Dutch director killed by islamist fanatic!

[CARLHAYDEN]

This ruined the election night for me. I was looking forward to that night, but I wasn't anymore after this awful event happened.

Mr Van Gogh (Vincent van Gogh was the brother of his grandfather by the way) just finished a film about the murder on Pim Fortuyn, 2 years ago (who was shot by an extreme environmentalist btw, and not a muslim). He really admired Fortuyn.

His killer butchered him like a pig. He shot him first, Mr Van Gogh asked for mercy, but the man cut his throat and stuck the knives he had used in Van Goghs chest. On one of the knives he put a note with a text in Arabic on it. It is said that the AIVD (Dutch CIA) already knew the killer because he was a friend of a muslim extremist who was arrested for preparing a terrorist attack.

Thank God there were no riots last night, like there were when Fortuyn was murdered. Only in The Hague 35 people were arrested for shouting extreme-rightwing texts, but they were all released again today.

The Dutch would be wise to expel all Muslims immediately.

The courts in Belgium have banned a political party that took that position (it was the largest party in Belgium).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Do you remember how in Iran the 'elections' were rigged by banning all candidates who did not adhere to islamo-facism?

In much of western europe, elections are 'won' on a similiar basis by banning those who disagree with the idiotology of the 'politically correct.'

I believe it was earlier this year that Bridget Bardot was fined for daring to say something not in accord with political correctness.

In Denmark, the murderer of the leader of the Danish libertarian party was given a very lenient sentence because the judges felt that it was not really bad to kill someone who opposed political correctness.

In both the Netherlands and Germany, banning parties that do not adhere to political correctness is done, just as in Belgium.

The rulers of many western european countries are afraid of their own people and are slowly inflicting a totalitarian state there to hold onto power.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Facts are facts.

The Iranian council banned candidates who did not toe their line and in Belgium (and other counties cited), if you dare disagree with the prevailing line you get banned as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Facts are facts.

The Iranian council banned candidates who did not toe their line and in Belgium (and other counties cited), if you dare disagree with the prevailing line you get banned as well.

Yeah! We haven't democracy. In France one journalist got 10 years in jail only because he said in television that the war on Iraq was right.

In Sweden and Germany government can arrest any person who says that welfare state shoud be abolished.

Also there are secret concentration camps all around the Europe. We also have a lot of Weapons of Mass Destruction, but you can't find them.

I think that USA should  immediately occupy and liberate Europe. It's about time that America brings its values to the Old Continent.

HaHa.

I notice you avoided the specific examples I cited.

To use the French example, are you denying that Briget Bardot was fined for expressing poltically incorrect opinions?

Are you denying that parties in Belgium and Germany are banned if they don't toe the line on poltical correctness?

Are you denying that the scumbag who murdered the head of the Danish libertarian party got a very light sentence?

Old europe isn't worth liberating. 

Give them another generation of the current policies and they will sink into irrelvancy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wow. Now European governments are being compared to the fundamentalist regime in Iran due to a few minor superficial similarities. Could the Europe-haters possibly sink any lower?

Though if you want to play Devil's Advocate, may I suggest that American conservatives have far more in common with Islamic fundamentalists in that they both wish to see Europe wiped off the face of the earth? At the very least they are united by a seething hatred of this continent, if some of the comments here are anything to go by.

Once again we have another example of statements made of the sinking europeans which are NOT founded in reality.

I never said I wanted to see europe wiped off the face of the earth.  I merely stated that if certain european countries continue pursuing their current policies they will become irrelevant.

But, since you bring it up.  In the United States we have a great deal of tolerance, including religious freedom.  Has the government of Germany stopped persecuting the Scientologists yet?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, your posting was long on opinion and short on facts.

I notice you did not answer my question about the persecution of the Scientolgists in Germany.

Also, if you had bothered to read the series of posts I have made on this topic you would see that I noted that the europeans are sliding into irrelevancy BECAUSE of the policies they are pursuing.

It they were to change their policies to thoughtful and ethical ones, then they could well avoid the irrelevancy.  This was clearly implied in my series of posts.

Sorry you could not understand it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Mea culpa!

Actually, the party leader murdered was Pim Fortuyn of the Netherlands  on May 6, 2002.

His murderer is eligible for parole in 2014.

In 1968, Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert F. Kennedy.  He's still in prison, and would have been executed except for the intervention of liberals in the judiciary.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Please cite what you call a FACT in your post.

I notice that you keep avoiding answering my specific examples.

Oh, and by the way, a long winded diatribe is NOT a fact.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hereis one quick link:

http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/gater/spring97/feb06/OPINIONB.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and by the way, a long winded diatribe is NOT a fact.

Another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I notice that you've decided not to answer my specific examples as well.

State one FACT where Scientologists are "persecuted" against.

And while we are there, perhaps you could name one FACT which states Europe will delve into irrelevancy, as opposed to your personal interpretation.

Another citation I made was the fineing of BB for making politically incorrect remarks

A link is:

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/year/2000/000036.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and by the way, a long winded diatribe is NOT a fact.

Another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I notice that you've decided not to answer my specific examples as well.

State one FACT where Scientologists are "persecuted" against.

And while we are there, perhaps you could name one FACT which states Europe will delve into irrelevancy, as opposed to your personal interpretation.

Here's a link about the banning of the political party in Belgium:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/10/wbelg10.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/10/ixworld.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

Read your own post.

You acknowedge that the government grants 'church status.'

So, if you don't meet the standard of political correctness in Germany, you cann't be recognized as a church?

LOL.

You really are dense.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I don't know to whom your post was directed.

However, both the remark you tell us was made by the former vice-president of Vlaams Block and the action of the government of Belgium should be repudiated.

The difference is the WORDS of an INDIVIDUAL (we have freedom of speech in the  United States) versus the ACTION
of a GOVERNMENT!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yeah, I know about perpetual peace.  It has it flaws (Finland-England, War 1812, ACW, etc.), but still pretty amazing that a chap living in Autocratic Prussia in what..1795, could figure out how democracies would act.

It's a stretch from the Dutch director, but oh well.

The whole basis of the catagorical imperative is to strip all of that contextual crap away from an action and look at the primitive behind it.  So it doesn't matter if you are murdering someone who just killed your wife or if you're murdering the guy for fun, since murder applied universally is immoral, murder is always immoral.  Trying to insert "but..the government" specifics into the scenarios doesn't change moral scale since it is always immoral.

Lunar, homocide which is justifiable, isn't murder.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, its nice to know that the most recent attempt to ban political competition in Germany has failed.

Why don't you try to get Belgium to drop its ban?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Excuse me, but in my country sensible people don't believe that the judiciary should suppress freedom of expression and engage in tyrannical rule.

I guess its different in 'old europe.'

[CARLHAYDEN]

I cannot speak for others, but, my opinions on other countries are based either on matters of public record (I have cited several in previous posts) or my personal experiences.

There are a number of delightful people in europe.

Even some in France.

However, the scum are in the saddle in many western european countries and are using regulations to prevent competition.

[CARLHAYDEN]

How many times is banning of political opposition too many?

For me, one is too many.

I have cited specific examples of the banning, which you have not bothered to deny (because they are true).

How many bannings is too many for you?

I know you find this difficult to understand, but I believe what I have seen with my own eyes, not you tales.

Those who choose to ban other who disagree with them are scum.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

I cited specific examples of where the europeans have banned political competition.

I would appreciate it if you could cite similiar examples of where political parties have been banned in the United States over the past fifty years.

[CARLHAYDEN]

How many times is banning of political opposition too many?

For me, one is too many.

In Germany two parties were banned FIFTY YEARS ago and because of that Germany shall burn in hell forever or what?

I have cited specific examples of the banning, which you have not bothered to deny (because they are true).

So, because I didn´t "deny" them, I automatically agreed that your examples are "true" That´s a very flawed logic.

>Well, excuse me.  I gave examples from more than one country of the banning of political parties.  You try to say it is "rare."

When I gave you a specific example of a recent banning in Beligium, you try to weasel out of the subject.

I repeat the earlier question that you have failed to answer.  How many bannings is too many for you?

>Previously you had noted that I should believe what YOU post, not what I have seen for myself.  Well, again I repeat, "I know you find this difficult to understand, but I believe what I have seen with my own eyes, not you tales."


"Tales"? Are you saying I´m lying???

>When you try to limit your counterexamples to Germany, you are dissembling.

Those who choose to ban other who disagree with them are scum.

Did you know that the NSDAP was banned in 1945 on orders of the Allied military governors? By your logic, Dwight D. Eisenhower is "scum" too. Or more specific: Harry S. Truman is "scum", because Eisenhower just carried out the orders.
George W. Bush would also be "scum", because he banned the Baath party in Iraq. Or doesn´t that matter, because it didn´t happen in the United States itself, but in a foreign country?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

>I realize you have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing a situation when an area is under martial law, and when normal legal processes prevail.

Matters which are totally unacceptable in peaceable situations may be acceptable under martial law.

Are you suggesting that martial law should prevail in peactime?

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, lets recapitulae for the record.

You "know nothing, nothing" about the rest of europe outside of Germany?

Hmm, have you checked out the subject title of this thread?

Last time I checked, the Netherlands were NOT part of Germany.  Or are you going to tell me otherwise?

If you wish to limit your examples solely to Germany, the do NOT post on threads concerning matters outside of Germany.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Apparently you didn't read (or understand) my previous postings.

I did NOT say that elections in Germany were regularly won by banning the opposition.

I did say that there was a record in western europe of banning the opposition, and cited specific examples of the same.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You really need to learn something both about language and logic (in this case set theory)

First, in Iran, candidates were banned from the ballot who did not agree with the mullahs (do you dispute it?)

Second, you have acknowledged that parties have been banned in Germany, will not adress the fact that parties have been banned in other western european countries, and that the governments of several western european countries have threatened to ban other parties (intimidating them into toeing the line).

Third, you have not comprehended the difference between some elections and ALL elections.  If all parties allowed the particpate agree to toe the line, there is NO need to ban them and the public has the 'choice' so deliciously parodied by Jonathan Swift of 'choosing' between parties whose disagreements are comparatively minor.

Fourth, when parties are aware that advocating a 'politically incorrect' position may result in their being banned, it is quite understandable that they will avoid those positions, even if favored by the electorate (its called intimidation).

So, in conclusion, the threat of banning, couples with tangible examples of the same having been done, is often sufficent to prevent policies from being advocated by parties.
 
Doesn't seem to me to be a particularly difficult concept to comprehend.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

I cited specific examples of where the europeans have banned political competition.

I would appreciate it if you could cite similiar examples of where political parties have been banned in the United States over the past fifty years.

We were "banning" leftist political organizations through intimidation, but not parties really.  My point earlier was simply put that we wouldn't want people to judge America by its own actions 50 years ago either.

In response to the last post:
I don't believe Old Europe ever advocated that banning parties is good.  He only disputed what he felt was exaggeration in your rhetoric.

I appreciate you point, but my point was that the banning of a political party in Belgium happened earlier this month, not fifty years ago.

I then pointed out that Belgium was not the only western european country to ban, and threaten to ban political parties.

Old europe chose to focus on the bans in Germany that were actually implemented, and ignored those in other countries which were more recently implemented, and the threatened bans in Germany (which have occured in the past few years).

He also chose to insert the concept of "all" elections, which was NOT my intent.

I have also pointed out that the intimidation is not limited to banning parties, but includes fineing those who engage in politically incorrect speech or writing (re: Bridget Bardot) and handing out lenient sentences to those who murder leaders of 'politically incorrect' parties (the Dutch example I previously cited).  Further, please note the requirement for licensing of churches, which was denied in Germany to the Scientologists.

In short, the banning of parties is but part of a larger whole of legal harassment of the 'politically incorrect' in much of western europe.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ah, but Freek, the murderer will be released in 2014, as the sentences are pretty meaningless since early release is the norm.

Compare, Sirhan Sirhan mudered Robert Kennedy in 1968 (36 years ago).  He's in prison today, and probably will continue to be imprisoned for the forseeable future (unless he dies in prison soon).