Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: EU condemns Dutch anti-Islam film (CNN.com)

  1. #1

    EU condemns Dutch anti-Islam film (CNN.com)

    [QUOTE][B][U]EU condemns Dutch anti-Islam film [/U][/B]

    Britain-based LiveLeak.com posts "Fitna," a film by Geert Wilders

    Wilders, a Dutch parliament member, is outspoken in his criticism of Islam

    15-minute film includes disturbing images of terror attacks

    Wilders says Islam and the Quran are a long-term threat to the Netherlands

    (CNN) -- The European Union on Friday condemned a new film by a Dutch lawmaker which is critical of Islam and features controversial images of the Prophet Mohammed.

    The 15-minute film, titled "Fitna," was posted on a London-based Web site Thursday. It immediately drew criticism from the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who said the film equates Islam with violence.

    "We reject this interpretation," Balkenende said in a statement. "The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact, the victims are often also Muslims."

    Slovenia, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said it supported the Dutch government's position and believes the film does nothing to promote dialogue among religions.

    "The European Union and its member states apply the principle of the freedom of speech which is part of our values and traditions. However, it should be exercised in a spirit of respect for religious and other beliefs and convictions," the Slovenian presidency said in a statement.

    "Mutual tolerance and respect are universal values we should uphold. We believe that acts, such as the above-mentioned film, serve no other purpose than inflaming hatred."

    The U.S. government warned the film could spark protests and riots.

    The lawmaker who made the film is Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament from the conservative Party for Freedom. He has been outspoken in his criticism of Islam and his support for immigration restrictions.

    Wilders has said Islam and its holy book, the Quran, are a long-term threat to the Netherlands and the world and that his film is a "last warning."

    "It's not a provocation, but the harsh reality and a political conclusion," Wilders told reporters Thursday.

    Wilders posted the film on the site LiveLeak.com in both English and Dutch. Its title in Arabic means "strife" or "conflict" of the type that occurs within families or any other homogenous group.

    The film opens with a controversial caricature of Islam's prophet, Mohammed -- one of those that prompted demonstrations in early 2006 after newspapers published the images -- followed by translated portions of the Quran.

    The passages are followed by graphic images of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks against the United States juxtaposed with audio from emergency calls made by the victims trapped inside the World Trade Center in New York.

    The video includes disturbing images of other terror attacks; bloodied victims; beheadings of hostages; executions of women in hijab, the traditional full-body attire; and footage, with English subtitles, of Islamic leaders preaching inflammatory sermons against Jews and Christians.

    In one sequence, the film includes a series of newspaper headlines suggesting that Europe is under threat from Islamic beliefs and practices hostile to democracy, and that some Muslims want to create Islamic states in Europe.

    The film concludes with scrolling messages reading in part: "The government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you" and "In 1945, Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989, communism was defeated in Europe. Now the Islamic ideology has to be defeated."

    LiveLeak issued a statement Thursday saying there was no legal reason not to allow Wilders to post the film. It said the site's policy is to remain unbiased and allow freedom of speech.

    Some in the Muslim community rejected the film as nothing more than dangerous anti-Islamic propaganda.

    "This film is a direct attempt to incite violence from Muslims and help fan the flames of Islamophobia," Arsalan Iftikhar, a contributor to Washington-based Islamica Magazine, told CNN on Thursday. "Any reasonable person can see this is meant to spit in the face of Muslims and insult our religion."

    Iftikhar said he doubted the film would spark the same type of violence that followed the publication of the caricature of Mohammed, but he called on Muslim leaders to react peacefully.[/QUOTE]

    I find this interesting.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Cowardly, boilerplate CYA procedure. If any violence does occur in response to this movie, I am willing to bet $1,000 that the EU and those on the American Left blame the filmmaker more than the people who actually commit the violence. They'll simply try to use their favorite words and phrases. Get ready for a lot of talk about "nuance" and how the truth is "somwhere in the middle." They'll have one sentence issuing a biolerplate and unenthusastic condemnation of the violence, and will spend paragraph after paragrpagh ripping the filmmaker as the true hatemonger and problem...just more of the same Battered Wife Syndrome. Oh, and US media outlets will refuse to show the movie or images from and attempt to spin that as courage and sensitivity and a deep understanding, and not the blatant cowardice and submission it actually is. They are "brave" when a guy puts a crucifix in a bottle of p*ss and calls it art, and "sensitive" whenever terrorism is the subject.

    Round and round we go....
    Last edited by jets5ever; 03-28-2008 at 01:32 PM.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=jets5ever;2454172]Cowardly, boilerplate CYA procedure. If any violence does occur in response to this movie, I am willing to bet $1,000 that the EU and those on the American Left blame the filmmaker more than the people who actually commit the violence. They'll simply try to use their favorite words and phrases. Get ready for a lot of talk about "nuance" and how the truth is "somwhere in the middle." They'll have one sentence issuing a biolerplate and unenthusastic condemnation of the violence, and will spend paragraph after paragrpagh ripping the filmmaker as the true hatemonger and problem...just more of the same Battered Wife Syndrome. Oh, and US media outlets will refuse to show the movie or images from and attempt to spin that as courage and sensitivity and a deep understanding, and not the blatant cowardice and submission it actually is. They are "brave" when a guy puts a crucifix in a bottle of p*ss and calls it art, and "sensitive" whenever terrorism is the subject.

    Round and round we go....[/QUOTE]

    No, I agree with you.
    As stupid and narrowminded this film may be i am against banning any film, book, speach etc b/c you dont like the content. Likewise any violence resulting from this is soley the responsibility of those committing the violence

  4. #4
    The film is readily available on the web via livelink.com. I watched some of it and was very disturbed by it. What I think is going to be the most interesting thing about this is it will be denounced by the West and moderate Islam but I can also see this film being used as a recruitment vehicle by radical Islamic terrorist groups. This film could have easily been made by Al Qeada as by an anti Islamic right winger in Europe.

  5. #5
    the film was better done than I thought it would be:

    [URL]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103[/URL]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us