quote Hesperado:
"Pim was also much bolder in his language about Muslims and Islam. " Are you serious?

- Fortuyn spoke about Islam as a religion, that had the disadvantage of not having underwent a historical process of ehm.. katharsis through "Enlightenment"
- Wilders consistently refuses to adress Islam as a religion. He refers to it as "a totalitarian ideology" (and rightly so, I think).

- Fortuyn didn't want to close down Islamic schools in Holland, freedom of "religion" you see.
- Wilders said in 2007 he wanted to close down all Islamic schools.

- Fortuyn called the Koran "backward".
- Wilders called it a fascist book, like "Mein Kampf" (like Churchill said, i.e. that Hitler's non-fiction debut was "the new Koran")

Pim Fortuyn much bolder about Islam than Wilders? Don't think so.

Since you call him "Pim.." etc, perhaps that means you're Dutch. If so, for your information I'll drop a link to a Ytube vid, so you can hear Fortuyn speak about Islam, a tad bit more "nuanced" than Wilders and more in de vein of Frits Bolkestein. (for the non-Dutchies, it's subbed)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Well, @Hesperado,
"to restrict the problem to an abstract Islam is, frankly, an asinine formulation. Can't we stop walking on fucking eggshells..
In my book, such statements about Wilders (who should, by implication, "stop walking on fucking eggshells") are tantamount to "treating with disdain", i.e. scorn. But it can also be interpreted as a constructive critical stance, which then goes for most if not all of your comments @ high profile Islamcritics. Ok, fair enough.
Thnx for an interesting exchange, that, no doubt, will be continued in upcoming topics ;-) and as always,

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Sorry for the mix-up, my bad. For some (?) reason, I confused him with Mark Gabriel.

[..]

Ad 5)
I've read some of your rather derogatory comments @ father Zakaria Boutros, the brave coptic priest who converts Muslims to Christianity; and your comments @ Raymond Ibrahim, who himself is proof of the fact that a Muslim can change and become a very useful ally in our struggle against Islam - though you obviously think different about that. The Pope who publicly baptised Magdi Allam, a former Muslim who has now joined the ranks of those counterjihadists who actually achieve something, and Lo' behold, he now enters the European Parliament, the Lion's den, to fight in our corner.
But it's all just not your cup of tea, I suppose. In fact you have reserved disparaging comments for these people, after which you proceed to elaborate on the medicine par excellence, being "ruthless rationalism". You talk about "moral courage", "calling a spade a spade" and so on, and then scorn Geert Wilders, a man defying continuing death threats because of his outspoken views on Islam, for alledgedly wanting to please the PC-elites?
You talk about a change for the better, and yet alienate those potential allies who are actually working - in ways not necessarily consonant with your own views, to better things for all of us. They have booked results, and I hope they'll continue to do so. What results have been gained by your paradigm-changing "ruthless rationalism" so far?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

[..]

Ad 3b)
That's an easy one, in spite of the astrophysical language used ("constellation"?). The difference between harmless vs. dangerous Muslims doesn't matter for one seeking to destroy the doctrine of Islam. Without possibilities for their cult to coercively keep them aboard, the former will at least have the opportunity to leave Islam. That is, if one still believes they share a basic humanity with people outside the grip of Islamic doctrine. Of course you might want to treat them as if they were doomed beyond rescue. Counter-jihad experts in the field, with years and years of experience in the Middle East, like the beforementioned Prof. Hans Jansen would disagree since they have firsthand knowledge of many Muslims eager to leave Islam. I trust their judgement over yours.

Ad 4a)
That depends on how you define the struggle. I.m.o. it is between civilization and barbarism, and yes, in that struggle I stand by Geert Wilders and many others in a viable struggle against this totalitarian deathcult, without wanting to become like them.

Ad 4b)
See #1 and #2 mushed together. Instead of using the word "rhetorical" I'd rather prefer "tactical" ;-)
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the remainder of your comment rests on assumptions that could prove to be not entirely false, but for the moment, Geert is doing pretty well. So we'll see.

(comment continues still..)

Hey @Hesperado, back on the old track again?
"I lean toward Infidel Pride on this one."
Well, don't lean too hard, you might fall over.. ;-)
In short I - respectfully, of course - disagree with most of what you assume and/or posit, though I share your sense of urgency and a need for freedom-loving people to stand firm.

I've taken the trouble of answering "to the point", so here goes:

Ad 1)
So Geert Wilders is supposed to be "squishy", though not to the extent of Pipes? Well, let's stay to facts that matter. The ones who are still vilifying Wilders are not the ones to be persuaded to join the ranks of the counterjihad. In other words: they are the shariasocialists who have proven to be impervious to any kind of reasoning.
The fact that Wilders is vilified by these Pods, can actually be taken as a badge of honour and a reliable guide that he's on the right track. If he starts to collect praise from these quarters, then it's time to worry.

Ad 2)
Yes, absolutely. So you're at least right about something then ;-), it's indeed anybody's guess at the moment, like the assumption that giving up the distinction would do him no extra harm. For the moment the most reliable indicator that Wilders is doing something right, are his enduring high scores in opinion polls and last election's results.

Ad 3a)
Well let's put together an equally abstract set of principles, a law, that bans Islam in all its manifestations (like mosques, niqaabs, arab cultural imperialism) as a totalitarian doctrine, and see whether the actual results stemming from such abstract rules are of any use to preserve our basic freedoms.

(comment continues..)

Right on target @Hesperado,

It's all da'wah and dhimmitude.
The arabs in UN sponsored "refugee camps" are the new "Palestinians".
The term anti-semitism according to many a jihadist, also refers to arabs, 'cause they're also "semites"
Either arab Muslims accuse Israelis of being the new "nazis" (communist propaganda) or they call for the extermination of all Jews and fly banners with "God bless Hitler" (naziprop). Often they use both mutually exclusive slogans at the same time, ah well, anything goes.

And then the leftist elites in the West, sucking up to Islam supremacists. They - let's call them "shariasocialists" - mirror the arab Muslims in the Middle-East who are ardent Holocaust-deniers, with their own fanatical creed of not-wanting-to-know, i.e. the denial of Islamic Jihad and imperialism.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

I see your point @InfidelPride, but I'm more with Awake on this one.
Maybe we've discussed this in previous posts, because this issue keeps coming up - and why not, so I'll copy/paste from earlier remarks:

There's nothing wrong with emphasizing the distinction between a totalitarian doctrine and people who may or may not - for all sorts of reasons - decide to act on it. This strategy of Wilders works and in the current political landscape of Holland, it's actually a useful compass. To make the distinction Wilders consistently emphasizes, is not to say, of course, that there's no relation. But doctrines do kill, and Islam has been lethal for "unbelievers" for more than 1300 years now. The ideology of Islam is the fundament upon which activist Muslims act, and so countering the ideology of Islam must be the basis for resistance. Because of Wilders' continuing focus on the doctrine, many Dutch people are gathering information about Islam, and that's starting to really open up their eyes.

It is far more efficient not to focus on what individual Muslims may or may not do. Combat the doctrine, outlaw Islam as a criminal organization, remove all its manifestations in Western society and don't bother about the followers of this totalitarian cult. A large number (according to Prof. Hans Jansen, writer of the excellent article posted by Hugh, above) is eager to leave Islam as soon as this ideology is losing its grip on Muslim communities, some will even convert to Christianity, a large number will - with some "aid" - move back to those fine civilized countries where Islam rules supreme, and there you go.

When you see to it, like Wilders does, that people keep their eyes on the ball, i.e. on the islamic doctrine, it is no longer of any consequence when the average person says, "Hey look, I know a few Muslims and they seem decent enough folk, so what's with this anti-Muslim campaign?" Not anymore.
Target the doctrine in every societal manifestation, and you'll have the same net-result as when you'd include Muslims themselves as an (overt) target. But now, Wilders can get the votes he would forsake when he'd publicly declare war on each and every Muslim in Holland.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

As if the ZDF attack on both Wilders and reason itself wasn't enough, now the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has claimed Geert Wilders - a steadfast supporter of Israel, who in his early years spent time in a kibbutz - is somehow actually an anti-semite.
So again, anything goes in the attacks on Geert Wilders, even to the total and overt abandonment of upholding just a facade of reason.

As soon as their libel against Wilders was exposed, the sentence about Wilders mysteriously vanished from the article. Kudos to PI for having taken a screenshot (Pdf in German) of the original slander.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

As one German commenter observed:
"Spain had to be conquered by Muslim invaders in 711, because Pope Urban II "intolerantly" called for a Crusade in 1095."
And apart from this overt admission by the ZDF PC-pundistas that attacks on Geert Wilders now transcend any kind of attachment or at least semblance to reason, the propaganda works twofold:
- Wilders' "intolerance" is associated with the death of Theo van Gogh.
- Theo van Gogh, himself the "intolerant" producer of whatever Islam-critical film, somehow brought his own assassination upon himself.

Sickening..

But you cannot fool all of the people all the time. Like the late Pim Fortuyn said in 2002: "People are sick and tired of it, c'est ça!"

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.