The Death of the Dutch?
Dersu
D.
----------
The Death of the Dutch?
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com |
November 12, 2004
The recent assassination of Dutch author and moviemaker, Theo van Gough,
by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam should come as no surprise to those
familiar with the condition of multiculturalism in Holland. Earlier this
year, the Dutch government became the first Western state to admit that
the multicultural experiment, the biggest socialist fraud ever to be
foisted on countries since the Soviet one, is a colossal failure.
This admission came in the form of an all-party parliamentary report
that basically concluded, among other things, that Muslim immigrants,
who make up almost one million of Holland's 16 million inhabitants, are
refusing to integrate. These immigrants, largely concentrated in the
cities where they constitute a large percentage of urban populations
such as in Rotterdam, choose to live together in their own 'ghettos'
where they have built up parallel societies to that of the host country.
And it is not going to get better. According to the report, between 70
and 80 per cent of Dutch-born immigrants, mostly from Morocco and
Turkey, refuse to intermarry with native-born Dutch and are importing
their spouses from their home countries.
Ironically, it is the emphasis Dutch governments have placed on
multiculturalism that has helped lead to its inevitable downfall. The
report states that, in planning their 'perfect' society, the biggest
mistake the lib-left multiculturalists made was to have immigrant
children educated in their own languages, which has resulted in an
ethnic separatism in society. This voluntary apartheid from the
mainstream has reached the point where it is dangerous for white
Europeans to venture into some immigrant neighborhoods where they are
regarded as either "an enemy or victim." The growth of this parallel
world has also corresponded with a growth in discomfort among the native
Dutch toward the newcomers and a loss of a feeling of security, which is
largely due to the new immigrants' propensity for crime, violence and
overrepresentation in the criminal system.
The report concludes that the ethnic ghettos must be broken up and the
immigrants made to become Dutch if the country is not to come apart.
But it is probably already too late for that. In the first place, trying
to break up the Muslim ghettoes would be like trying to dissolve San
Francisco's Chinatown or New York's Harlem. Secondly, there is the
little problem of Muslim fundamentalism that the dangerously naïve
multiculturalists have let into the country like the proverbial wolf
into the sheepfold.
A substantial portion of the Muslim population Holland has imported
since the sixties, while not violent, abhors Dutch society, the most
liberal in all of Europe. Many of these new immigrants hold in disdain
women's rights, freedom of expression, homosexuality, drugs and all the
other trappings of Dutch liberalism, and believe their way of life and
beliefs are superior to those of their host country. In fact, such
immigrants are not averse to replacing the 'corrupt' Dutch system with
sharia, but by legal, non-violent means.
More importantly, though, for Holland's existence, this population also
contains a minority of Islamist fanatics, such as the one who killed van
Gogh, who want to replace the Dutch system with an Islamic theocracy by
violent means, kill all the unbelievers in the country and wage jihad to
the ends of the earth. It did not help that the Dutch government
assisted in funding some radical mosques that indoctrinated young Dutch
Muslims into their way of hatred, while Saudi Arabia supported others
(no surprise there). Dutch Muslims have been found on the battlefield in
Kashmir and elsewhere; but they may soon not have to leave home to fight
the Holy War. A letter van Gogh's assassin left on his victim's body
says there will be more killings.
There are also indications that Islamists are organizing a European
army. According to one report, hundreds of European Muslims received
military training in Afghanistan and returned home to train hundreds
more. They apparently have been buying weapons on the Eastern European
black market and have even rented isolated tourist resorts to conduct
training sessions. So the underground intelligence war going on all over
Europe may soon turn hot, and the assassination of van Gogh may have
been its first shot. Such an Islamist crusade would most likely take the
form of an I.R.A.-style guerilla war where the multiculturalism-created
ghettoes, like the Catholic ones in Northern Ireland, would serve both
as bases and as hideouts.
And it is not as if the people in Holland can rely on the law to protect
them. Like in other western countries, it has been twisted and weakened
so badly the last 30 years to match leftist ideology that it is
sometimes a hindrance in combating the Islamist danger. Legal
technicalities, for example, prevented the conviction of 12 Dutch
Muslims last year for providing support to a North African terrorist
organization, while another four Islamist terrorists, accused of
planning to bomb the U.S. embassy in Paris, walked out of a Rotterdam
court free men in 2002. And even after the Dutch parliament voted to
expel 26,000 failed refugee claimants last February, Europe's first mass
expulsion of such people, the Justice Ministry had to admit that if they
did not accept the free flight home and a cash bonus, many would have to
be let loose on Holland's streets because of human rights laws.
And what is the response of the oh-so-clever Dutch leftists to the
multicultural mess they have created? Like after the collapse of
communism in Eastern Europe, they have been either silent or offered
only more of the same. The truth be told, they do not know what to do
and are simply engaging in helpless, useless gestures, as reports come
in this week of retaliatory attacks for van Gogh's death against mosques
and a Muslim school.
But one observer of Dutch society, interviewed by a European newspaper,
says there was already a furtive and creeping migration of the Dutch
elite and of money out of Holland before van Gogh's murder because of
the "Moroccan threat." And if the situation begins to spiral out of
control, you can definitely expect more 'progressive' rats to abandon
the Dutch ship of state they were so instrumental in sinking.
Roger Dewhurst
"Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:Xefmd.6268$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> The recent assassination of Dutch author and moviemaker, Theo van Gough,
> by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam should come as no surprise to those
> familiar with the condition of multiculturalism in Holland. Earlier this
> year, the Dutch government became the first Western state to admit that
> the multicultural experiment, the biggest socialist fraud ever to be
> foisted on countries since the Soviet one, is a colossal failure.
Here is a verbatim discussion with a contact in Holland:
"Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>Dutch find the strength to take on their 'new Nazis'
>
A gross exaggeration. Fanatic Muslims are not Nazis. Nazis were pigs.
Van Gogh was a pig. Muslims hate pigs. They don't even eat them...
>But there is no precedent for the ritual
>slaughter of a prominent artist in broad daylight on the streets of
>Amsterdam.
>
What can I say ? Van Gogh was an asshole who met a bigger asshole. He has
insulted people in every possible way, without being called back by the
authorities. He knew he was messing with mad dogs. He thought that he was
funny, and that the others would understand that. But they did not...
>For the Dutch, this murder is not only sinister: it is symbolic.
>
It was said that it was an attack on the freedom of speech. But was it ?
Others have said that there are limits to freedom of speech, where it
hurts or
insults other people. Mad dogs do bite sometimes.
>Van Gogh -
>distantly related to Holland's most celebrated artist - was shot on his
>bicycle, another national emblem.
>
The assasinator was also on a bicycle. A bicycle drive by shooting...
>As he writhed on the ground, the murderer
>cut his throat without mercy and left him with two knives protruding from
>his body: a method that is apparently common in North Africa, but unheard
of
>here. Just in case there was any doubt about the symbolism of this
butchery,
>a note was found pinned to his chest, containing death threats against
three
>other public figures.
>
Not just public figures, but one member of parliament. And this is what got
the most criticism: it was a direct attack on democracy. I think that there
is ancient law about interfering with the national government, and that the
punishment is extremely high. I forgot the details.
>We have no conception of the status accorded to the artist in countries
that
>have known totalitarian dictatorship within living memory.
>
I would not call TvG an artist. Just a big mouth. Many people did not
like him.
>The Nazis and the
>Communists liquidated or exiled the intelligentsia wherever they could.
>
Had it been a simple murder on TvG, it would have gone almost unnoticed.
Now that it was a religious fanatic, a butchering, and a threat towards
an MP,
it caused an outcry. It was an attack on our principle of freedom to be
crazy,
and on our democracy. I'm not so sure that we care about TvG personally...
>Hence the reverence in which the artist is held. Hence the cult of dissent
>at any price, however absurd, pretentious or childish. Hence the aversion
to
>censorship of any kind, including self-censorship. For a post-traumatic
>culture, the artist is a high priest.
>
The man was a clown. No Dutchman took him serious, only a fool from
another culture would. Unfortunately he met his fool.
>The murder of an artist for the sake
>of his art shocks secular Europe rather as martyrdom once shocked
>Christendom. Theo van Gogh is a secular martyr.
>
Bullshit. He was murdered for the sake of his grossly insulting behaviour.
It has nothing to do with art. They should have locked him up earlier for
what he has said and written, and he would still be alive. It was a mistake
to take it as art or satire. It was pure racism and discrimination.
>What had he done to deserve such a fate? Submission, the film that
>occasioned the attack, is by no means an attack on Islam as a religion. It
>does not, as Rushdie did, ridicule the Prophet Mohammed. What it does is to
>denounce the barbaric treatment of women in many Islamic societies,
focusing
>attention on forced marriage and the penalisation of rape victims under the
>guise of adultery. The imagery is deliberately provocative: verses from the
>Koran are inscribed on a naked woman, to drive home the message that Muslim
>women are human, too, beneath the veil.
>
Unfortunately, Koran verses are sacred to Muslims. It was a big insult
to them. Sometimes a little self censorship is good. It's called decency.
>It does not require much imagination to see how this tableau would strike
>strict Muslims, who regard the Koran as the literal, uncreated word of God,
>and whose customs forbid the public display of the female face, let alone
>her body. To them, the broadcast of such an image on television is both
>blasphemy and sacrilege. In their eyes, it adds to the gravity of the case
>that the Somali woman who wrote the script of Submission, Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
>is a former Muslim - in other words, an apostate. She has been condemned by
>fatwa and survives only under police protection.
>
She is quite popular, for presenting a different view on the Islam.
But she is not rude, like TvG. And she speaks from personal experience.
>Van Gogh, as a non-Muslim, was mistakenly assumed, both by the authorities
>and himself, to be less at risk.
>
He had expected a bullet, but he was man enough to accept that !
I have to admit it, the man had big balls.
>In his book Allah Knows Better, however, he
>added insult to injury by castigating the misogyny and puritanical
attitudes
>of local imams. Defiant to the last, he refused to alter his bohemian
>lifestyle, as if the Netherlands were still the haven of toleration that it
>had been since the revolt against Spanish rule four centuries ago.
>
Bohemian ? He was just rude. Very rude.
>That habit of toleration is an integral part of Dutch identity. Van Gogh's
>death, like that of the politician Pim Fortuyn two years ago, echoed the
>assassination in 1584 of the Prince of Orange, William the Silent, who is
>still seen as a martyr not only to the Protestant cause, but also to that
of
>freedom of conscience. The words of the historian Motley about William the
>Silent - "When he died, the little children cried in the streets" - could
>have been said yesterday of Theo van Gogh.
>
It was just an opportunity of ventilating distrust towards our aliens.
>philosopher and saint Edith Stein to Auschwitz. Anne Frank and her family
>were protected for four years, only to be betrayed as liberation
approached.
>
Our famous love for Jews was paperthin. Many were betrayed, just to
get rid of them. Our tolerance was (and is) entirely opportunistic !
>The bitter experience of occupation and collaboration has made the Dutch
>hypersensitive to intolerance in any form.
>
Bull. Just sensitive to anything that disturbs the peaceful life.
We are a feminine society, we like to be taken care of. We don't
like it if big men with big balls fight in public. We like it quiet.
>Now, with the manifestation of a violent form of intolerance in their
midst,
>the iron has entered their souls. After decades of welcoming immigration
and
>preaching multiculturalism, they now propose to expel failed asylum-seekers
>
Isn't that the essence of failing asylum ?! What else should we do ??
>and to assimilate those who settle, rather than permit de facto religious
>segregation. If neo-conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by
>reality, the Dutch are fast becoming a nation of neo-conservatives.
>
Interesting point ! It's now integrate (and be useful) or get out.
Again, pure opportunism. We need workers to pay for the pensions of
our elders. We don't need more people on welfare. Non-integrated people
have very little chance of a job, they only cost us money. Opportunism !
>While the Arab-European League accused the Dutch immigration minister of
>giving a "Hitler speech" at a rally in protest at van Gogh's murder, the
>
She was very pissed off ! This is where it ends for our "guests".
>Dutch know who the real Hitlers are. Even the most liberal society is
>illiberal when it is a question of survival. The Dutch see those who dream
>of Europe under a revived caliphate as a threat to their way of life. The
>prospect of Islamist imams imposing sharia law on Dutch cities amounts,
they
>feel, to a new Nazi occupation.
>
It is perhaps not that. It is fear of becoming a minority.
Many Muslims still have (breed) large families, whereas the Dutch
now have very small families. Do the math... Pretty soon it will not
be our own country anymore. My wife knows exactly what that means,
look at Kosovo. The Albanians have totally outnumbered the Serbs.
>Unlike his great, great, great uncle Vincent, Theo van Gogh was not a
>genius. Was he really an artist at all? But van Gogh's murder has proved
him
>right about the hardline Islamists. Their ideology is inimical to all that
>the Dutch hold dear. Last night, as van Gogh's cremation was seen on
>television, the tension was palpable. Holland is now the crucible of
Europe.
>Not even the most tolerant people on earth can tolerate the Islamists.
>
That's the interesting part: we still do tolerate them. We know the
difference between a peaceful (and useful !) majority, and a small
extremist minority. We know the difference between Turks and
Moroccans, and between good and bad Moroccans. Or between
good and bad Dutchmen, for that matter. We don't generalize.
After the bomb attack on the Islamic school, just a few blocks from
my home, many Dutch people were very sympathetic with the
victims (children and parents) of the attack. Only some were not.
Roger also wrote:
> Your government let these people go
It's not like they were the most successful people in NL...
People usually leave because they can not face the competition
anymore. They are the quitters. The strong ones stay.
> and later allowed in the dregs of society from Morocco
> and Turkey. Why? It is not as though Holland had an colonial
> responsibility for these people.
What do you mean "allowed" ? We dragged them in, begged them to
come ! We were running out of cheap labour, so we imported
illiterate people from backward regions of Morocco and Turkey to
come and work in our "conveyor belt" factories. My colleague says
that they were specifically selected for low IQ. That inherits...
But at that time they were very useful for our economy. And since
our birth rate is stagnating and we can not afford good pensions
anymore, we need the immigrants and their children to keep the
population young. And the younger generation is integrated quite
well, except when they have been indoctrinated by imams. It's these
radical imams that we want to expel. Not the muslims in general.
And yes, that school is very close to my home, I have heard the
explosion and have seen the damage. It's a lively neighbourhood..."
There you are. Interpret that how you wish!
R
Dersu
is particularly pertinent in NZ's case.
D.
--------------
PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2004.11.15
EDITION: National
SECTION: Editorials
PAGE: A19
COLUMN: Lorne Gunter
BYLINE: Lorne Gunter
SOURCE: National Post
NOTE: lgu...@nationalpost.com
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
A Dutch lesson for Canada
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
Bravo to the Dutch for recognizing that the assimilation of immigrants and
refugees is preferable to multiculturalism and political correctness.
A sea change has occurred in the Netherlands in the past few years. The
famously liberal Dutch citizenry, and a goodly number in officialdom, have
come to recognize that too much acquiescence to the customs and traditions
of immigrants and refugees has led to civil strife.
The prevailing sentiment among the majority of Dutch voters now is that
their national immigration policy has made insufficient demands on newcomers
to respect the foundations of Dutch law and culture. In particular, a large
and growing Muslim community has been encouraged by official diversity
programs to remain both detached from mainstream Dutch culture and hostile
to it.
It has taken two gruesome political murders to jolt the Dutch from their
previous cult-like devotion to tolerance.
Tolerance had become a civil religion among the Dutch before the
assassinations of politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and filmmaker Theo van Gogh
earlier this month. Fortuyn was not murdered by Muslims, but rather by a
fanatic leftist, environmentalist, animal-rights activist outraged by
Fortuyn's opposition to Muslim immigration. Volkert van der Graaf shot
Fortuyn dead in the middle of the last Dutch election.
At the time of his death, Fortuyn was widely described as a right-wing
populist, because reporters and editors assume the only politicians opposed
to immigration and multiculturalism are on the right. But Fortuyn was a
flamboyantly gay sociologist long active in the Partij van de Arbeid, the
Dutch social democratic party. What distressed him about the rapid increase
in the Muslim population was the threat rigid Muslims posed to his nation's
liberal traditions. They were antagonistic to Holland's acceptance of
same-sex rights, the sex trade and recreational drug use.
Similarly, Van Gogh was killed for producing a left-of-centre film exposing
Muslim discrimination against women.
Van Gogh's alleged murderer is a Muslim, as are his six alleged accomplices.
And the filmmaker's death was especially grisly: Shot several times at close
range, but (apparently) deliberately left alive, his throat was then slashed
as he pleaded for his life. Finally, Koranic verses and exhortations that
Islam would crush the Netherlands and western Europe were pegged to his
corpse's chest by the knife used almost to decapitate him.
Even before this second killing, the Dutch had taken bold steps to end
Muslim immigrants' self-imposed isolation and to reduce the security threat
from the most radical Islamists in the country. Imams at Dutch mosques --
most of whom are Arab-born, and many of whom are financed by radical Middle
Eastern Muslims and preach virulently anti-Western sermons -- were being
compelled by the government to take Dutch lessons. These clerics were
advocating an end to Dutch society without even being able to speak the
native language well enough to understand events around them.
Authorities are also pondering the closure of Muslim schools and the
transfer of students to public schools to get them away from teachers and
curricula antagonistic of Western values.
Within the next three years, too, Dutch immigration officials intend to
deport all 26,000 unsuccessful refugee claimants still at large and return
them to their home countries -- even if they have stable jobs and Dutch-born
children.
As is the case here, the biggest problem with radicals in the Dutch Muslim
community is among bogus refugee claimants, not legitimate immigrants.
Is there a lesson in this for Canada? Probably. At the very least, a
cautionary tale. In the past decade, our Muslim population has risen more
than 130%. Muslims comprise the fastest growing religious group in Canada
with more than 100,000 adherents.
And it is recently arrived Muslims who are the most likely to be filled with
the hateful, anti-Western teaching that is booming in the Middle East.
Long-standing Canadian Muslims are largely as peaceful as they claim to be.
There is also mounting evidence that a growing number of Canadian mosques
and Islamic schools have come under the control of Saudi-funded Wahhabis and
other radical Islamists. In April, 2002, a crowd of 1,000 or more, many from
a Calgary mosque funded by the Saudi royals, marched through that city's
downtown chanting "Death to the Jews." At a recent conference in Ottawa on
the advent of shariah -- Islamic law -- in Canada, one delegate, a moderate
Muslim and university professor, estimated that 90% of the new mosques
constructed in Canada since 1990 were Wahhabi-dominated.
A Vancouver imam was recently revealed preaching venomous anti-Semitic and
anti-Western dogma after one of his flock was shot dead in Chechnya fighting
for Muslim extremists against Russian troops.
Judy Sgro, Canada's Immigration Minister, announced this week that Ottawa
will get tougher with bogus refugee claimants. This would be the best place
to start. Both CSIS and the RCMP insist most of the jihadis who have entered
Canada in the past decade have come as false refugees.
Sgro's task will not be easy. An earlier attempt by the Liberals to reform
our refugee rules, in 1995, ran aground on protests from refugee lawyers who
have developed lucrative practices defending refugee claimants at public
expense and opposition from the ethnic political leaders many Liberals rely
on for re-election.
But if Canada is to be spared the Netherlands' upheaval, Sgro must be
serious, and she must succeed.
brazen
> Here's a Canadian perspective. Note the comment about false refugees which
> is particularly pertinent in NZ's case.
>
> A Dutch lesson for Canada
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> - ----
>
> Bravo to the Dutch for recognizing that the assimilation of immigrants and
> refugees is preferable to multiculturalism and political correctness.
And this first line is a lesson on how to make a potential audience switch
off. The "political correctness" term really pisses me off - it seems to be
used primarily by those who cant actually argue the real point, but somehow
try to shroud their pathetic views in some kind of "PC" conspiracy theory.
So assimilation and multiculturalism are incompatible - bollocks. There are
plenty of great, diverse, lively communities that whilst working and living
with the greater population still retain their own identities and culture.
NZ has historically been one of them, welcoming, assimilating and enjoying
various cultures through the years - certainly that was my experience in
small town NI, and Auckland in the 60's & 70's. Not that you'd know it from
this ng some times - the vocal scaredy-pants brigade seem to be whipping
themselves into a frenzy about all things race-oriented. What are people so
scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
<rest of scaremongering crud snipped>
Gay
WeeWillyWonka
<g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
> What are people so
>scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
What an imbecile. You stand in the 104th story of Tower 2 on 9/11.
You re-enact what Van Gogh went through in Holland 2 weeks ago when he
was shot and near-decapitated. He was spineless all right, after the
serrated knife hacked through his neck spine.
There seems to be a never-ending parade of no-brain leftist clowns
like you. Is there an assembly line somewhere?
willy
JD
Social sciences faculties at universities.
JD
>
> So assimilation and multiculturalism are incompatible - bollocks.
Get a dictionary and look up both words, it is one or the other - by
definition it can't be both.
NZDude
"brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
news:4199...@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:r2gmd.6278$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
> > Here's a Canadian perspective. Note the comment about false refugees
which
> > is particularly pertinent in NZ's case.
> >
>
> > A Dutch lesson for Canada
> >
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > - ----
> >
> > Bravo to the Dutch for recognizing that the assimilation of immigrants
and
> > refugees is preferable to multiculturalism and political correctness.
>
> And this first line is a lesson on how to make a potential audience switch
> off. The "political correctness" term really pisses me off - it seems to
be
> used primarily by those who cant actually argue the real point, but
somehow
> try to shroud their pathetic views in some kind of "PC" conspiracy theory.
>
Ahem. PC views have in truth become a form of thought policing. If you
don't use the new correct terms or buy into the complete philosphy behind it
you are a bad person and not following the rules. So hell yeah PC thinking
DOES have something to do with this. Otherwise people could simply point to
radical fundamentalist Muslims and say that THOSE people are dangerous and
should not be accepted as immigrants because OVERWHELMING statistical data
will show that radical fundamentalist Muslims are the group MOST LIKELY to
inflict harm upon others in a random act of politically motivated violence.
So since they can't do that BECAUSE of the PC rules and thinking that is
empowered everywhere the PC thinking DOES beome a contributing factor to the
problem.
> So assimilation and multiculturalism are incompatible - bollocks. There
are
> plenty of great, diverse, lively communities that whilst working and
living
> with the greater population still retain their own identities and culture.
> NZ has historically been one of them, welcoming, assimilating and enjoying
> various cultures through the years - certainly that was my experience in
> small town NI, and Auckland in the 60's & 70's. Not that you'd know it
from
> this ng some times - the vocal scaredy-pants brigade seem to be whipping
> themselves into a frenzy about all things race-oriented. What are people
so
> scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
>
Right it is scaremongering to note that many Mulim immigrants wish to
establish a Sharia court in NZ to resolve their own legal probs in a way
compatible with their belief system. It is unfair to remember that LARGE
numbers of the radical fundamentalist state as one of their goals the
re-establishment of a large Caliphate run on Sharia justice in effect
reclaiming the land lost by the Turks during WW1. Obviously you MISSED the
part of the article discussing how the problem was that these folks
self-isolate and DON'T choose to assimilate into the culture they now live
in. Instead they establish their own immigrant ghettoes and steadfastly
refuse to join in with the rest of the folks in the country they live in.
So is it scaremongering to note that this specific group of people could
(and often DO) represent a threat? Is it wrong to note that in another
country engaging in similar political philospohies that the end result has
been tragic and totally NOT what the people who originally put those laws
in place ever imagined. So tell me where exactly is the falsehood and
scaremongering that you mention?
NZD
Tilly
> "Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:Xefmd.6268$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
>>
>> The recent assassination of Dutch author and moviemaker, Theo van
>> Gough, by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam should come as no surprise
>> to those familiar with the condition of multiculturalism in Holland.
>> Earlier this year, the Dutch government became the first Western
>> state to admit that the multicultural experiment, the biggest
>> socialist fraud ever to be foisted on countries since the Soviet
>> one, is a colossal failure.
>
> Here is a verbatim discussion with a contact in Holland:
>
> "Roger Dewhurst wrote:
>
>> Dutch find the strength to take on their 'new Nazis'
>>
> A gross exaggeration. Fanatic Muslims are not Nazis. Nazis were pigs.
> Van Gogh was a pig. Muslims hate pigs. They don't even eat them...
Perhaps they are worse than nazis.They behead their victims slowly.
>> But there is no precedent for the ritual
>> slaughter of a prominent artist in broad daylight on the streets of
>> Amsterdam.
>>
> What can I say ? Van Gogh was an asshole who met a bigger asshole. He
> has insulted people in every possible way, without being called back
> by the authorities. He knew he was messing with mad dogs. He thought
> that he was funny, and that the others would understand that. But
> they did not...
One has a duty not to insult 'mad dogs'?
Van Gogh was prepared to risk the consequences.
>> For the Dutch, this murder is not only sinister: it is symbolic.
>>
> It was said that it was an attack on the freedom of speech. But was
> it ? Others have said that there are limits to freedom of speech,
> where it hurts or
> insults other people. Mad dogs do bite sometimes.
Sometimes? They want Shariah law for goodness sake.They want to impose their
values on Dutch society.Many of them cheered on 911.Only last year a
textbook and reading cards with pictures of the Twin Towers was reported in
an Islamic school in the Netherlands. The staff were praising 911 and
Islamic fundamentalism. The Dutch Education Minister declined to ban it.
Van Gogh -
>> distantly related to Holland's most celebrated artist - was shot on
>> his bicycle, another national emblem.
>>
> The assasinator was also on a bicycle. A bicycle drive by shooting...
>
>> As he writhed on the ground, the murderer
>> cut his throat without mercy and left him with two knives protruding
>> from his body: a method that is apparently common in North Africa,
>> but unheard of here. Just in case there was any doubt about the
>> symbolism of this butchery, a note was found pinned to his chest,
>> containing death threats against three other public figures.
>>
> Not just public figures, but one member of parliament. And this is
> what got the most criticism: it was a direct attack on democracy. I
> think that there is ancient law about interfering with the national
> government, and that the punishment is extremely high. I forgot the
> details.
>
>> We have no conception of the status accorded to the artist in
>> countries that have known totalitarian dictatorship within living
>> memory.
>>
> I would not call TvG an artist. Just a big mouth. Many people did not
> like him.
A big mouth who wrote the truth about Islamic misogyny.
It is true, I have spent a lot of time in the ME.
>> The Nazis and the
>> Communists liquidated or exiled the intelligentsia wherever they
>> could.
>>
> Had it been a simple murder on TvG, it would have gone almost
> unnoticed. Now that it was a religious fanatic, a butchering, and a
> threat towards
> an MP,
> it caused an outcry. It was an attack on our principle of freedom to
> be crazy,
> and on our democracy. I'm not so sure that we care about TvG
> personally...
Many people did or so my Dutch contacts tell me, but you are correct ,it was
perceived as an attack on the right to be Dutch and speak your mind .This
also includes the sacred right of Muslims and Dutch alike to voice their di
slike of Israel and Jews.
>> Hence the reverence in which the artist is held. Hence the cult of
>> dissent at any price, however absurd, pretentious or childish. Hence
>> the aversion to censorship of any kind, including self-censorship.
>> For a post-traumatic culture, the artist is a high priest.
>>
> The man was a clown. No Dutchman took him serious,
Wrong. The Dutch who saw his doco were outraged by the Somali MP's story
.This isn't the way Dutch treat their women and they don't want it occurring
in their country.
only a fool from
> another culture would. Unfortunately he met his fool.
Clearly you haven't spoken to many people.
>
>> The murder of an artist for the sake
>> of his art shocks secular Europe rather as martyrdom once shocked
>> Christendom. Theo van Gogh is a secular martyr.
>>
> Bullshit. He was murdered for the sake of his grossly insulting
> behaviour.
Telling the truth is grossly insulting. Since when?
It has nothing to do with art. They should have locked him
> up earlier for what he has said and written, and he would still be
> alive. It was a mistake to take it as art or satire. It was pure
> racism and discrimination.
The truth is racist and discrimitory?
It appears your Muslim immigrants can't stand criticism, although they are
only too quick to criticise Dutch liberalism and things they don't like..
>
>> What had he done to deserve such a fate? Submission, the film that
>> occasioned the attack, is by no means an attack on Islam as a
>> religion. It does not, as Rushdie did, ridicule the Prophet
>> Mohammed. What it does is to denounce the barbaric treatment of
>> women in many Islamic societies, focusing attention on forced
>> marriage and the penalisation of rape victims under the guise of
>> adultery. The imagery is deliberately provocative: verses from the
>> Koran are inscribed on a naked woman, to drive home the message that
>> Muslim women are human, too, beneath the veil.
Well they are aren't they?
>>
> Unfortunately, Koran verses are sacred to Muslims. It was a big insult
> to them. Sometimes a little self censorship is good. It's called
> decency.
Aghhhhh , but they are only too quick to criticise Jews and Christians as
'pigs and monkeys' in their Arabic textbooks and in their mosques..
They are permitted freedom of speech but it isn't reciprocal!
>> It does not require much imagination to see how this tableau would
>> strike strict Muslims, who regard the Koran as the literal,
>> uncreated word of God, and whose customs forbid the public display
>> of the female face, let alone her body. To them, the broadcast of
>> such an image on television is both blasphemy and sacrilege.
Simple, press the off switch or don't watch it.
In
>> their eyes, it adds to the gravity of the case that the Somali woman
>> who wrote the script of Submission, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is a former
>> Muslim - in other words, an apostate. She has been condemned by
>> fatwa and survives only under police protection.
So they are allowed their fatwas and the Dutch are denied free speech ie:
Murdered or threatened with death for insulting them?
> She is quite popular, for presenting a different view on the Islam.
> But she is not rude, like TvG. And she speaks from personal
> experience.
....but they are still out to kill her.
>> Van Gogh, as a non-Muslim, was mistakenly assumed, both by the
>> authorities and himself, to be less at risk.
Because they were blase even after the death threats.
> He had expected a bullet, but he was man enough to accept that !
> I have to admit it, the man had big balls.
>
>> In his book Allah Knows Better, however, he
>> added insult to injury by castigating the misogyny and puritanical
>> attitudes of local imams.
In other words he told the truth.So the truth hurts!
Defiant to the last, he refused to alter
>> his bohemian lifestyle, as if the Netherlands were still the haven
>> of toleration that it had been since the revolt against Spanish rule
>> four centuries ago.
Aghhhhhhh one should adjust to the immigrants not the other way round.<sigh>
Bohemian ? He was just rude. Very rude.
So are lots of people.
>> That habit of toleration is an integral part of Dutch identity. Van
>> Gogh's death, like that of the politician Pim Fortuyn two years ago,
>> echoed the assassination in 1584 of the Prince of Orange, William
>> the Silent, who is still seen as a martyr not only to the Protestant
>> cause, but also to that of freedom of conscience. The words of the
>> historian Motley about William the Silent - "When he died, the
>> little children cried in the streets" - could have been said
>> yesterday of Theo van Gogh.
>>
> It was just an opportunity of ventilating distrust towards our aliens.
>
>> philosopher and saint Edith Stein to Auschwitz. Anne Frank and her
>> family were protected for four years, only to be betrayed as
>> liberation approached.
>>
> Our famous love for Jews was paperthin. Many were betrayed, just to
> get rid of them. Our tolerance was (and is) entirely opportunistic !
The highest percentage of Jews in Europe that were shipped to concentration
camps, were sent there from the Netherlands.
>
>> The bitter experience of occupation and collaboration has made the
>> Dutch hypersensitive to intolerance in any form.
>>
> Bull. Just sensitive to anything that disturbs the peaceful life.
> We are a feminine society, we like to be taken care of. We don't
> like it if big men with big balls fight in public. We like it quiet.
>
>> Now, with the manifestation of a violent form of intolerance in
>> their midst, the iron has entered their souls. After decades of
>> welcoming immigration and preaching multiculturalism, they now
>> propose to expel failed asylum-seekers
>>
> Isn't that the essence of failing asylum ?! What else should we do ??
Integrate schools and stop state funding of Muslim schools.They should also
have to learn Dutch when they arrive.
>> and to assimilate those who settle, rather than permit de facto
>> religious segregation. If neo-conservatives are liberals who have
>> been mugged by reality, the Dutch are fast becoming a nation of
>> neo-conservatives.
>>
> Interesting point ! It's now integrate (and be useful) or get out.
> Again, pure opportunism. We need workers to pay for the pensions of
> our elders. We don't need more people on welfare. Non-integrated
> people have very little chance of a job, they only cost us money.
> Opportunism !
>
>> While the Arab-European League accused the Dutch immigration
>> minister of giving a "Hitler speech" at a rally in protest at van
>> Gogh's murder, the
>>
> She was very pissed off ! This is where it ends for our "guests".
>
>> Dutch know who the real Hitlers are. Even the most liberal society is
>> illiberal when it is a question of survival. The Dutch see those who
>> dream of Europe under a revived caliphate as a threat to their way
>> of life. The prospect of Islamist imams imposing sharia law on Dutch
>> cities amounts, they feel, to a new Nazi occupation.
>>
> It is perhaps not that. It is fear of becoming a minority.
Which they soon would be ,given that the average Dutch Muslim family has
between 5-8 children.The Muslim population is growing exponentially
> Many Muslims still have (breed) large families, whereas the Dutch
> now have very small families. Do the math... Pretty soon it will not
> be our own country anymore. My wife knows exactly what that means,
> look at Kosovo. The Albanians have totally outnumbered the Serbs.
Which wouldn't have happened if the Serbs hadn't set out to slaughter the
Albanians.No?
>> Unlike his great, great, great uncle Vincent, Theo van Gogh was not a
>> genius. Was he really an artist at all? But van Gogh's murder has
>> proved him right about the hardline Islamists. Their ideology is
>> inimical to all that the Dutch hold dear. Last night, as van Gogh's
>> cremation was seen on television, the tension was palpable. Holland
>> is now the crucible of Europe. Not even the most tolerant people on
>> earth can tolerate the Islamists.
>>
> That's the interesting part: we still do tolerate them.
Tolerate or give in to their demands?
We know the
> difference between a peaceful (and useful !) majority, and a small
> extremist minority. We know the difference between Turks and
> Moroccans, and between good and bad Moroccans. Or between
> good and bad Dutchmen, for that matter. We don't generalize.
> After the bomb attack on the Islamic school, just a few blocks from
> my home, many Dutch people were very sympathetic with the
> victims (children and parents) of the attack. Only some were not.
Good.
> Roger also wrote:
>
>> Your government let these people go
>
> It's not like they were the most successful people in NL...
> People usually leave because they can not face the competition
> anymore. They are the quitters. The strong ones stay.
>
>> and later allowed in the dregs of society from Morocco
>> and Turkey. Why? It is not as though Holland had an colonial
>> responsibility for these people.
>
> What do you mean "allowed" ? We dragged them in, begged them to
> come ! We were running out of cheap labour, so we imported
> illiterate people from backward regions of Morocco and Turkey to
> come and work in our "conveyor belt" factories. My colleague says
> that they were specifically selected for low IQ. That inherits...
> But at that time they were very useful for our economy. And since
> our birth rate is stagnating and we can not afford good pensions
> anymore, we need the immigrants and their children to keep the
> population young.
:-) A problem in most Western countries.
And the younger generation is integrated quite
> well, except when they have been indoctrinated by imams.
Which a good percentage are. Some of the Indonesian Muslim immigrants are
also being Islamicised.
It's these
> radical imams that we want to expel. Not the muslims in general.
Well is the NL going to do it or do they back down?
Do they prosecute Islamists who circumcise their daughters? I have heard
they tend to turn a blind eye, unless the females actually complain to the
police.
The fact is that countries which don't sponsor Islamic schools and don't
allow Saudi Arabia to sponsor schools don't have the same problems.
In New Zealand even in Muslim schools the children have to learn English,
have to learn the same curriculum as NZ children do and sit the same state
exams. Religious studies are limited to a certain ampount of time and
regular inspections by the Education Dept are mandatory .
In ChCh where a Muslim school has been established half the Muslim communtiy
went to the Government to prevent Saudi sponsorship.They didn't want a
Madrassa style education for their children and were determined to prevent
it..Emirate sponsorship has been allowed but the school has to follow
strict guidelines.
The Afghan children who came to NZ as refugees have adapted well to secular
state education ,although thery were shocked at first to see girls in
bikinis and women being treated equally.
--
Tilly
Clapham Omnibus
>
> So assimilation and multiculturalism are incompatible - bollocks. There are
> plenty of great, diverse, lively communities that whilst working and living
> with the greater population still retain their own identities and culture.
> NZ has historically been one of them, welcoming, assimilating and enjoying
> various cultures through the years - certainly that was my experience in
> small town NI, and Auckland in the 60's & 70's. Not that you'd know it from
> this ng some times - the vocal scaredy-pants brigade seem to be whipping
> themselves into a frenzy about all things race-oriented. What are people so
> scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
>
> <rest of scaremongering crud snipped>
>
> Gay
I think you'll find that "what people are so scared of" is the
worldwide activity by Muslims in murdering 'infidels'. If these
people want to cause trouble they should expect to be imprisoned and
deported. There's an easy solution - i.e. Muslims stop murdering
innocent women and children. Don't hold your breath.
Clapham
Roger Dewhurst
"Tilly" <Striking1...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:2Immd.2867$9A.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> > "Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > news:Xefmd.6268$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
> >>
I am afraid the original post was a bit confusing. It commenced with an
extract of an article on which I sought comment from a contact in Holland.
He is a highly educated electronic engineer. Much of his reply was added to
the original extract. There is part of a follow up question from me and
then his response. My interpretation of all this is that he is basically
sympathetic to immigration and is more than uncomfortable with Dutch
reaction to recent events.
Personally I think that any government that allows in any immigrants in such
numbers that they form non-integrating communities or ghettos is doing the
country a great disservice. We should learn from the mistakes made in
Europe and Britain. I believe that we should strive to assimilate all into
this society and work towards a monocultural society which comprises the
best aspects of the cultures of the various people who live here.
R
Patrick Dunford
19:01:57 +1300, brazen <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> says...
>
> "Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:r2gmd.6278$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
> > Here's a Canadian perspective. Note the comment about false refugees which
> > is particularly pertinent in NZ's case.
> >
>
> > A Dutch lesson for Canada
> >
> > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > - ----
> >
> > Bravo to the Dutch for recognizing that the assimilation of immigrants and
> > refugees is preferable to multiculturalism and political correctness.
>
> And this first line is a lesson on how to make a potential audience switch
> off. The "political correctness" term really pisses me off - it seems to be
> used primarily by those who cant actually argue the real point, but somehow
> try to shroud their pathetic views in some kind of "PC" conspiracy theory.
There is really such a thing as political correctness - it primarily
revolves around the socialist's notion that you can't do anything that
might offend someone.
Patrick Dunford
16 Nov 2004 17:20:40 +1300, Dersu <de...@paradise.net.nz> says...
> Lesson for us here I think.
> D.
> ----------
>
> The Death of the Dutch?
> By Stephen Brown
> FrontPageMagazine.com |
> November 12, 2004
>
> The recent assassination of Dutch author and moviemaker, Theo van Gough,
> by a Muslim extremist in Amsterdam should come as no surprise to those
> familiar with the condition of multiculturalism in Holland. Earlier this
> year, the Dutch government became the first Western state to admit that
> the multicultural experiment, the biggest socialist fraud ever to be
> foisted on countries since the Soviet one, is a colossal failure.
>
> This admission came in the form of an all-party parliamentary report
> that basically concluded, among other things, that Muslim immigrants,
> who make up almost one million of Holland's 16 million inhabitants, are
> refusing to integrate. These immigrants, largely concentrated in the
> cities where they constitute a large percentage of urban populations
> such as in Rotterdam, choose to live together in their own 'ghettos'
> where they have built up parallel societies to that of the host country.
> And it is not going to get better. According to the report, between 70
> and 80 per cent of Dutch-born immigrants, mostly from Morocco and
> Turkey, refuse to intermarry with native-born Dutch and are importing
> their spouses from their home countries.
And this happens here, why is the government ignorant of this fact?
Note I am not advocating assimilation
--
"Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
a man and a woman.
This foundation provides the best possible
environment to raise our children."
Roger Dewhurst
"Patrick Dunford" <patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c0524565...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> In article <Xefmd.6268$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net> in nz.politics on Tue,
> 16 Nov 2004 17:20:40 +1300, Dersu <de...@paradise.net.nz> says...
>
> And this happens here, why is the government ignorant of this fact?
>
> Note I am not advocating assimilation
Why not? Surely total assimilation and integration is the best way of
avoiding inter-racial and inter-cultural strife?
R
brazen
"JD" <_antip...@ubique.com> wrote in message
news:8zjmd.37948$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Not me, pet.
Gay
brazen
"WeeWillyWonka" <w...@freenet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4199b828...@news.iconz.co.nz...
Golly, are you so inept that instead of giving an argument against what I
wrote you attack the poster. Why do you bother?
gay
brazen
"Clapham Omnibus" <clapham_o...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:632563b6.04111...@posting.google.com...
> "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
news:<4199...@clear.net.nz>...
>
> >
> > So assimilation and multiculturalism are incompatible - bollocks. There
are
> > plenty of great, diverse, lively communities that whilst working and
living
> > with the greater population still retain their own identities and
culture.
> > NZ has historically been one of them, welcoming, assimilating and
enjoying
> > various cultures through the years - certainly that was my experience in
> > small town NI, and Auckland in the 60's & 70's. Not that you'd know it
from
> > this ng some times - the vocal scaredy-pants brigade seem to be whipping
> > themselves into a frenzy about all things race-oriented. What are people
so
> > scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
> >
> > <rest of scaremongering crud snipped>
> >
> > Gay
>
> I think you'll find that "what people are so scared of" is the
> worldwide activity by Muslims in murdering 'infidels'.
Worldwide - really? Seems ok here. Dont recall much in the Australian news
either. UK? Nope. Stick to reality and stop making out that it is bigger
than it is.
It has happened in a few war situations and (separately) by Al Quieda. The
Dutch killing was because *an individual* shat on their beliefs in full
knowledge that some potentially fanatical people would take extreme offense
and would try and kill him. I mean, didnt Salman Rushdies experience make
him think twice? Its certainly not something I would do - would you?
Gay
Sue Bilstein
You missed his argument, but that's par for the course from you.
Sue Bilstein
<g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>"Clapham Omnibus" <clapham_o...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:632563b6.04111...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> worldwide activity by Muslims in murdering 'infidels'.
>
>Worldwide - really? Seems ok here. Dont recall much in the Australian news
>either. UK? Nope. Stick to reality and stop making out that it is bigger
>than it is.
Guess what - there aren't many Islamists in NZ.
>
>It has happened in a few war situations and (separately) by Al Quieda. The
>Dutch killing was because *an individual* shat on their beliefs in full
>knowledge that some potentially fanatical people would take extreme offense
>and would try and kill him.
Like those Catholics killed the perpetrator of the "Virgin in a
Condom"?
>I mean, didnt Salman Rushdies experience make
>him think twice? Its certainly not something I would do - would you?
Right, so you have been successfully terrorised: internally colonised.
You're a good little dhimmi now, eh brazen?
brazen
"NZDude" <nzd...@REMOVETHISihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cnckaf$d1l$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
No. Its these sweeping statements, backed up by the dreaded PC, that is
precisely what I object to.
"PC views have in truth become a form of thought policing" - what does this
mean - how can you substantiate this? You have used "in truth" to give it
some weight but in reality is is neither true or a lie, its nothing.
"If you don't use the new correct terms or buy into the complete philosphy
behind it you are a bad person and not following the rules." You are trying
to indicate a conspiracy. There isnt.
So hell yeah PC thinking
> DOES have something to do with this. Otherwise people could simply point
to
> radical fundamentalist Muslims and say that THOSE people are dangerous and
> should not be accepted as immigrants because OVERWHELMING statistical data
> will show that radical fundamentalist Muslims are the group MOST LIKELY to
> inflict harm upon others in a random act of politically motivated
violence.
> So since they can't do that BECAUSE of the PC rules and thinking that is
> empowered everywhere the PC thinking DOES beome a contributing factor to
the
> problem.
Not true. People certainly say those kind of things now, and about Maori,
and about Asians, and about gays, and about {insert minority group} but the
problem with that argument is that you are treating people as a group and
punishing some for the sins of others. I could do that myself with
Christians - some of them say some bloody awful things about me and some of
them have said people like me should be put to death. But they are not all
like that. Its not PC to treat people as individuals, though you may want to
call it that - I'd say it was more human nature.
<snip>
> > scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
> >
>
> Right it is scaremongering to note that many Mulim immigrants wish to
> establish a Sharia court in NZ to resolve their own legal probs in a way
> compatible with their belief system.
Well that is unlikely to happen here, is it? I mean many Maori would like
that, but thats not gonna happen, is it?
It is unfair to remember that LARGE
> numbers of the radical fundamentalist state as one of their goals the
> re-establishment of a large Caliphate run on Sharia justice in effect
> reclaiming the land lost by the Turks during WW1. Obviously you MISSED
the
> part of the article discussing how the problem was that these folks
> self-isolate and DON'T choose to assimilate into the culture they now live
> in. Instead they establish their own immigrant ghettoes and steadfastly
> refuse to join in with the rest of the folks in the country they live in.
> So is it scaremongering to note that this specific group of people could
> (and often DO) represent a threat?
Yes it is scaremongering to say that without evidence. You are talking about
*some* people - not all. That is using absolutes when you shouldnt.
Is it wrong to note that in another
> country engaging in similar political philospohies that the end result has
> been tragic and totally NOT what the people who originally put those laws
> in place ever imagined. So tell me where exactly is the falsehood and
> scaremongering that you mention?
I'm saying we should look at what is happening in the world and see what the
problems are and learn from them. But learn from them in a constructive
manner rather than accentuating the problems elsewhere, making the risk out
to be extreme and polarising our people against different cultures. I mean
what are the reasons why some communities dont mix in well - is it because
they have difficulty getting work? (ieshould more be done to address racism,
should the overseas qualifications system be looked at...) - is it because
language is a problem (maybe there should be more adult literacy programs -
seems its a problem for born-nzers too) - is it housing etc....
I think alarmist talk like "worldwide activity" and "civil strife" (other
posters phrases, not yours) dont help. The make things worse. People need to
keep a little perspective on it.
Gay
brazen
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message
news:njrkp0dk2ku2kb7v8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:56:45 +1300, "brazen"
> <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
> >"Clapham Omnibus" <clapham_o...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:632563b6.04111...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> I think you'll find that "what people are so scared of" is the
> >> worldwide activity by Muslims in murdering 'infidels'.
> >
> >Worldwide - really? Seems ok here. Dont recall much in the Australian
news
> >either. UK? Nope. Stick to reality and stop making out that it is bigger
> >than it is.
>
> Guess what - there aren't many Islamists in NZ.
Marvelous you agree, Sue - "worldwide" is incorrect.
> >
> >It has happened in a few war situations and (separately) by Al Quieda.
The
> >Dutch killing was because *an individual* shat on their beliefs in full
> >knowledge that some potentially fanatical people would take extreme
offense
> >and would try and kill him.
>
> Like those Catholics killed the perpetrator of the "Virgin in a
> Condom"?
How is this relevant? I think we're talking about muslims here, Sue. Do keep
up.
Gay
brazen
Oh, dear there you go again. There seems to be a never-ending parade of ad
hominen clowns like you. Is there an assembly line somewhere?
Gay
Roger Dewhurst
>
> "NZDude" <nzd...@REMOVETHISihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:cnckaf$d1l$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > news:4199...@clear.net.nz...
> > >
> > > "Dersu" <de...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:r2gmd.6278$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net...
>
> posters phrases, not yours) dont help. The make things worse. People need
to
> keep a little perspective on it.
>
> Gay
Like this perhaps:
"
Going for the `hard targets´
by our Internet desk, 9 September 2004
Suspected hard target - the Borssele nuclear power plant in the southern
province of Zeeland
The Dutch justice ministry suspects terrorists have recently been planning
attacks on high-profile targets such as the Dutch Parliament in The Hague
and Amsterdam's international Schiphol Airport.
Police found floor plans of the sites and basic bomb-making equipment during
a raid on the house of an 18-year-old suspect of Moroccan extraction, whose
arrest in June prompted the Dutch government to issue a terror warning on 9
July.
The evening daily NRC Handelsblad, which broke the news, says the justice
ministry suspicions are contained in a confidential subpoena which gives
details of the case against Samir A., arrested by Rotterdam police late
June. He is believed to have been involved in preparations for a bomb
attack.
Under Dutch legal custom, suspects are referred to by their first name and
the initial of their last name.
During a house-search, police uncovered floor plans of Parliament House,
Schiphol Airport, the nuclear reactor at Borssele, the defence ministry and
the headquarters of the AIVD secret service at Leidschendam. They also found
equipment such as a silencer, two cartridge clips, night vision goggles and
a bulletproof vest, as well as bomb-making chemicals such as ammonia and
hydrochloric acid.
The newspaper suggests the findings prompted the Dutch government to place
the country on a heightened security alert a week later. The move was
accompanied by a televised statement from Interior Affairs Minister Johan
Remkes, who stressed possible targets included so-called "soft targets",
i.e. places visited by large numbers of people such as shopping centres,
railway stations and public gatherings.
"These are sites that are difficult to secure," says terrorism analyst Edwin
Bakker from the Netherlands Clingendael Institute of International
Relations.
"It is therefore striking that the floor plans found point to the
traditional so-called hard targets such as the parliament building and the
Borssele nuclear power plant, where security is tight."
The suspect has been under close watch for some time. His name first hit the
headlines in January last year when he tried to travel to Chechnya to join
Muslim separatists there. He was intercepted by the Russian authorities who
sent him back to the Netherlands.
Evidence
Tapped telephone conversations prompted Dutch police to arrest him last
October. The Dutch secret service had concluded that he was preparing an
attack with four other extremists. Although bomb-making substances and
equipment was found at their homes, the group was later released for lack of
evidence.
The recent "accumulation of evidence" is a source of concern for the Dutch
authorities. "It calls for a different approach to terrorist threats,"
commented Justice Minister Jan Piet Hein Donner. He stressed additional
security measures will be discussed by the government on Friday.
`No need for panic´
According to Mr Bakker, the latest findings are no cause for panic, but
should be taken seriously: "The materials may not be very impressive, but
they point to genuine plans for a bomb attack," he said.
Although Samir A. may be the only suspect in this particular case, Mr Bakker
believes he is certainly not the only young, radical Muslim harbouring
terrorist plans: "There's obviously more going on, because otherwise the
terror alert declared in June would have been rescinded."
Do you really suppose that the Americans getting out of the middle east will
do anything to stop these terrorists?
R
Roger Dewhurst
The point she is making is that no catholics get sufficiently steamed up to
go out and slit throats when their religion is insulted whereas numbers of
muslims do.
R
Sue Bilstein
Hint, if you interpret everything as ad hom, you will never learn
anything from Usenet. I leave the context in place so you have a
third chance to read the argument that you are closing your eyes to.
Sue Bilstein
(Sigh) why do I bother? ... Because she's so fuckin funny, that's
why.
>>>I mean, didnt Salman Rushdies experience make
>>>him think twice? Its certainly not something I would do - would you?
>>
>>Right, so you have been successfully terrorised: internally colonised.
>>You're a good little dhimmi now, eh brazen?
Any comment about this bit?
brazen
forward by another poster, and I have responded to them.
How about if you have nothing valid to offer an argument you dont bother?
gay
brazen
Why would I want to - just more of your childish twaddle, isnt it Sue?
gay
brazen
"Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cndsho$bm1$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > I think alarmist talk like "worldwide activity" and "civil strife"
(other
> > posters phrases, not yours) dont help. The make things worse. People
need
> to
> > keep a little perspective on it.
> >
> > Gay
>
> Like this perhaps:
>
> "
> Going for the `hard targets´
>
> by our Internet desk, 9 September 2004
<sigh> is this article in *any way* related to my point? You are very
welcome to start another thread, but dont add it to a quote of mine that
bears no relation to it. Oh, and your attribution snipping could do with
some work.
Gay
brazen
religious folk in the same boat too? I mean I can hardly see the hari
krishnas waging war with exploding tambourines do you? But some are very
well known for taking huge offence when their religion is abused. Not just
muslims either, many many shit things have been done in the name of
christianity.
Now if you want to argue about religion per se - pick someone else.
Gay
Sue Bilstein
Convincing argument, keep it up.
brazen
So I was right then. Well Sue, however much fun it is trading insults with
you I really should be working.... till next time no doubt....
Unless of course you actually want to offer up an argument for discussion -
isnt that what whis ng is meant to be about? I havent wandered into
alt.sticksandstones by mistake have I?
Gay
Roger Dewhurst
> <crap attributions corrected>
>
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:cndsho$bm1$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> > >
Surely there are enough countries in which inter-racial, inter-cultural or
inter-religious strife has led to sufficient bloodshed to make it obvious to
anyone, capable of considering the matter objectively, that multiculturalism
does not work.
Britain, Holland, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, half the countries in
Africa, India/Pakistan, Ceylon, Malaysia, Indonesia (Aceh, Sulawesi, Timor
etc), etc. In most of these countries muslims are part of the problem
either as the indigenous people or the immigrants. It is naive to suggest
that as only a minority are involved it is not the religion that is the
problem. It is frequently impossible to tell which of them have terrorist
inclinations. Sometimes the terrorists emerge from the second generation
living in the host country. The only rational solution is to severely limit
their immigration until they can show, beyond a shadow of doubt, that they
will be assimilated into the majority of the society.
R
brazen
>
> "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:419a7f7f$1...@clear.net.nz...
> > <crap attributions corrected>
> >
> > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:cndsho$bm1$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > >
> > > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> > > >
>
> Surely there are enough countries in which inter-racial, inter-cultural or
> inter-religious strife has led to sufficient bloodshed to make it obvious
to
> anyone, capable of considering the matter objectively, that
multiculturalism
> does not work.
And there are many countries that show it does work. How about NZ? What are
we if not multicultural? How many full blooded anything exist here - not
many, mostly recent immigrants (ie this generation).
>
> Britain, Holland, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, half the countries in
> Africa, India/Pakistan, Ceylon, Malaysia, Indonesia (Aceh, Sulawesi, Timor
> etc), etc. In most of these countries muslims are part of the problem
> either as the indigenous people or the immigrants. It is naive to suggest
> that as only a minority are involved it is not the religion that is the
> problem. It is frequently impossible to tell which of them have terrorist
> inclinations. Sometimes the terrorists emerge from the second generation
> living in the host country. The only rational solution is to severely
limit
> their immigration until they can show, beyond a shadow of doubt, that they
> will be assimilated into the majority of the society.
>
Gee lucky our forefathers werent so xenophobic.
Gay
brazen
"brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:cne4hs$il9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > news:419a7f7f$1...@clear.net.nz...
> > > <crap attributions corrected>
> > >
> > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:cndsho$bm1$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > >
> > > > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> > > > >
> >
> > Surely there are enough countries in which inter-racial, inter-cultural
or
> > inter-religious strife has led to sufficient bloodshed to make it
obvious
> to
> > anyone, capable of considering the matter objectively, that
> multiculturalism
> > does not work.
>
> And there are many countries that show it does work. How about NZ? What
are
> we if not multicultural? How many full blooded anything exist here - not
> many, mostly recent immigrants (ie this generation).
As an aside, I have quite a cocktail of different countries, different
peoples, different religions, running through my pakeha veins, some of which
has pretty dubious history war-wise - lots of historical conflicts merged
together. Along the lines people seem to have been able to overlook
differences in their partners, I guess even seeing the charm of difference.
Multiculturalism can work.
So as there have been "enough counrties in which inter-racial,
inter-cultural, or inter-religious strife has led to bloodshed" does that
mean you are proposing banning religions. Or making everyone follow the same
religion?
Gay
Roger Dewhurst
"brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
>
> "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:cne4hs$il9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > >
> > > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:419a7f7f$1...@clear.net.nz...
> > > > <crap attributions corrected>
> > > >
> > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:cndsho$bm1$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > > >
> > > > > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> > > > > >
> > >
>
> As an aside, I have quite a cocktail of different countries, different
> peoples, different religions, running through my pakeha veins, some of
which
> has pretty dubious history war-wise - lots of historical conflicts merged
> together. Along the lines people seem to have been able to overlook
> differences in their partners, I guess even seeing the charm of
difference.
> Multiculturalism can work.
That is not multiculturalism. That is assimilation. Multiculturalism is
essentially apartheid or separate development.
>
> So as there have been "enough counrties in which inter-racial,
> inter-cultural, or inter-religious strife has led to bloodshed" does that
> mean you are proposing banning religions. Or making everyone follow the
same
> religion?
I merely pointed out that religious differences may be enough to result in
strife. For example Britain in the middle ages, northern Ireland recently
and now, the middle east and elsewhere now. generally, with the exception
of Ireland, the varieties of Christianity can get along sufficiently with
each other or non believers. Muslims do not mix very successfully with
anybody else. Do you know about the masses killed in India and Pakistan at
partition? Thousands of bodies floated up and down the Ganges with the rise
and fall of the tides.
R
brazen
>
> "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> >
> > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> > >
> > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > news:cne4hs$il9$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > >
> > > > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > > > news:419a7f7f$1...@clear.net.nz...
> > > > > <crap attributions corrected>
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roger Dewhurst" <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > news:cndsho$bm1$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "brazen" <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:419a...@clear.net.nz...
> > > > > > >
> > > >
>
> >
> > As an aside, I have quite a cocktail of different countries, different
> > peoples, different religions, running through my pakeha veins, some of
> which
> > has pretty dubious history war-wise - lots of historical conflicts
merged
> > together. Along the lines people seem to have been able to overlook
> > differences in their partners, I guess even seeing the charm of
> difference.
> > Multiculturalism can work.
>
> That is not multiculturalism. That is assimilation. Multiculturalism is
> essentially apartheid or separate development.
The various parts of our heritage are still valued and enjoyed. Many of us
observe separate cultural traditions and religious observations. We are not
all the same, we each bring a lot of history and culture with us. They are
not totally separate, nor totally merged.
Gay
Roger Dewhurst
That is fine. It is not fine when the individuals identify themselves as
members of a sub-culture which is more important to them than the national
culture or identity. I was not born here but I identify myself with this
country. This is where I wish to be. I wish to be with and associate with
people who identify themselves with this country. I do not seek out those
from the country in which I was born. This is what I mean by assimilation.
R
Tom Enright
"brazen"
> The various parts of our heritage are still valued and enjoyed. Many of us
> observe separate cultural traditions and religious observations. We are
> not
> all the same, we each bring a lot of history and culture with us. They are
> not totally separate, nor totally merged.
Some cultural traditions are crap, to simply assume that the culture one
brings to a new land adds to the wonderful mosaic of peoples of NZ or
the US is childish. Remember, the main reason they have left their
country is that their native lands are open dumps or ruled by some
degenerate madman.
-Tom Enright
> Gay
brazen
"Tom Enright" <then...@komBOINKcast.nYet> wrote in message
news:XLWdnXhy3Yu...@comcast.com...
>
> "brazen"
>
> > The various parts of our heritage are still valued and enjoyed. Many of
us
> > observe separate cultural traditions and religious observations. We are
> > not
> > all the same, we each bring a lot of history and culture with us. They
are
> > not totally separate, nor totally merged.
>
> Some cultural traditions are crap, to simply assume that the culture one
> brings to a new land adds to the wonderful mosaic of peoples of NZ or
> the US is childish.
Lucky I havent spoken in such absolutes then, isnt it?
Remember, the main reason they have left their
> country is that their native lands are open dumps or ruled by some
> degenerate madman.
>
Some, maybe, but "main reason"? My ancestors moved here for various reasons,
none of which fit into your "main reason" - opportunity being the foremost.
You seem to be confusing a persons living standards & situation with their
culture.
Gay
Dersu
D.
---------------------------
URL for "Submission", the 10 min online film directed by Theo van Gogh
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2655656
----------------------------
November 15, 2004 THE TIMES
Censure the censor
By Stephen Pollard
ACCORDING to its website, Index on Censorship was founded "to protect
the basic human right of free expression". You and I might interpret that to
mean that Index champions the rights of authors, artists and intellectuals
to express their views. You and I would be wrong. Free expression does not
apply, it seems, to those who criticise Islam.
A fortnight ago Theo van Gogh was stabbed and shot in Amsterdam by an
extremist Muslim who objected to the Dutch film-maker's latest work, which
lambasted the treatment of women under Islam. To most people, this was a
deplorable crime and precisely the sort of outrage that Index would be
expected to condemn.
Index certainly published a condemnation. But its hostility was
directed not at the murderer but at his victim. In an article by Rohan
Jayasekera, the associate editor of Index on Censorship, we are informed
that van Gogh's death was "his very own martyrdom operation". He was
responsible for his own death, implies Jayasekera, because he criticised
extremist Muslims. Indeed, he sought his own death: "The inevitable violence
of their response was grist to his mill."
Not that anyone should be surprised. After all, he had made a
"furiously provocative" film with the Somalia-born Dutch MP Ayann Hirsi Ali
who has campaigned against the abuse of women under Islam. The film was "an
abuse of his right to free speech".
Yes, you read that right. A film that criticises the abuse of women is
an "abuse" of free speech. Indeed, van Gogh is the guilty party because, in
highlighting the behaviour of extremists, he "roared his Muslim critics into
silence" by "effectively censoring their moderate views as well".
Leave aside Jayasekera's lesser stupidities, such as the assertion
that making a film that expresses one view amounts to censoring opposing
views. Concentrate instead on the grotesque warping of morality that
condemns the author rather than the murderer.
Van Gogh may not have been a pleasant man, and he had views with which
Jayasekera disagreed. So what? I have a special loathing of Michael Moore,
who I believe makes films which distort the facts for pecuniary gain. Does
that mean I am entitled to kill him?
Stephen Pollard is a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe
Brian Dooley
<patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
snip---
>There is really such a thing as political correctness - it primarily
>revolves around the socialist's notion that you can't do anything that
>might offend someone.
I've been called a Socialist many times and I'm always doing and
saying things that offend people. Indeed I have often said that
it's a wasted day if I don't get up someone's nose.
Where do you get these strange ideas from, Patrick?
PS Stick to trains, Patrick, there's a good boy.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
<patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
snip---
> According to [the] report, between 70
>> and 80 per cent of Dutch-born immigrants, mostly from Morocco and
>> Turkey, refuse to intermarry with native-born Dutch and are importing
>> their spouses from their home countries.
>
>And this happens here, why is the government ignorant of this fact?
>
It isn't.
The NZ Chinese typically (but not always) marry within their
community, and often 'import' their spouses, and have done since
forever - and nobody accuses them of anything bad. Here in one
small part of one suburb there is one family three houses down
the street, one up the hill, and one each in the two take-aways.
Also here there is a Greek chippie staffed by the several members
of their extended family. And in Island Bay there is a long
established Italian grouping who've done their own importing over
the years.
And we mustn't forget the various Indians, who also tend to stick
together while operating the dairies.
The one group who appear to be slightly in the shit are the
Assyrian Christians, who seem to be letting their young guys get
a bit above themselves.
And we have our Islanders, who have always behaved themselves.
And I know several Muslims and have done for years.
>Note I am not advocating assimilation.
The children all go to the local schools and do all the
assimilating they need to.
I expect that this will continue.
Brian Dooley
<g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>
>"WeeWillyWonka" <w...@freenet.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:4199b828...@news.iconz.co.nz...
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:01:57 +1300, "brazen"
>> <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>> > What are people so
>> >scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
>>
>> What an imbecile. You stand in the 104th story of Tower 2 on 9/11.
>> You re-enact what Van Gogh went through in Holland 2 weeks ago when he
>> was shot and near-decapitated. He was spineless all right, after the
>> serrated knife hacked through his neck spine.
>>
>> There seems to be a never-ending parade of no-brain leftist clowns
>> like you. Is there an assembly line somewhere?
>>
>
>Golly, are you so inept that instead of giving an argument against what I
>wrote you attack the poster. Why do you bother?
Because he thinks that he is one of the smartest and
best-informed subscribers to this newsgroup.
Honest.
Howard Edwards
Emigrating to NZ soon Tom?
Howard Edwards
Patrick Dunford
2004 09:17:27 +1300, Roger Dewhurst <dewh...@wave.co.nz> says...
>
> "Patrick Dunford" <patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c0524565...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> > In article <Xefmd.6268$3U4.1...@news02.tsnz.net> in nz.politics on Tue,
> > 16 Nov 2004 17:20:40 +1300, Dersu <de...@paradise.net.nz> says...
> .
> >
> > And this happens here, why is the government ignorant of this fact?
> >
>
> avoiding inter-racial and inter-cultural strife?
How do you or anyone decide what is valid and what is not?
Remember the PC of the day at one time was that Maori was not to be
spoken. Or, at the turn of the 19th century, Maori were expected to die
out.
--
"Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
a man and a woman.
This foundation provides the best possible
environment to raise our children."
Patrick Dunford
13:24:49 +1300, brazen <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> says...
Really? How many Muslims have been allowed into this country in the last
100 years?
Patrick Dunford
>
> "Clapham Omnibus" <clapham_o...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:632563b6.04111...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > >
> > > So assimilation and multiculturalism are incompatible - bollocks. There
> are
> > > plenty of great, diverse, lively communities that whilst working and
> living
> > > with the greater population still retain their own identities and
> culture.
> > > NZ has historically been one of them, welcoming, assimilating and
> enjoying
> > > various cultures through the years - certainly that was my experience in
> > > small town NI, and Auckland in the 60's & 70's. Not that you'd know it
> from
> > > this ng some times - the vocal scaredy-pants brigade seem to be whipping
> > > themselves into a frenzy about all things race-oriented. What are people
> so
> > > scared of? Pull yourselves together you spineless lot.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gay
> >
> > I think you'll find that "what people are so scared of" is the
> > worldwide activity by Muslims in murdering 'infidels'.
>
> Worldwide - really? Seems ok here. Dont recall much in the Australian news
> either. UK? Nope. Stick to reality and stop making out that it is bigger
> than it is.
>
> Dutch killing was because *an individual* shat on their beliefs in full
> knowledge that some potentially fanatical people would take extreme offense
> him think twice? Its certainly not something I would do - would you?
If you go around offending, say , some anti gay group and they kill you,
is that a fair outcome?
>
> Gay
brazen
dont, its not. But it is a *fact* that if you insult the Koran then you run
a risk of someone taking great offence. Like if I went to a Millwall soccer
game in a queer t-shirt, I would run a personal risk, or if I was an
abortion clinic staff member in a southern American state I would run a
risk.
There are risks in offending certain groups that hold strong beliefs. There
is always the risk that within those groups there is someone with a screw
loose or feels they have some "higher" justification for retribution.
Sensible people weigh them up before plunging in.
Gay
Sue Bilstein
<g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message
>news:qq3lp05of2345287n...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:28:46 +1300, "brazen"
>> <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bi...@yahoop.com> wrote in message
>> >news:t4ukp0dem1s4q146s...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:26:02 +1300, "brazen"
>> >> <g...@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>>I mean, didnt Salman Rushdies experience make
>> >> >>>him think twice? Its certainly not something I would do - would you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Right, so you have been successfully terrorised: internally
>colonised.
>> >> >>You're a good little dhimmi now, eh brazen?
>> >>
>> >> Any comment about this bit?
>> >
>> >Why would I want to - just more of your childish twaddle, isnt it Sue?
>>
>> Convincing argument, keep it up.
>
>So I was right then. Well Sue, however much fun it is trading insults with
>you I really should be working.... till next time no doubt....
>
>Unless of course you actually want to offer up an argument for discussion -
>isnt that what whis ng is meant to be about? I havent wandered into
>alt.sticksandstones by mistake have I?
Oh excuse me, I missed your posted until now. But it's confusing.
You passed on the opportunity to debate my points above, by resorting
to some ad-hom. Now, what, you want to resume the discussion but
first you want me to explain to the meaning of what I said?
Don't you understand English? Have a think about it, and see if you
can come up with a reasoned response.