Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Geert Wilders, the bravest man in Europe.


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#1 Infidel

Infidel

    $$$$$

  • Members
  • 605 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 June 2011 - 07:27 AM

Geert Wilders: "I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands"



Final remarks of Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam, June 1st, 2011

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not I.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.

Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.

We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.

Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.

I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.

I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.

Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.

This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.

My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.

Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands

Franz Kafka said: “one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.”

Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands.

Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.

Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.

Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.

Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation.

Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian regime. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.”

Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.

I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak.

Thank you.

#2 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,077 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 02 June 2011 - 11:52 AM

Geert Wilders may be brave, but he is no great advocate of journalistic freedom.
When he came here to speak last month, one of his first acts was to forcibly confiscate the notes of a reporter (incidentally from the Toronto Sun, a very anti-Islamist daily) and destroy them.

#3 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,509 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:38 PM

Daunce,

I am no fan of Wilders. I believe he is part of the reason it is so hard to fight Islamist hatred and antisemitism.

He tries to make it so that you have to condemn many innocent people if you want to condemn the guilty. This turns the stomach of many, many people who would be more than willing to stand up to Islamist fanatics and Jew haters. They think, "To fight that evil, the main path people are forcing on the world is to become evil myself." I know they think that because I do and I see so many agreeing with me.

Wilders is entitled to his free speech--I certainly do not want to see him in jail, but he is wedded to collective hatred.

That only prolongs the problem.

Getting rid of hatred as a tool of cognition is the only way to end it.

Michael

Know thyself...


#4 Infidel

Infidel

    $$$$$

  • Members
  • 605 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:59 PM

Geert Wilders may be brave, but he is no great advocate of journalistic freedom.
When he came here to speak last month, one of his first acts was to forcibly confiscate the notes of a reporter (incidentally from the Toronto Sun, a very anti-Islamist daily) and destroy them.


That isn't something I knew about, so I have just read up on it. It wasn't Geert who took the journalists notes, it was a move taken by his "public relations officer chairman Ms. G (Gaelle) de Graaff". It seems that she was concerned for security reasons. She was perhaps wrong and inept in what she did, but I can't find any indication anywhere as to whether or not Geert Wilders himself supported her action, or even knew about it (he was in fact giving his talk when the public relations officer did what she did).

#5 Infidel

Infidel

    $$$$$

  • Members
  • 605 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2011 - 05:03 PM

He tries to make it so that you have to condemn many innocent people if you want to condemn the guilty.

In actual fact he does no such thing. If anything, he tries to raise the innocent up to a higher way of being.

#6 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 02 June 2011 - 06:33 PM

Wilders is entitled to his free speech--I certainly do not want to see him in jail, but he is wedded to collective hatred.



And the Muslim Jihadis aren't?

Sometimes the way you defeat your enemies is not only to sink to their level, but even lower. Then you can attack them from beneath. Consider the way we broke the will of the Japanese in the Pacific War. We roasted hundreds of thousands of unarmed women and children. That did the trick. The Brits did the same in Dresden. 60,000 people turned into charcoal briquettes.

In a war there is only one thing that matters - winning it and by whatever means suffice to produce the victory.


Ba'al Chatzaf


אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#7 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,077 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 02 June 2011 - 06:58 PM

Daunce,

I am no fan of Wilders. I believe he is part of the reason it is so hard to fight Islamist hatred and antisemitism.

He tries to make it so that you have to condemn many innocent people if you want to condemn the guilty. This turns the stomach of many, many people who would be more than willing to stand up to Islamist fanatics and Jew haters. They think, "To fight that evil, the main path people are forcing on the world is to become evil myself." I know they think that because I do and I see so many agreeing with me.

Wilders is entitled to his free speech--I certainly do not want to see him in jail, but he is wedded to collective hatred.

That only prolongs the problem.

Getting rid of hatred as a tool of cognition is the only way to end it.

Michael


Michael, I agree with you on this, although I don't think Wilders is motivated by hatred as much as by his feeling that he knows "the truth". He is taking the role of Pope Urban --Urban was reluctant to do it but he sparked the Crusades, on ideological grounds.

#8 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,086 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 02 June 2011 - 07:04 PM


Wilders is entitled to his free speech--I certainly do not want to see him in jail, but he is wedded to collective hatred.



And the Muslim Jihadis aren't?

Sometimes the way you defeat your enemies is not only to sink to their level, but even lower. Then you can attack them from beneath. Consider the way we broke the will of the Japanese in the Pacific War. We roasted hundreds of thousands of unarmed women and children. That did the trick. The Brits did the same in Dresden. 60,000 people turned into charcoal briquettes.

In a war there is only one thing that matters - winning it and by whatever means suffice to produce the victory.

Why war?

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#9 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 02 June 2011 - 07:18 PM

Sometimes the way you defeat your enemies is not only to sink to their level, but even lower. Ba'al Chatzaf


By what means, then, do you rise?

Religion (along with philosophy) is only one facet of culture. Among the others are trade and commerce, language (and literature), rites of passage, politics and status, and gender roles and family.

Are you opposed to monotheism, or Abrahamist monotheism, or Islamic abrahamic monotheism, or shia islamic abrahamist monotheism? Or are you opposed to speaking Arabic or Syriatic or ProtoCanaanite? Or is this about something else entirely?

Myself, I do not pay much attention to specific ideologies. People are individuals to the core and a person will latch on to whatever symbol set expresses their inner natures. Thus, you have Objectivists and Muslims who want ot nuke each other and Objectivists and Muslims who find that reprehensible.

I just finished my first read through of Making Big Money in 1600: The Life and Times of Isma'il Abu Taqiyya by Nellie Hanna. I am now reading through the four-volume corpus of the Cairo Synagogue Geniza translated by Sholomo D. Goitein. Back in 1100 to 1600 AD (500 to 1000 AH or 4700 to 5200 Kelvin), as long as people wanted to make money, everyone seemed to get along. Somewhere along the line we forgot that. Nationalism, Zionism, Islamism, you lose your identity in something bigger than yourself and you lost the ability to perceive another individual as being similar to yourself.


For all of that Geert Wilders stands for the right and necessity of one person to be allowed to speak, regardless - and especially - if no one agrees with him. Like William F. Buckley warning against communism, he may not have his philosophical ducks in a row, but like the geese of the Temple of Juno, he gives a clear warning.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#10 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,509 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2011 - 07:28 PM

And the Muslim Jihadis aren't?

Bob,

Of course they are.

After everything I have written on this board, why on earth would you presume that I don't believe "Muslim Jihadis" are moved by collective hatred?

(By "Muslim Jihadis," I take this to mean violent Islamist fundamentalists, and some not so violent ones.)

As to your "final solution," it's just plain wrong. If you want to win, you defeat the leader(s)--and take him out if possible, not the women and children. This last only works if it convinces the leader to surrender. If not, you get a hell of a lot of pissed off people coming at you without any concern for their own safety, and they will fight to the death.

That's the way it's always been throughout history. Human nature is what it is. I see no need to daydream that it will be different from now on.

Michael

Know thyself...


#11 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,077 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 02 June 2011 - 07:37 PM


Geert Wilders may be brave, but he is no great advocate of journalistic freedom.
When he came here to speak last month, one of his first acts was to forcibly confiscate the notes of a reporter (incidentally from the Toronto Sun, a very anti-Islamist daily) and destroy them.


That isn't something I knew about, so I have just read up on it. It wasn't Geert who took the journalists notes, it was a move taken by his "public relations officer chairman Ms. G (Gaelle) de Graaff". It seems that she was concerned for security reasons. She was perhaps wrong and inept in what she did, but I can't find any indication anywhere as to whether or not Geert Wilders himself supported her action, or even knew about it (he was in fact giving his talk when the public relations officer did what she did).


I've looked it up (again) too. Presumably Wilders, as a champion of freedom and possible martyr, gives his staff guidelines for protecting his security. Seizing a reporters' notes seems rather, well, incontsistent.

Ironically, his visit to Canada was sponsored by the International Press Freedom Society .

Edited by daunce lynam, 02 June 2011 - 07:38 PM.


#12 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 02 June 2011 - 07:48 PM

If you want to win, you defeat the leader--and take him out if possible, not the women and children. This last only works if it convinces the leader to surrender. If not, you get a hell of a lot of pissed off people coming at you without any concern for their own safety, and they will fight to the death. That's the way it's always been throughout history. Human nature is what it is. I see no need to daydream that it will be different from now on. Michael


No, not exactly, Michael.

As Bob pointed out, in WW nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the Emperor surrender because he was a good leader. However, Bob is wrong because the firebombing of Dresden had no affect on Hitler because he was a bad leader. Basically, however, in both cases, once the leaders surrendered, the people gave in, too -- subject to some Neo-Nazi resurgence, of course, or maybe they are not "neo" nazis at all, but only the continued resistence you warn about. Anyway, is not "human nature." Human nature is also apparently for some to go along with the conqueror. History proves that. In modern times, we got resistances because ideas also affect human action. We are volitional creatures.

Miohael, you are right, also, that taking out the leader defuses the masses who motivate him.

The broad statement here is, "It depends." Never having lived among the Tobriand Islanders, I hesitate to say what "human nature" is.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta, 02 June 2011 - 07:50 PM.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#13 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,509 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2011 - 08:07 PM

Miohael, you are right, also, that taking out the leader defuses the masses who motivate him.

Michael,

This is backwards. The leader motivates the masses, not the other way around.

(I'm speaking of crowd action, not personal inspiration.)

There's even a whole area of study called "leadership," and it is devoted precisely to how to motivate followers--partly so they act in harmony as a group.

EDIT: Incidentally, did Dresden surrender after the bombing? Or was the bombing used for propaganda by the Germans? What is the relevance to my point? I'm not all that familiar with it outside of Slaughterhouse Five by Vonnegut. (I'm just now looking at Wikipedia.)

EDIT 2: By human nature in this context, I mean that it is inherent in the human animal to group around leaders. Some members are followers and some are leaders. Once in a while, you get an anomaly and the person is a true loner, but that is an exception, not the rule.

Michael

Know thyself...


#14 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 02 June 2011 - 08:25 PM

Michael(s):

The famous/infamous bombing by the British[RAF] and the US [USAF] of Dresden has been of major interest to me for years.

I found this eye witness account quite revealing here.

And this here.

Adam

Edited by Selene, 02 June 2011 - 08:26 PM.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#15 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 02 June 2011 - 08:28 PM

From the Wiki site:

http://en.wikipedia....ustrial_profile

An RAF memo issued to airmen on the night of the attack said:

" Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also the largest unbombed builtup area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westward and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees, and troops alike, but to house the administrative services displaced from other areas. At one time well known for its china, Dresden has developed into an industrial city of first-class importance ... The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front ... and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.[35]

Edited by Selene, 02 June 2011 - 08:29 PM.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#16 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,509 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 June 2011 - 08:50 PM

... but only the continued resistence you warn about. Anyway, is not "human nature." Human nature is also apparently for some to go along with the conqueror.

Michael,

I think I finally see what you are objecting to. Although I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply that in 100% of all cases, people will turn into angry hoards if you bomb their women and children. My view of human nature is not biased toward such oversimplification.

I agree with you that some go along with the conqueror.

However, the parts of human nature that do not go away are: (1) people get royally pissed when you kill the folks they love, and (2) as I mentioned above, people form groups with leaders and followers.

If a leader does not back down after women and kids have been slaughtered by an enemy, but instead says, "Fight on!", the pissed part tends to stay alive in the hearts of the people who loved them and it impels them to act.

I don't see how that can be denied or called anything but human nature.

Even when there are sell-outs or turncoats for whatever reason, they follow new leaders.

Michael

Know thyself...


#17 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 02 June 2011 - 11:40 PM

For all of that Geert Wilders stands for the right and necessity of one person to be allowed to speak, regardless - and especially - if no one agrees with him. Like William F. Buckley warning against communism, he may not have his philosophical ducks in a row, but like the geese of the Temple of Juno, he gives a clear warning.

I was most interested in what Wilders had to say to Canada and to Canadians, and as it turned out, he had no different message for Canada than for Netherlands: Islam is not a religion, but a philosophy of hate and domination, like Nazism; Canada must bar Muslim immigration; Canada must bar the building of mosques. Canada must bar Muslim education. Canada beware! you are in danger of a hostile takeover. There is no moderate Islam . . .

His London, ON appearance at an invite-only event was sponsored by the International Press Freedom Society and the Canada Christian College's head nutjob, Charles McVety, MCed by Ezra Levant. He spoke at two other 'Signature' IPFS/McVety events, also MCed by Ezra Levant. Wilders also chatted on TV with Ezra Levant. He said there must be a dialogue . . .




Geert Wilders may be brave, but he is no great advocate of journalistic freedom.
When he came here to speak last month, one of his first acts was to forcibly confiscate the notes of a reporter (incidentally from the Toronto Sun, a very anti-Islamist daily) and destroy them.


That isn't something I knew about, so I have just read up on it. It wasn't Geert who took the journalists notes, it was a move taken by his "public relations officer chairman Ms. G (Gaelle) de Graaff". It seems that she was concerned for security reasons. She was perhaps wrong and inept in what she did, but I can't find any indication anywhere as to whether or not Geert Wilders himself supported her action, or even knew about it (he was in fact giving his talk when the public relations officer did what she did).


I've looked it up (again) too. Presumably Wilders, as a champion of freedom and possible martyr, gives his staff guidelines for protecting his security. Seizing a reporters' notes seems rather, well, incontsistent.

This is your second Link Warning this week, Ms Lynam -- please provide context for your addled readers.

Warmington: Freedom should extend to Canadians too, Geert http://www.sunnewsne...510-080815.html

Toronto Sun reporter Jenny Yuen went to airport upon the Dutch parliamentarian’s arrival Sunday for several Canadian anti-Islam speeches and found out that freedom of reporting did not apply to her.

Wilders was in a room spewing out all of his “Islam is bad” mantra when his Party For Freedom “public relations officer chairman Ms. G (Gaelle) de Graaff” not only demanded her notes but also confiscated them.

She then handed them over to another clown named Naresh Raghubeer who later phoned Jenny at 11 p.m. and berated her, followed up with a snotty e-mail saying “in the future, it would be helpful for reporters to understand the security implications of stories they are covering. Last known locations and future locations should not be included unless they are approved or add to the context of the story (with the approval of the subject).

“Second, when items are off the record, it should remain so,” and “third, as I had correct the reporter re the focus on Christianity/Bible Belt, it appears personal bias were already taking the story down a road which was not factual or relevant. Kory Teneyke and Pierre Karl Peladeau should strive for better.”


Ironically, his visit to Canada was sponsored by the International Press Freedom Society

Not too ironic, since the IPFS is not your regular press freedom society. They look only at some of the West and are most concerned with Mooslims. The speech they want protected is Geertish islamic freakout speech. Which is fine, and good on them, but it occurs to me that Wilders has no conception of what will and what won't fly in my country. So insulated was he from an actual 'dialogue' that he never heard anybody speak quiet good sense to him. All of his suggestions for Canada are non-starters. I would love to sit him down with the six or seven muslims from the House of Commons, with Aga Khan, and have Wilders explain to them that there is no moderate Islam in Canuckistan. It just won't wash. It is just not the way things happen in our freedom-loving land, to put restrictions on religious liberties.

-- as for the thread digressions into war, Hitler, nuclear fixes, that is what keeps me reading OL -- the zany side-issues.

Edited by william.scherk, 03 June 2011 - 12:18 AM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#18 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,509 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 June 2011 - 05:49 AM

William,

Europe has had a huge influx of Wahhabi settlers with massive funding from Saudi Arabia. This is the conceptual referent Wilders has and he applies it to all of the Islamic world. Once he sees Islamists, he points and says this is proof.

If Islam only equaled Wahhabism, Wilders would be right. But he makes a conceptual error of assigning the subcategory the status of the main category. That's why his kind of discourse makes it extremely hard to combat the fanatical strains within Islam.

Michael

Know thyself...


#19 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 03 June 2011 - 06:47 AM

As to your "final solution," it's just plain wrong. If you want to win, you defeat the leader(s)--and take him out if possible, not the women and children. This last only works if it convinces the leader to surrender. If not, you get a hell of a lot of pissed off people coming at you without any concern for their own safety, and they will fight to the death.


And if the leader lives in close quarters surrounded by women and children? My response - screw the collateral damage and drop the nuke anyway. Just like the U.S. did with Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A sufficient amount of collateral damage wins wars and winning is the only thing. Any means to the end is justified by the end. Morality is nonsense on stilts when it comes to war.

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#20 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 03 June 2011 - 07:55 AM



As to your "final solution," it's just plain wrong. If you want to win, you defeat the leader(s)--and take him out if possible, not the women and children. This last only works if it convinces the leader to surrender. If not, you get a hell of a lot of pissed off people coming at you without any concern for their own safety, and they will fight to the death.


And if the leader lives in close quarters surrounded by women and children? My response - screw the collateral damage and drop the nuke anyway. Just like the U.S. did with Nagasaki and Hiroshima. A sufficient amount of collateral damage wins wars and winning is the only thing. Any means to the end is justified by the end. Morality is nonsense on stilts when it comes to war.

Ba'al Chatzaf


Bob,

Okay, let's assume morality is nonsense in war.
Impose your Biblical Law, and "nuke" that which offendeth you.

How about my 'Silver Rule', then?

"Accept that you be done by, as you would do."

Yes?

Tony
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users