Review: Dutch Moroccan and Dutch Turkish players who choose country of heritage over the Dutch NT. Analyses.

This post is quite easily to dismantle:

No you are projecting yourself here on me. You came out calling twice to shut down a threat that had a proper level with valuable information and statistics until you came along. What is the defenition of only valuing opinions that are in line with those of yourself? Exactly, shutting others up for stating theirs. So right off the bat, I already show how little sense you are able to make and how you are able to contradict yourself.

Wrong again. I said wrong side of the argument and how you not part of any argument when it involved despicable bahvior of the fans of your club. Here you are in all your glory riding the high horse and feeling oh so free to just start making claims that you pull out of your ***, to then stay away from a forum when it comes to your own club and it's fans making a fool out of us in Europe. Even the PM had to apologize and what not. Of course that represent the whole of the Netherlands in a bad way in Italy and Europe. My family lives in Italy and day after day it dominated the news there. It was the worst publicity stunt for the Netherlands in years and where was our social justice warrior when AS Roma and Italy fans came over for an explenation? Well FSF was actually nowhere. Social justice warrior had no opportunity to ride any high horse so he stayed away. Really brave.

How can you ever accuse somebody if you do not quote a person yourself. You just make a random post without a quote of mine and then go full strawman fallacy, taking things in a direction that shows that you have not even read the thread, let alone in the proper context. I always address points from everybody by quoting them on almost anything, I have even done that with you in the past, but this previous post was so stupid that it did not meet the bar. That is on you, not me. I am kind and reasonable to everybody who addresses me with a decent amount of respect, your line of posting for a longer time now do not qualify as such. You have it a bit too high in the head it seems.

I have had 0 problems with Orange14, Laurent or Brilliant Dutch and we were all part of a fruitful discussion. I learned from them and maybe they have learned a bit from me. If they had a problem with me not addressing their points then I would have heard that as they are man enough to speak out. If that had happened I would have answered with even more care than I did. So this is your observation only and since I do answer posts of others with great care, statistics and reports, it is rather telling how bad of an observer you are and how much of a mischaracterization this is on your part. It's more rambling in fact and only draws us away from having a sensible discussion.

Why do you next time not simply ask about my position, instead of making fabrications in your head that lead you to blur out more nonsense? Every time the discussion went into the violence narrative I tried to move the discussion back to human rights. My beef with Islam revolves around Human Rights and Freedom. How many times do I have to link that damn Freedomhouse map so that even you get it? Is it so damn hard to click a link somebody posts and builds an argument around?

If you want to know my position on the connection between violence and Islam just ask it next time. My position is exactly in line with Hirsi Ali and I can not say it better than this rock of a women:

Hirsi Ali's claim regarding Islam and violence (open) Hirsi Ali's claim regarding Islam and violence (close)

Islam is not a religion of peace. When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that

1. The call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam.
2. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and even something as vague as threats to family honor or to the honor of Islam itself.

More of this brave wondeful women:

Where state legitimized violence comes into play and collides with Human Rights (open) Where state legitimized violence comes into play and collides with Human Rights (close)

It is not just al Qaeda and Islamic State that show the violent face of Islamic faith and practice. It is Pakistan, where any statement critical of the Prophet or Islam is labeled as blasphemy and punishable by death. It is Saudi Arabia, where churches and synagogues are outlawed and where beheadings are a legitimate form of punishment. It is Iran, where stoning is an acceptable punishment and homosexuals are hanged for their “crime.”

Here is the whole story

This is where we go back to human rights and secularism and that is my central theme. What are the secular credentials of Islam? When do we see it really rise to our level when it is a powerful majority in a country? Where do we see Islam majority country's operating at a level of Freedom that we have manifested here in the Free West? Why are there horrible violations of individual liberties and political rights in Islam dominated country, without exclusion? Show me what you got. These are the questions I posed and since you accused me of not addressing counter points, they are placed right on your plate just to show me how good you are at addressing counterpoints. Good luck and since you are at it, how can a social justice warrior like you go white knight about Islam and look at all the inequality statistics arround minorities wherever it is the prime shaper of society? That is why you have my contempt on this issue. You are siding with the strong and leave the weaker minorities alone and vulnerable, while they only want the progressive rights and freedom that the progressive movement ones established for themselves. It is despicable. Take this mirror and take a hard long look in it:


Hirsi Ali nailing it again.

No I read quality, not pulp. You want to see a youtube video of a man burning the Quran today where muslims say that it is worse than the beating and burning of a woman who supposedly had done just that in Afganistan (turned out not to be true). When have have youtube comments been a good measure of things? Raise your game.

Here you make the same mistake. You don't seem to understand that a group is not a solid block. In this singled out group, there live suppressed minorities. Gays, lesbians, intellectuals, feminists, apostates who are still part of islamic culture (not religion) and what not. How you fail to understand that they want the same freedom and equality we have secured in our battle with Christianity and need nothing but support in the battle of ideas that will follow. Not understanding this current need to modernize islam is lack of analytical power by you. You side with suppression, I side with Freedom and Human Rights. You have bought into the narrative designed by the conservative forces in Islam that challanging the ideas of inequality in Islam equals to bigotry and Islamophobia. Both are terms they use to soften up the crowd until they are powerful enough to move on to their beloved blasphemy laws and apostasy laws. Time and again. This leads to state legalized inequality and violence. How can I call the hanging of a gay man or the whipping of an atheist for just who they are, or what they believe in otherwise?

Who? Quote me somehwere. This angle you chosen to adress me. You feel it does justice to my posts? Was I the one building around terror or did I try to redirect the discussion every time to my Freedomhouse map. Never mind. Honesty is not your strong suit. You are not here to learn something, but you wanted to start a win/loss debate. You got one.

You ask for an explenation why kids want to see the same happening here as in Norway? Where the left is attacked in a despicable way? Well, if you are able to have a civilized debate with me, then I will allow myself to entertain this question with the strict notion that we only debate the reasoning side of this action, not the method side. If you link my explenation in any way with condoning or understanding the method side, then that is on you.

The question we are now facing this time is if we have to be tolerant to the intolerant? We can see Islam being intolerant in

1. The advises their scholars give
2. The societies Islam shapes when it is a majority in a country
3. The holy scriptures of Islam
4. The way the central person person in Islam (Mo) has behaved.

Example of scholer advice:

http://islamqa.info/en/2322

Bigotry and hate speech that signals we are dealing with a supremacist ideology (open) Bigotry and hate speech that signals we are dealing with a supremacist ideology (close)

The Muslim should feel in his heart that he hates the kuffaar and the way they look and behave. This hatred will motivate him to avoid looking like them at all in the way he dresses or in other ways. Do you not see that a person who despises a people or tribe, or people from a certain country, will hate to dress like them, especially if they are poor. As Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) said: "Looking like them in external appearance indicates that one loves them in one's heart, and vice versa." And Allaah knows best.

Example of all muslim countries not respecting civil liberties, political rights, human righst and freedom:

Freedomhouse Map 2015

From Morocco to Indonesia basicly no green color code and Tunisia is nothing close to us in the West and they already get attacked by extremists for it, just recently the attack on the tourists shows this. Even the secular poster boys of Islam, Indonesia and Turkey are slipping. Sharia is rather on the rise then pushed back (read article Hirsi Ali). Where are the secular and freedom credentials of Islam?

The scripture is just too easy:

Skeptic Quran

Just click one of the horrible themes at the rights and knock yourself out.

Regarding Mohammed, look at his tolerant history with the jews:

Link

The guy was a warlord, who conquered and attacked caravans. But just read that article and see how he liked to act with people that got in his way. This is important, as Mohammed is a huge person in Islam. Do not underestimate this point.

So it is staring us right in the face. Human rights and Freedom will stop to exist as we know it when Islam will rule over the Netherlands. So why do the opponents in the Netherlands say such horrible things as you stated? :

• Article

Important part (open) Important part (close)

Why has this change taken place?

The progressive community is partly responsible. When I was expelled in 1994, the whole of society went silent. If this community had objected then, Bangladesh would not have had a society in which an Avijit is hacked to death, a Humayun Azad targeted or an Ahmed Rajib Haider killed for criticising Islam. Perhaps the conflict in Bangladesh is whether to have a country on the basis of language or on the basis of religion.

They are of the opinion that the left liberals in this country are giving Netherlands away to an intolerant ideology that will strip them from their freedom and human rights and they are right in their analyses. Not in stepping over the line of wanting to use violence.

I always do more adressing than you and you have shown nothing but strawman arguments that do not just deprive arguments from their important nuance, you went as far as making it look like my argument was build around terror, while it was build around freedom and human rights. Neeskens would have been proud.

People who sell out on freedom and equality in order to ejaculate from their own political correctness towards an intolerant doctrine that actually makes them complicit in mass murder and ending very tolerant climate they claim to protect. How is this possible? Not sure, maybe collective psychoses.

 

The discussion between me and Laurent who comes from a Muslim background or so I understand was perfectly respectful until FSF decided he needed to misrepresent my position and slip in some personal insults to me. That has occurred more often over the past years. That makes a climate less respectful. However that is between me and him. The snide climate will not carry over to you. On the contrary.

Of course you are welcome to join and set the record straight. I am here for truth finding, not to impose my views or mis characterize other peoples religion. By all means, come in and I will look forward to you contributions. Cheers.

PS I will probably only be able to answer much later in the day

 

I would suggest a third way.

1. The holy scriptures. What is in the books (Quran, Haddith and sunnah). (Orange98 and me)
2. The people and their behaviors (Laurent, Orange98 and me)
3. The way Muslim countries have shaped their societies. (so far, me, maybe others will join me in this parameter)

• If you look at the people, then you often get into a dead body count discussions. Who kills most? Who shows more violence?
• If you go into the books, then you often get into the interpretation game.
• If we look at societies, then we actually see how the collection of individuals like to live or get to live when Islam has reached a majority in that country

Islam has a religious side, but who can deny it holds claims how society should be run? It even has an opinion on the economy and collecting rent IIRC. Especially Islam is a religion we can judge on what kind of societies it delivers us as it holds claims of how a society should look like. It even has it's own law system with the sharia. Not fully implemented almost anywhere (as it does not work), but elements of it can be traced to many places. I say we can certainly look at Islam countries and what kind of climate they create. Especially for minorities.

Finally, there is maybe a fourth way to judge a religion. What kind of person was the main man? In Christianity it is Jesus. Almost a hippie. In Islam? Mohammed. We can look at his life and just conclude one irrefutable fact: He was a warlord. He did not spread the word by preaching alone (well at first in Mecca, but later on when he became "successful" he started to understand the power of violence), he also used the sword and no, not only in self defense. We even have a clear story about how Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf mocking Mohammed lead to a hit and a kill of him. That clearly indicates to people who attacked Charlie Hebdo, that it is oke do go after people that satire. Islam during Mohammed's time and beyond was aiming to expand and they came as far as Spain here in Europe. If Christianity has to own up to the crusades, then Islam has to own up to their own wars. But that is already going into the direction of a body bag count, which does not have my interest perse. My point in this paragraph is about the type of man the main person in the religion is. In the Islamic world, Mohammed is seen as an example. Alright, well is that a positive example if we consider we live in a modern world where people just want to live in peace side by side in equality and freedom?


Just asking questions.


Cheers

 

No, I quote you. Or do you not stand behind your own words? With my posts you can see action and my reaction to it. Your posts contain 0 quotes of me and that allows you to mislead the reader about things you supposedly read into it. Take this post for example. Now you have completely changed the angle again. First everything was about my claims regarding Islam and violence, now you saw that not work out, you bring in a new element without even addressing what I said about your former point. You are clutching at straws here, but be my guest, you only make yourself look like a fool more and more.

I quoted a piece of him where he clearly states that his pride is with Morocco, but Netherlands is supposed to be better for his career. That got a lot of reactions that sidetracked the usual thread for the Dutch NT, I started this one with the purpose to dig deeper into this phenomena where immigrants (now sometimes even third generation) do not feel pride to represent the Netherlands. There must be causes for this. There are integration problems in the Netherlands. That has to do with a lot of factors and we are mapping them here. Culture and religion are part of those reasons and we now got into the religious side of things.

But those parents made the choice to come here, so loyalty is not as black and white as you like to make it out to be. Loyalty could also be defined as aligning yourself with the choice of your parents. Besides that, it is important to understand why a third generation immigrant is more proud to represent his country of heritage. The discussion spiraled from there since suggestions where put on the table that it was all the fault of the Dutch government and their integration policy. Then we started to investigate if there are more reasons for this. Could it also have to do with the other parties?

Wrong again. I was the one moving away from the terror side of religion and constantly put the discussion back on track in order to talk about equality and freedom. Why? Because of the suggestion that Moroccans and Turks feel treated as unequal to us. Is that true? If so, what are the reasons? If they like their own culture so much more in this regard, can we not point to those cultures and detect malpractices of even greater inequality than anything we have here in the West/Netherlands? How much is it then about the violation of the value of equality and how much is it just a retreat to the own group and nation that takes care of their own, but has a much worse track record regarding defending the principle of equality when it comes to their minorities?

Oke, this is a bit of a knock out point for you. Guess how many times it is in the Quran? This is so painful to say for you and you don't even know it:



I mean come on.

Well yes I do go on the internet and find things out. You should start doing that more as well. There are bad sources on the internet and good sources, just like in the library or bookstore. However you make it out like I use a fringe word. It's a central theme in Islam and the joke is on you not even knowing it.

This thread is actually meant to move away from hurt feelings that the standard threads often get filled with when hearing the news that player X/Y/Z has chosen for this or that country. This thread is for analyses and looking at all the layers this subject might contain. If anything, this delving deeper into a phenomena makes yóu very uncomfortable and brought out what kind of fabrication you have about it in your mind. After reading all this you will start to understand that there are no monsters in the dark and that we can have a civilized discussion about it, like grown ups do. Calm yourself down and start with reading what the other persons actually say. I can tell you are projecting in this discussion, not actually taking in what people say and mean.

I use sources. I use rapports, statistics, polling data, writings from scholars, articles from people who have thought all their life about Islam and how to modernize it. Where do you even use 1 source in your rants. My posts, outside of this interaction with you has no rant style. They are calm and aimed to incorporate new information if the other brings up a valuable points that he can back up. So you are the one bringing this rant dynamic into the threat and nobody else. That is on you.

No, you did not read it properly. I go into 4 point detail plus a very good article of how these kids of yours got to the point that they wanted the same thing happening in Netherlands as in Norway. I took to the time to explain it with sources. I am of the opinion though, that what you bring up is of a different value than let's say this:

• PEW Report

Youtube comments vs a huge reports including 2 dozen countries and thousands of people with well designed questions is just different. Your angle is about commenting on a violence spiral, my angle in this thread is about how opinions can elevate or bring the level of Freedom, Human Right and Equality down.

I went into detail addressing the point, you have not gotten back on me on that one and create the impression I did not address it. That is on you. It is also irrelevant to a point as you think I build my case around terror, while and I must have said this now a million time, I build it around equality, human rights and freedom. Did I build my point around the International Institute for Strategic Studies rapport, that stated that at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims? That stated that in 2013, there were nearly 12,000 terrorist attacks world-wide. The lion’s share were in Muslim-majority countries, and many of the others were carried out by Muslims? I mentioned that only in my last post to Laurent when the subject of violence kept going on, but not from my side. My argument is build around the findings such as those of Freedomhouse among other things. You do not get this.

The things that you are absolutely sure about is that my argument was build around terror (why would you otherwise ever bring up a case like Breivik and Dutch reactions, that whole point proves you missed the essence of the discussion), while I take things on from the angle of how societies are shaped by the people that live in them. What climate do they create? What level of freedom, equality and human rights do ensure? All your attacks on me have completely missed this point and that is why I got mad and felt mischaracterized by you. I now know it is impossible for you to incorporate this into your thinking and am more calm about it as I have been able to show people what my angle has been until now. My remark about SJW stands by the way. Think about it and look in the mirror. Read that second article of Hirsi Ali.

• Article

Maybe then you start to understand where I am coming from and why you take a wrong position in all of this IMO.

 

What is your most convincing source for him committing high treason? Where it also builds the case for it in logical steps towards that claim?

So everywhere Muhammed went, he was the victim and acted in self defense. Could you give your reflections about the battle at Badr and what is your own opinion about the elegance of the practices? How do you react to an article like this one:

• Theresa Corbin Rewrites the History of the Battle of Badr

The article contains a lot of sources. I understand you will come up with your own version of what happened. When you do I am especially interested why you think that version is more true. What makes you convinced it was all self defense?


Now notice how we did get into violence. I understand we touch it when you want to set the record straight about a bit in my piece above regarding Muhammed. However it contained more bits. I asked a question: is Muhammed a positive example if we consider we live in a modern world where people just want to live in peace side by side in equality and freedom? How would you answer that question?

What is your opinion regarding blasphemy laws that we see in so many Islamic countries. Regarding apostasy laws the same question? Do you want to see a secular society or do you want to live in a society that gives special status to Islam above other religions or atheism?

This way we can develop the discussion more and move away from violence. I am more interested in to see if we can share ideas about what the correct society would look like.


Cheers

 

But Laurent this is quite disturbing what you say. At least to me. It's like you only place value on whether something results in a death or not. Criminalizing people for who they are is ultimate discrimination. Those kills in Saudi Arabia or Iran of gay people are in some ways light beacons to society. "Look gay community, this is what we do with you if we get you and find guilty of your pervert practices". I just spoke this week with a 22 year old student from Algiers. He was depressed and could not longer focus on his study since he was so afraid to be find out being gay. Afraid that his family would find out, afraid what would happen, too afraid to approach anyone. Needless to say this individual suffered psychological damage from criminalizing homosexuality in his country and the pressure he experiences from society. If we look at the numbers, then we learn that around 1 on 10 people is gay or lesbian in the world, not that making even 1 feel like he does not belong would be less severe. You bring great suffering upon all these people with these laws. Suffering like in my example. This does not stop with those kills, it makes a complete sub group of society feel like there is something wrong with them.

Apart from that, it's like comparing apples with oranges. The media exposure is about how crazy a country can get, not the scale of of the executions.

If we apply your reasoning then we should actually ask this question: Do you think Saudi Arabia follows a superior model to shape society? Their criminality numbers are good you say, so is it not a great country to live then?

One more thing. The trend in Western media from reporting on world news to reporting on more local news has been staggering. The news shows that go to an accident or situation in that typical French or Dutch suburb with the family we can all identify with so well, has been given great preference over world matters the past decade. I disagree that the West is looking away from the own society, I would even say they do it too much. People are barely interested anymore what happens over the border. I do not have stats for this one, but it is certainly a trend I have noticed. Another trend is the exposure of court cases. Court cases with all the drama have become also a standard block in media coverage. However that is also local news most of the time if not every time.

I will look for racists laws in the Muslim world maybe later on, but I did want to bring this point up as I did not know it and I think deserves mentioning:



Also look at the countries where modern day slavery exists:

• Slavery Index

If you say "look at what people do" and see many Islam nations ranked so high there, what is your response to something like that?

 

Thank you for clearing that up.

How do you respond to something like this:

http://islamqa.info/en/2322

Hate the kafir (open) Hate the kafir (close)

The Muslim should feel in his heart that he hates the kuffaar and the way they look and behave. This hatred will motivate him to avoid looking like them at all in the way he dresses or in other ways. Do you not see that a person who despises a people or tribe, or people from a certain country, will hate to dress like them, especially if they are poor. As Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) said: "Looking like them in external appearance indicates that one loves them in one's heart, and vice versa." And Allaah knows best.

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Is this a good recipe for establishing equality in a society?

 

Hmm, do not see that happening too quick. Dutch Moroccans are wonderful technical footballers often, but still seem to have trouble to get and stay at the top. Well Felleini is kind of at the top, but he is exaclty the opposite of what I describe as being typical X-Moroccan. Normal football demands a lot of things, other than technical luggage.

Relating to your other question, I can imagine that futsal being more fringe and that there is a certain threshold where facilities and organisation starts to matter so much compared to the competition in Africa, that it makes players consider staying and playing for the Dutch NT and play in the European set up. Actually an argument I hear a lot from Dutch Moroccans is that they do not like playing in Africa. Their game is much better suited to play in Europe. Since futsal does not get much exposure, I can imagine there being less pressure from the community to represent Morocco. Then the other arguments start to weigh more.

I can identify with people of all races. I love BMI's enthusiasm and that is the result of him being proud to play for the shirt and emblem. A guy who states in an eloquent way that his pride (and heart) is with another NT, I can not identify with.