seek to 'persuade' them. My beef is with the ordinary Dutch, both native and Muslim. Some of them are acting rather foolishly at this moment and I haven't yet given up hope on them (plus, it really helps lower my blood pressure to write about my frustrations ;-) Besides, the article at http://www.zachtei.nl/2004/11/10/000481.html isn't exactly friendly on those groups). The strong stance of the Dutch government on terrorism has been endorsed on this website quite a few times already.

@Steven: Well said. And no, he didn't understand the danger to him. Listen to the song about Van Gogh and take a look at the translation I prepared at http://www.zachtei.nl/2004/11/11/000488.html His final quote in the song is very poignant.

Arjan (ip:82.161.93.35) 11 November 2004 - 14:09 uur

Arjan,

I just stumpled over "and that goes for killers as well as mosque arsonists", and therefore wondered about your views about the actual murderer, though son to an immigrant apparently a trained jihadist. If I misunderstood your intentions, I'm sorry. I don't know the situation in the Nederlands, in Berlin (that is in my Neukoelln neighborhood) you have close to zero ordinary immigrants that are favourable to Islamofascism. If that is different in Amsterdam you have a point in talking to muslims, I thought it would be futile because I saw Islamist terrorism as an operation that is planned and organized outside Holland and outside the bulk of the immigrant community.

If I offended you, I'm sorry, I'm always thankful for your informations and only occansionly rash with my conclusions.

christian (ip:213.23.157.134) 11 November 2004 - 14:25 uur

@ Christian: Ah, then you misunderstood, or I wasn't clear enough, or both ;-)
What I meant by 'That goes for killers as well as mosque arsonists' that is that people who are offended by the killing of Van Gogh, shouldn't resort to violence themselves, or they make the same mistake: they ignore certain ground rules of Western society. As I wrote before at http://www.zachtei.nl/2004/11/08/000455.html : 'If we start taking bombs to the streets, what will distinguish us from the butchers that slit throats? After this is all over, and it will be one day, I'd like there to be a bit left of the civilization and the ideals we claim to be defending.'
I think we should play by the rules ourselves if we want to retain the right to be offended when a radical Islamist killer ignores them, and butchers a director. That means leaving the application of violence to the government, and they are thankfully not pussyfooting around these days.

Arjan (ip:82.161.93.35) 11 November 2004 - 14:44 uur

This phony tolerance that consists in not daring to say or do anything that might offend someone else - particularly a "minority," and more particularly particular minorities who stomp their feet, threaten, and actually carry out their threats when affronted - has been growing in strength and noxiousness here in the U.S. for a long time, too.

It used to be that comics could make fun of anybody. And people knew the difference between poking fun and vicious racism or intolerance. A good example of one who still knows what real humor is would be Chris Rock. He makes fun of everybody, including blacks. Especially blacks - after all, he knows them best. But in general, comics are afraid to offend certain groups.

Comedy - even obscene, blasphemous, disrespectful comedy - serves a useful function in society. It allows us to let off steam, to hear what others think of us, and in some cases probably defuses resentments that left unspoken might cause great harm.

What troubles me is the worldwide Muslim insistence that they and their prophet should be exempt from this rough-and-tumble marketplace of ideas and humor. They claim that Mohammed was "the last prophet," the Koran is the "uncreated word of God," etc. Gee, where have we heard things like that before? Didn't we in the West fight bloody battles with ourselves in order to have the right not to be forced into public and private hypocrisy in the face of the universalist claims of the Church?

So where do Muslims get off coming to our countries and demanding that we pass blasphemy laws to protect their prophet? If I can have the right to disrespect my own religious tradition and watch movies that poke fun at Jesus, like, for example, "Dogma," where do Muslims derive the arrogance to think they can impose their piety on me? Let them go home if they can't stand it here.

The real trouble as I see it is that for years, nay, decades, to raise even the smallest question about immigration policy in Western Europe and America (including and especially Canada) has been declared out of bounds. Any concerns are deemed tantamount to "racism" or "fascism" and those who bring them up are shunned and lumped in with people like Le Pen.

Well, as grievous as Theo van Gogh's horrible death is, I hope it wakes people up to the fact that non-racist, non-fascist Europeans have legitimate worries over the uncontrolled immigration of vast numbers of unassimilated and unassimilable people, a significant subset of whom wish to remake Western society in the image of the countries they fled.

Faster, please.

Cato the Elder (ip:65.244.99.5) 11 November 2004 - 18:28 uur

What troubles me is the worldwide Muslim insistence that they and their prophet should be exempt from this rough-and-tumble marketplace of ideas and humor.

This is the crux of the problem. Everyone wishes that they's been in "The Life of Brian". Real men want to make "The Life of Ahmed".

johnny dee (ip:62.254.128.6) 11 November 2004 - 19:00 uur

Comment