This article is disturbing. If you think its too long just read the bold

Quote :

"Britain's Surrender to Islamists There is a direct link between the 'Rushdie Affair' and the Wilders ban. By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL | From today's Wall Street Journal Europe. This time, no fatwa was necessary. Two decades after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie's murder, U.K. authorities no longer need instructions in Shariah law. In pre-emptive submission to Islamist sensibilities, Britain barred Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders last Thursday from entering the country and speaking at the House of Lords. His short anti-Islam video "Fitna," which juxtaposes Quranic verses calling for jihad with footage of Islamic terror, threatened "public security in the U.K," according to the Home Office. Since Mr. Wilder has never called for violence -- in his home country, the only life threatened as a result of his work is his own -- the imagined security threat could come only from people opposed to him, i.e. Muslim radicals. Britain is punishing Mr. Wilders not for his own actions but for the hypothetical actions of his adversaries. What makes this surrender of free speech and fairness -- the most noble of British traditions -- particularly depressing is its totality. All main British parties support the Labour government's ban against Mr. Wilders -- the so-called Liberal Democrats just as eagerly as the Tories. Contrast this with the reaction in the Netherlands. All main Dutch parties -- although they too reject Mr. Wilders's unbalanced assault on Islam -- condemned the British decision. It's a fitting coincidence that this suppression of free speech in the motherland of parliamentary democracy happened just two days before the 20th anniversary of the fatwa against Mr. Rushdie for penning "The Satanic Verses." Khomeini reportedly never read the book that so insulted him; rumors of its alleged offensiveness were enough for the leader of the Islamic Revolution. In an eerie parallel, rumors are also enough for the leaders of Britain. Foreign Minister David Miliband admitted on Friday to the BBC that he had not seen the film that he nevertheless found to be "hateful." It seems Britain has not only adopted Islamist standards of free speech but also Islamist standards of proof. There is a direct line between Khomeini's 1989 death sentence against the British author and last week's detention of Mr. Wilders at Heathrow Airport. The "Rushdie Affair" was the first illustration of the West's conflict with Islamists who believe that the Quran is superior to any man-made law. The protests in Britain sparked by "The Satanic Verses" contained all the elements of Islamist intimidation and Western appeasement with which we are now so familiar. British Muslims burned the book in the streets of Britain and called for Mr. Rushdie's murder, while the police looked on passively. Leftists began their defense of Muslim fanatics -- perfected today -- as the "real" victims who should not have been provoked. And radical Muslims and their apologists for the first time claimed to represent the British Muslim community, a questionable claim that the state made official by choosing them as their dialogue partners. "Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him (Mr. Rushdie)," Iqbal Sacranie, founding secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said at the time. "His mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah." It is now "Sir Iqbal" as this "moderate" received a knighthood in 2005 "for services to the Muslim community, to charities and to community relations." The Rushdie Affair was the first time Islamists not just ignored national and international law but acted, successfully, to supersede it. They didn't manage to stop the book's publication or to kill Mr. Rushdie -- although the Norwegian publisher and Italian translator were seriously wounded in separate attacks and the Japanese translator murdered. But they managed to force Mr. Rushdie into hiding, foreshadowing the fate of later Islam critics -- including that of Mr. Wilders, who has been living for more than four years under 24-hour police protection. Because Khomeini's death sentence could have been carried out by any radical Muslim around the world, there was no escape for Mr. Rushdie, just as there is no escape for those on today's Islamic death lists. For Mr. Rushdie there was only the exile of "safe houses" and body guards. His ordeal, and that of others, serve as a warning to any potential critic of Islam. This has led to what is euphemistically called "self-censorship" in the media, arts and politics, supposedly a sign of respect for Muslims' "religious feelings." But in truth such self-censorship is no act of courtesy but the result of intimidation and fear. Islamists are relying not just on threats and violence, though. The 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference is pushing for changes to international law and national law in Western countries to make them conform with Shariah law. One of the main goals of the United Nations' "antiracism" conference in April in Geneva will be to commit member states to implement laws to stop the "defamation" of Islam. No other major Western country seems to have internalized this Islamist mindset to the degree that Britain has. Radical Muslims -- homegrown and from abroad -- can freely preach hatred, but one of their critics has just been banned. Britain's capital earned its "Londonistan" sobriquet -- supposedly coined by French counterterrorism agents in the mid-1990s -- when it became a center for Islamic radicals fleeing persecution in their Muslim home countries. These Islamists flocked to Britain precisely because of its tradition of tolerance. It's a cruel twist of history that radical Muslims have been allowed to use the freedom they found there to limit freedom for everybody else. In October 2007, shortly after becoming prime minister, Gordon Brown gave a powerful speech on a central element of British identity: "From the time of Magna Carta," he said, " . . . there has been a British tradition of liberty -- what one writer has called our 'gift to the world.'" Mr. Brown's ill-advised tolerance of the intolerant is now threatening this treasured tradition. "

The hate these people have is unbelieveable, but more unbelieveable is how governments are either ignoring it or being tolerant of it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482476050494869.html

2/19/2009 12:47:05 PM

anyone see that Dimitri Martin thing about the Christian mice and Muslim mice?

kinda funny

2/19/2009 12:51:57 PM

To be fair, Wilders craves this kind of attention. Not so much Rushdie, but Wilders knew that there would be an uproar and wanted it. Not to defend a bad anti-liberty decision, but don't absolve this man of the obvious chance to stoke his ego.

2/20/2009 6:45:37 PM

maybe they should have thought of this before they colonized these people's lands

2/21/2009 2:01:00 AM

I think "colonized" isn't the word you are looking for.

Britain, and some other European countries, have some outrageous censorship laws that make it hard to criticize Islam. The laws were, hopefully, meant to protect minorities(and religious minorities), from demagogues inciting the populous to violence against them. But sadly, they have morphed to were you can't even criticize Islam fully without being threatened with lawsuits or arrest.

If you said, "Islam is a violent, evil religion that has no place in modern society." You could get arrested, even though you have not advocated any harm to anyone. Freedom of Speech for the lose. This is a case of where the slippery slope argument actually turned out to be true.

Viva la First Amendment.

2/21/2009 2:43:17 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

nah dog

colonized is the word i'm looking for

2/21/2009 3:37:34 PM

Quote :

"The hate these people have is unbelieveable, but more unbelieveable is how governments are either ignoring it or being tolerant of it."

agreed

2/21/2009 3:56:18 PM

Quote :

"colonized is the word i'm looking for"

Britain didn't colonize India though, but it was a colonial possession. The point being Britain never established any colonies on the Subcontinent. No historian would say India was colonized by the British, since colonization, by definition, requires the establishment of colonies. There is more than just semantics to that argument, because there is a big difference between how the British treated India and most of their other possessions, which were colonized to various degrees (Americas, Africa, Australia).

2/21/2009 5:10:01 PM

Would you prefer "heavily involved/in-charge" over "colonized"?

2/21/2009 5:30:54 PM

wait why are we talking about india

2/21/2009 5:38:14 PM

Quote :

" Britain didn't colonize India though"

We did not colonize Hawaii either. Merely we performed a "regime" change and named the US president leader of the land.

2/21/2009 9:15:33 PM

As far as Britain goes I can see there point of view. Think about it; why even poke the hornets nest if you don't have to? It would be one issue of Britain arrested the guy turning him over to Iran or if the local authorities in his native country took him into custody. Why even risk a potential security threat to have some controversial (at least in the world of islam) journalist come to your country or the political unrest from your local Muslim population?

This is nothing new. I am certain Syria while possibly applauding Osama Bin Laden's action would never consider letting him use their country as a safe haven. Our gov't would be all over Syria's ass if this were the case. The same goes for other high profile figures seeking asylum in countries throughout history.

Do i think the islamic world is acting irrationally? Yes
Does britain have anything to gain from putting its foot down over some stupid journalist guy? No

Got to pick your battles.

[Edited on February 21, 2009 at 11:15 PM. Reason : l]

2/21/2009 11:12:46 PM

It's funny b/c Wilders is Dutch and the Dutch were probably the worst colonizing force of their time. They literally beat the shit out of ever colored person they enslaved.

[Edited on February 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2009 3:24:10 PM

Worse than the spanish?

2/22/2009 7:34:19 PM

There's a reason Afrikaaners have Dutch names and accents.

2/23/2009 8:38:01 AM

@ this thread

2/23/2009 8:55:40 AM

i don't think i've ever posted in here so fuck it.

2/23/2009 10:30:09 AM

Quote :

"wait why are we talking about india"

Where do you think most of the Muslims in Britain came from??

...

The Dutch and Belgians, were probably the most brutal imperialists in Africa, while the Germans were probably the "nicest."

2/23/2009 10:56:45 AM

Quote :

"As far as Britain goes I can see there point of view. Think about it; why even poke the hornets nest if you don't have to? It would be one issue of Britain arrested the guy turning him over to Iran or if the local authorities in his native country took him into custody. Why even risk a potential security threat to have some controversial (at least in the world of islam) journalist come to your country or the political unrest from your local Muslim population? This is nothing new. I am certain Syria while possibly applauding Osama Bin Laden's action would never consider letting him use their country as a safe haven. Our gov't would be all over Syria's ass if this were the case. The same goes for other high profile figures seeking asylum in countries throughout history. Do i think the islamic world is acting irrationally? Yes Does britain have anything to gain from putting its foot down over some stupid journalist guy? No Got to pick your battles."

Did you even read the article? Based on your response I'm gonna guess not really.

Seriously, Carl face for this crap? Just wait till its in your own backyard.

2/23/2009 11:38:37 AM

i kinda skimmed over.

i assume it was bashing britain for not giving a middle finger and dropping bombs on the middle east for threatening it.

2/23/2009 1:28:01 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, Carl face for this crap? Just wait till its in your own backyard."

ummm...i cant believe that this has happened

i dont want it to happen in my backyard

some of the responses in this thread made me carlface

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 2:29 PM. Reason : 

2/23/2009 2:28:35 PM

Quote :

"Where do you think most of the Muslims in Britain came from?? "

Any figures to back that up?

2/23/2009 4:22:00 PM

Quote :

"Where do you think most of the Muslims in Britain came from?? "

countries where the population is larger than 12% muslim?

2/23/2009 6:03:21 PM

Quote :

"Most Muslim immigrants to the UK are from Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-2

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM. Reason : hint: bangladesh and pakistan were part of brit-controlled india]

Quote :

"Three quarters of Muslims (74%) were from an Asian ethnic background, predominantly Pakistani (43%)"

http://www.nya.org.uk/information/100582/109652/100630/108761/ukmuslimcommunitystatistics/

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM. Reason : #s]

2/23/2009 6:18:05 PM

Quote :

"ummm...i cant believe that this has happened i dont want it to happen in my backyard some of the responses in this thread made me carlface"

My mistake good sir, I was afraid you were referring to the OP, i.e. me

2/23/2009 10:02:41 PM

and to what country do you think Pakistan originally belonged?

2/23/2009 11:27:42 PM

^ England?

OMG the vast majority of Muslims (immigrants and their children) in Britain are of British origin!!! LOLOL....

Look, almost all of immigrants came to the UK AFTER India and Pakistan were separate countries, so stop saying that most of the Muslims in Britain came from India.

And in fact, according to the link sarijoul posted, yes, the biggest percentage are from Pakistan. And you will see in the link below that the 2nd highest percentage are from Bangladesh, and India is just behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_England#Demography_and_ethnic_background

2/24/2009 4:53:39 AM

Quote :

"countries where the population is larger than 12% muslim?"

Even though it is irrelevant, I will show you something called Math. India has a population of ~1.15 billion people, of which ~13% are Muslim. That means India has... ~169 Million Muslims. Pakistan's entire population is ~172 billion (~97% being Muslim). Think about it. India and Pakistan have roughly the same number of Muslims citizens. Note census statistics in both India and Pakistan are pretty inaccurate, and there are political reasons why India would, let us say, "round down" the number of Muslims in its country. Yes, if you just been made a fool of.

Quote :

"OMG the vast majority of Muslims (immigrants and their children) in Britain are of British origin!!! LOLOL.... Look, almost all of immigrants came to the UK AFTER India and Pakistan were separate countries, so stop saying that most of the Muslims in Britain came from India. And in fact, according to the link sarijoul posted, yes, the biggest percentage are from Pakistan. And you will see in the link below that the 2nd highest percentage are from Bangladesh, and India is just behind."

What are you arguing? When I mentioned India, I was referring to British India/the Subcontinent, which has already been noted by someone else. It was pretty clear that I was, since we were talking about the Imperial/Colonial era, when as you know, India encompassed all three current countries. It has slowly gone out of favor, but India can refer both to the country or the subcontinent.

If you followed the posting, you would see we were talking about Imperial India, and the remark was meant to reflect the entire subcontinent, not the relatively new political constructs.

2/24/2009 9:49:52 AM

^ You know, it's been a while since I did this thing you call "Math" but if I remember right:

X million < Y billion

so you might want to fix that typo

2/24/2009 10:39:12 AM

Quote :

"Pakistan's entire population is ~172 billion"

2/24/2009 5:45:51 PM

more like 172 turristillion

2/24/2009 5:49:51 PM

Quote :

"but India can refer both to the country or the subcontinent."

how about [no]

you need to make the distinction of India vs. Pakistan

2/24/2009 6:02:20 PM

i love when people go to make a fool of someone and then get WHOOPS all over their face

2/25/2009 1:29:48 AM

seriously, who gives a shit about that. Can we please get back OT.

2/25/2009 8:25:07 AM

Quote :

"seriously, who gives a shit about that. Can we please get back OT."

What else is there to say? An attention whore deserves his right to free speech as much as anyone but at the same time I'm not going to use this as some sort of platform to launch a silly tirade against the Islamic world.

3/3/2009 7:32:52 PM

wow, you really see what's going on don't you. Good God...

3/3/2009 7:48:32 PM

yes ENGLAND IS FALLING TO ISLAM

this conversation has been going on for years and usually the facts get blown way out of proportion. the response has been the re-emergence of the far right in Europe.

Do you read Mark Steyn much?

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2009 7:49:36 PM

Hey, how about you pay attention the UN. They're having a "racism" conference coming up soon, which has just become an Anti-Semitic Jew bashing forum! You need to fucking wake up before its in your own back yard you fucking idiot.

3/3/2009 8:40:43 PM

The Right Wing has really become a luny bin of paranoid fucks

3/3/2009 8:53:33 PM

yeah its looney when the government of a country is afraid of a minority they've allowed into the country over the years.

3/3/2009 9:30:11 PM

^ word.

3/3/2009 10:02:50 PM

britain is surrendering to islam the way we've surrendered to israel

3/4/2009 1:31:31 AM

Britain's only letting the Muslims in because they feel guilty about how they treated other religious minorities in the past.

So, in a way, this is all the Jews' fault.

3/4/2009 5:32:34 AM

^^The same way? I do not think so. How long have Jews been living here? And we have not seen a problem with them. If you really want to know if your religion is peaceful then look at that. I think they are grateful to have a place to live in peace. There are stories I have heard of Jews and Christians that have escaped persecution in the Middle East, to come and live here in America.

On the other hand, some of the Muslims that come to America are not here to find peace. They are here to destroy it and spread their Ideology, because they have been brainwashed and think it is a true religion. We need to take Britain as an example, to watch what happens there and make sure we do not make the same mistakes.

3/4/2009 6:37:29 AM

Just wait, England will be the next Lebanon.

3/4/2009 10:04:43 PM

"Londonistan"

3/4/2009 11:02:40 PM

you know what

i want the world to be taken over

just to spite this motherfucker

i'll see you guys at the public executions, it will be the most hilarious martyrdom ever

3/5/2009 12:29:19 AM

Quote :

"because they have been brainwashed and think it is a true religion."

How is Islam not a true religion?

3/5/2009 4:40:11 AM

Quote :

"How long have Jews been living here?"

Quote :

"I think they are grateful to have a place to live in peace."

What revisionist history kool-aid have you been drinking to believe that Jewish history here has been "peaceful"?

3/5/2009 4:54:01 AM

I just somehow think that any religion that believes the murder of human lives, or even your own lives for the sake of God is false. I just don't see how the history of Islam makes sense. I think most of you know it so there is sense in me repeating it here. Also if none of you know the history of Lebanon, then you should really look it up.

3/5/2009 12:27:39 PM