Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Political Animals on at a special time | Main | McCain's First General Election Ad »

Friday, March 28, 2008

Liveleak pulls Fitna

From LiveLeak:

"Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff, Liveleak.com has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.
This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.
Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high."

For now, the english version of the film can still be watched on Google Video. Or here, courtesy of Brussels Journal, where it is more likely to remain available:

Posted by Kalim Kassam on March 28, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5517fd5fa8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liveleak pulls Fitna:

Comments

It's also on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/user/vinnyproductions

I saw the film when it first was on LiveLeak and didn't think much of it. It did not tell us anything we did not already know. It also seems like something that radical Islamists should like rather than hate. It merely showcases their "accomplishments" and describes their objectives in their own words. What's not to like from their POV?

What people are reacting to is not the film, but to the filmmaker. Radical Islamists know he hates them and wants them dead, so they hate the film as a proxy for hating him. Moderate Muslims and their supporters hate the film because they hate Wilders' seeming belief that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. People who share Wilder' views of Islam like the film by proxy for liking him or his views.

But the truth is that the film is neither good nor bad, neither a sharp challenge to radical Islam nor an offensive misrepresentation of either radical or moderate Islam. It's pretty banal by any measure.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-28 11:10:09 PM


The Scarlet Pimpernel ain't what he used to be.

Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-03-28 11:35:03 PM


Fact Check

You are a complete ass.

You have no idea what you are talking about or you are a hater of the Free West.

Which is it?

Posted by: John West | 2008-03-28 11:48:51 PM


Of course totally unaddressed by Wilders is the issue of responsibility for the existence of 50 odd million Muslims in Europe. Why (and who encouraged) the mass migration in the first place?

Kevin MacDonald:

"Political correctness in the West cannot be maintained without constantly ratcheting up the social controls on individual thought and behavior. Western societies will experience increased ethnic conflict. Their governments will increasingly be obliged to enact draconian penalties for deviations from political correctness. And probably also to “correct” ethnic imbalances in social status and political power—much as the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires of old were forced in their declining years to constantly bargain with rising ethnic pressure groups. Democracy, representative government, and freedom will be likely casualties.[...]

The response of the Left has been to entrench a culture of “political correctness” in which expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans are proscribed. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League seek draconian penalties against such expressions by Europeans—and only Europeans. Many European countries and Canada have savage legal penalties that enforce intellectual conformity on these issues."

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/080327_muller.htm

Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-29 12:08:50 AM


It's beginning to look like within every so-called "moderate" muslim/islamist is a radical ready to pounce. The film bares the truth and it hurts. It interferes with their attempt to continue to root themselves in our Western Democracies and cause unrest.

Islam is not a fit in the free world now and never will be. They require their own state ruled by their all-encompassing militant faith. They will be free to fight among themselves as they are doing everywhere they exist and have since the Stone Age which they still live in.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-03-29 5:50:49 AM


Fact Check,

"Radical Islamists know he hates them and wants them dead, so they hate the film as a proxy for hating him. "

How have you determined that it isn't the other way around?

"He knows radical Islamists wants him dead so he hates them and makes the film as a proxy to show his hatred."

I'm pretty sure the radical Islamists want me dead and I haven't made any films about them.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 5:55:22 AM


Fact Check,

I agree with you that the film shows nothing new, but does show it in quite a dramatic way.

You are wrong, however, when you say that Wilders wants death for muslims. In fact, he doesn't mind muslims as individuals, instead it is radical islam he dislikes and considers a threat to the liberal democratic society (aka "the west").

It would also be good to see and hear the "moderate majority" (of muslim) occasionally condemn radical islam and defend, and propagate for, the principles of a liberal democratic society.

Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2008-03-29 7:07:40 AM


h2o273kk9: "How have you determined that it isn't the other way around?"

I haven't. The two statements you put in quotes not only can both be true, I think they both ARE true. Radical Islamists hated Wilders before he made the film, so their hatred of him cannot be BECAUSE of the film. But their hatred of the film CAN be because they already hate him, and I think it is. His desire to make the film certinly seems to be because he hates them and wants them dead. So both statements seem true enough to me.

"I'm pretty sure the radical Islamists want me dead and I haven't made any films about them."

Well, if by that you mean that you think they want dead all people who hate them and want them dead, then I agree. But that only goes to confirm my point that their hatred of Wilders, like their hatred of you, is not base on what films either of you have made.

But if by that you mean that you think they want all westerners dead, I disagree. Remember John Walker Lindh? How about David Hicks? How about Adam Gadahn? All three are westerners who were embraced by Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Radical Islamists would not want you, me, or Wilders dead if we sincerely converted to their interpretation of Islam and started living by it. Just as Wilders, you, and I would no longer want them dead if they sincerely converted to a liberal democratic way of thinking and started living by it.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 7:25:59 AM


Johan: "You are wrong, however, when you say that Wilders wants death for muslims. In fact, he doesn't mind muslims as individuals, instead it is radical islam he dislikes...."

Ummm. Yes. I didn't say he "wants death for muslims". I said, "Radical Islamists know he hates them and wants them dead". And about moderate Muslims I referred to "Wilders' seeming belief that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim". The key is his "seeming" belief. There are many who listen to what he says and see the film who will come away from it believing that he believes that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. This is different from the claim that you have attributed to me that it is his REAL belief.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 7:33:25 AM


Fact Check,

"Radical Islamists would not want you, me, or Wilders dead if we sincerely converted to their interpretation of Islam and started living by it."

This is the flaw in your thinking. I don't want to convert. I'm an atheist. Now what?

I guess they do want me dead after all and I've made no mention of hating them or wanting them dead. I just want them to stop wanting me, you, or anyone who disagrees with them...dead.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 7:39:15 AM


h2o273kk9: "This is the flaw in your thinking."

Sorry, but I don't see this "flaw" you refer to. I agree with everything you just said.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 7:58:23 AM


Fact Check said

"Radical Islamists would not want you, me, or Wilders dead if we sincerely converted to their interpretation of Islam and started living by it."

You didn't answer my question. I don't want to convert. Now what? What do I do to stop them from making me dead despite my refusal to sincerely convert and living by the tenents of Islam?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 8:03:19 AM


Fact Check said, "Radical Islamists would not want you, me, or Wilders dead if we sincerely converted to their interpretation of Islam and started living by it."

What if we changed that sentence to

"Radical Christians would not want you, me, or Wilders dead if we sincerely converted to their interpretation of Christianity and started living by it"?

It's a preposterous statement.

The WHOLE point, Fact Check, is why should any of us have to convert to the Islamofascist interpretation of Islam? Why should any of us, under fear of death otherwise, have to acquiesce to a faith-system we not only find unacceptable but deplore?

Give your head a shake. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE for the Islamofascists' violence, death, and destruction because I refuse to accept and live by their interpretation of Islam>

Posted by: batb | 2008-03-29 8:19:59 AM


The bottom line is, with the pulling of the film "radical islam" has once again won another round against the weak west.

Show me a place in the world where the left is not only in full retreat, but apologizing on behalf of "radical islam".

The only place they are getting their ass kicked is in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we all know how long it would take the left to get out of Iraq, and in turn Afghanistan, handing "radical islam" not only a military victory, but a moral victory that would in the end cause massive loss of life.

Posted by: deepblue | 2008-03-29 8:30:45 AM


h2o273kk9: "You didn't answer my question. I don't want to convert. Now what? What do I do to stop them from making me dead despite my refusal to sincerely convert and living by the tenents of Islam?"

Well, there might be nothing you can do. Just because you want them to stop does not mean there is something you can do. But one possible approach some have advocated is trying to promote an Islamic reformation or enlightenment. That's a very big task that cannot easily or quickly be done. And it is hard to know how much outsiders to Islam can help in that. Another approach is to try to fight them into complete submission, but so long as any lone nut can get his hands on weapons, terrorist acts will remain more than theoretically possible. Another approach is to remember that radical Islam is not new - it has been around as long as Islam has - and to remember that through most of its recent history we have been able to live on the same globe without fighting (outside the middle east, anyway), so there is a possibility of seeking containment without necessarily subduing them.

What alternatives are possible? What is the best path to try? Opinions differ.


batb: "why should any of us have to convert to the Islamofascist interpretation of Islam?"

I don't think any of us should. Did you think I was suggesting that? You're a brainless moron if you did.


"Why should any of us, under fear of death otherwise, have to acquiesce to a faith-system we not only find unacceptable but deplore?"

I don't think any of us should. Did you think I was suggesting that? You're a brainless moron if you did.


"I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE for the Islamofascists' violence, death, and destruction because I refuse to accept and live by their interpretation of Islam"

I don't think you are. Did you think I was suggesting that? You're a brainless moron if you did.

Thatnks for coming out, bat-man!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 8:46:12 AM


You have no idea what you are talking about or you are a hater of the Free West.

What free west? There's nothing free about a society of surveillance and laws of "compliance".
The "free west" is quickly becoming a security state, like Londonistan.
Well I guess I shouldn't say there's "nothing" free in the west. You do have the choice of picking the blue or the red Jetta don't you?

The people who worry me the most aren't in the middle east, they're in Congress and Parliament.
THOSE are the guys removing our freedoms...in the name of freedom. Kind of ironic isn't it?

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-29 9:03:52 AM


Fact Check,

"Well, there might be nothing you can do. Just because you want them to stop does not mean there is something you can do."

That doesn't stop them. Why is there nothing I can do to stop them from wanting me dead but they have the option of trying to kill me if I don't convert?

Seems pretty one-sided to me. A recipe for disaster if you ask me. Please try harder to provide options. A cornered animal can become quite vicious.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 9:13:46 AM


h2o273kk9,

You are not usually this sloppy a reader. Maybe bat-man's myopia is infecting you too? Let's review the evidence. I said:

"Well, there MIGHT BE nothing you can do."

You replied:

"Why IS THERE nothing I can do..."

Any questions? Maybe you should refer them to bat-man now.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-03-29 9:46:25 AM


Fact Check

"Well, there MIGHT BE nothing you can do."

Are you sure?

There might be nothing they can do to make me convert. So they have decided I deserve to die instead.

Why might there be nothing I can do to stop them from wanting me dead but they have the option of trying to kill me if I don't convert?

Will you at least allow me the option of making a movie showing their inability to recognize your words of wisdom? There might be nothing they can do to make me convert.

Perhaps that will stop them. It's worth a try unless, of course, you oppose such efforts.

Do you oppose such efforts?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-29 10:27:44 AM


deepblue

"The bottom line is, with the pulling of the film "radical islam" has once again won another round against the weak west.
Show me a place in the world where the left is not only in full retreat, but apologizing on behalf of "radical islam".

You are absolutely correct. Its pathetic that we are told on one hand that "They hate our freedom" and that we must carry the battle to them...over there. Yet at the same time we are prosecuted by the HRC thought police where it comes to speaking out against them. We are also not allowed to defend ourselves personally on any level, and that we should leave that job to a government completely incapable of protecting us at all...ever...anywhere. Even here in Canada they are allowed to advocate our demise, but if any one of us stood up like the Mullah's in that film and said the kind of things they are saying we would be jailed. Its "doublespeak" at its finest. What we need is a return to individual liberty and personal freedom. A return to a strength in the people, more so than government, and that, by itself would do more to deter crime of all sorts...including terrorism. I'm amazed at the willingness of people to hide behind the government's skirts for a little security. A security that is an illusion at best. Its just pathetic.

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-29 11:04:05 AM


Frankly, who in their right mind would want to live according to any "interpretation of Islam" given the extremes concocted from what is written in the Koran, their guide to living hell on earth and exacting terror and death to non-believers to afford them 72 virgins and NOTHING for women who are mere breeding tools and afforded no respect.

Does anyone have a different interpretation of Islam and the "Prophet" Mohamed?

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-03-29 2:36:51 PM


JC, All good points, however, as MacDonald suggests, its not individualism that will advance your cause but ethnocentrism. It is the Bloc Quebecois that gives French Canada its power, not individual Quebecers. It's Sikh ethnocentrism that resists the deportaion of a fellow Sikh. It's Jewish ethnocentricity that furthers the efforts of the CJC. What's good, is what's good for the particular group. Individual freedoms, as Mill pointed out cannot exist in a heterogeneous environment.

It also must be recognised that it was not Muslims that advocated for the HRC or criminalised speech in 318. It was not Muslims that pushed to disenfranchise the founding people by removing their right to freely associate. In addition, it was not Muslims that advocated for open borders and led the push to change the national origin rules the originally governed immigration in Canada. They are current beneficiaries, however, did not start the party.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-29 7:47:18 PM


"It is the Bloc Quebecois that gives French Canada its power, not individual Quebecers."

I don't agree with you DJ.
The Bloc represent Quebecers who wish to give themselves a country appart from Canada so therefore, they don't give any power to "a French Canada". Its the federal that gives "power" to "french Canada" so they can keep control over more brainwashed people. The other groups you're citing are proud Canadians. Not the Bloc and their followers. I know, I'm one of them.

Posted by: Marc | 2008-03-29 9:01:31 PM


The point contained in "Fitna" is one that all of you except Liz missed. The whole point of the film is that Islam, the religion, carries within it the prescription for radicalism and violence. That was the point of juxtaposing quotations from the Koran with the teachings of the imams and the pictures of violence. As long as the Koran is the basis of Islam this will continue. While there are good teachings within the religion. The same thing is true of the Old Testament although I can't find the same prescriptions in the New Testament. It still must be said that we as Christians have had our moments of terrorising the innocent and that is to our eternal discredit.

Posted by: DML | 2008-03-29 11:38:32 PM


A subtle difference Marc. The position was not framed as "a French Canada", but just French vs English. The other groups cited are not aligned with the founding peoples of British Canada. Like the French, their allegiance is to there own group. The point is English Canada must develop the same allegiance to their own ethnic group or they will not survive.

By the way, what's up with the QMJHL and Roy?

Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-29 11:41:27 PM


The point that still remains unanswered is why 57 million Muslims are in Europe in the first place?

Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-29 11:44:34 PM


DJ

You do have a good point in that it is group mentality that gives certain groups strength.
I don't like it but your point does have some merit. I personally feel that when group rights outweigh individual rights we have already left moral law and moral society behind and are at the whim of the strogest group interests. Group rights is in and of itself an oxymoron. Because if rights do not pertain to each individual then they are not rights at all. And naturally we don't as a people enforce our rights but we do settle for government granted priveleges. All in all the radical muslims gain a victory every time our rights are diminished, they win. And our own MP's simply tow the line. What a great bunch of noble representatives we have.

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-30 8:40:39 AM


And further to....
The CBC was saying last week that Canada plans to spend 500B on Afghani villages to provide them with clean water and electricity. Nice. But wouldn't it be cheaper to just move them over here and give them each an 800K house, two cars and just put them on a pension right away so they don't have to work in a culture they don't understand? I'm sure we could adapt to them as well, right? Lets see, 500B divided by 33 million Canadians, that comes tooo.....

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-30 8:49:17 AM


The point that still remains unanswered is why 57 million Muslims are in Europe in the first place?

Posted by: DJ | 29-Mar-08 11:44:34 PM

While I agree with many of your points, where does the 57 million come from? Are you including Turkey and Russia? There certainly are not 57 million Muslims in the EU which seems to be the implication.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-03-30 8:53:55 AM


Just one thing DJ,
French Quebecers is not an ethnic group but an idea that regroup many who wish to protect the same language and common culture. Most of my separatists friends don't have any particular color, religion or french names. In fact, you're a fool if you think you can find one Native of a French Quebecer who's not a Metis, or with Irish/Scotish roots.
It's certainly not a race we wish to protect, but a common culture.

*

"By the way, what's up with the QMJHL and Roy?"

Nothing really - just hockey fights as we love it and the people involved have been punished by the league. The problem now is that the government felt they got to be involved...
What can you expect from a place where Hockey and State sleep in the same bed.


Posted by: Marc | 2008-03-30 9:19:00 AM


My Last post should read 500 million...not billion. ooops!

Posted by: JC | 2008-03-30 11:27:22 AM


JC, As Mill shows ethnocentrism is complementary not contradictory to individualsim. The premise being for individual freedoms to exist, the group must be homogeneous. The reason being is that inherent in individual rights is the ability to discriminate. If you rent a house and for whatever reason, or no reason at all, you decide not to rent to person A it's not really a problem until person A becomes a Sikh and Sikhs are significant lobbying force vis-a-vis your government.

Marc, Fool or not it would be very interesting to do a genetic assay of Quebecois to see just how closely they do cluster. IMO, it it doubtful that there is a huge admixture to the founding people in Quebec from Scots/Irish and especially Native populations.

Stig, The figure is from Wilders film. However, you're probably correct.

http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_islam.html

Posted by: DJ | 2008-03-30 4:03:15 PM


Ah.. the old Muslim tactic... "STOP CALLING US VIOLENT OR WE WILL KILL YOU ALL!!!!"... seems about right

Posted by: Tom | 2008-03-30 9:16:05 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.