51. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89958 by Nighttripper on November 22, 2007 at 8:27 am

It's kinda dodgy and it usually takes me 5 edit's to get it right.
(I have added a * to the <*A HREF> so the site doesn't actualy start linking when I mention the tag)

It looks like this in my text:
<*a href="http://richarddawkins.net/article,1725,The-Price-of-Freedom,Christopher-Hitchens-Slate" >the discussion board of that article.<*/a>

The first time the website seemed to insert it's own <*A HREF=> tags so I had to edit it again to pull that out (it had placed my <*A HREF> inside another automaticly added <*A HREF> tag). But this is only done the very first time you post it. If you edit it after that, it wont attempt to add it's own <*A HREF> tag.

52. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89946 by Nighttripper on November 22, 2007 at 8:13 am

89. Comment #89917 by ex-bahai on November 22, 2007 at 6:07 am
Why isn't the Dutch government being given any credit when at least some is due or at least to the Dutch tax players. When I first read Sam's letter I had the impression that the Dutch government is ditching her. That doesn't seem to be the case.

That was, and still is, my point also. It was a low blow by Harris and Rushdie to blame the Dutch government and smear it in the way they did. I mean credit is maybe a little much but the smearing is just uncalled for in my opinion.
But I have already argued this extensively in
the discussion board of that article. (from post 21 on) where it is perhaps more in place. You will probably be surprised by the amount of misinformation that was given.

53. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89884 by Nighttripper on November 22, 2007 at 3:29 am

47. Comment #89598 by ex-bahai on November 21, 2007 at 8:07 am
I am still a bit confused about the whole situation.

1. Some people are saying that the Dutch government will continue to provide protection upon her return to the Netherlands. Is this true or false? Source/reference will be great.

This is true. In fact the reason she was back in the Netherlands a month or two ago was that the Dutch government didn't want to commit to extending her protection in the US (they have extended it twice with half a year).

See this BBC article for the source.

2. What is her real reasons to relocate to the US? Is it because she dislike living in the Netherlands or is it because of her new job? Or a mix of many reasons?

According to a press conference she gave her reasons were threefold:

Quoted from Expatica.com

"In the first instance, she wants a bigger stage from which to present her views. Verdonk's letter about her naturalisation and a court order forcing her of her rented apartment in The Hague caused her to accelerate the move."

54. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89531 by Nighttripper on November 21, 2007 at 2:48 am

195. Comment #89441 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Nighttripper,

Since no one else has answered your question then I will.

Thank you Keith, for that reply. Your argumentation has convinced me more then 3 articles around Hirsi Ali and 4 pages of angry posts. I also started to see the point of view from the Admin as you explained it. Indeed it could be that I have made some people have second thoughts about if they would donate but I also think this was needed, giving the many (in my eyes) very just questions that it brought up.

I was also happily suprised to find Sam Harris adressing some of the questions that were raised. In the end I think the answers that Sam Harris gave will do more to convince people to donate then the initial, rather short and mysterious article. So in that aspect it is not unthinkable that the adressing of the question will only convince more people because they feel that their questions are taken seriously. This list of answers would very likely not have been there if people hadn't started asking the questions.

I have decided to give a one-time donation. I feel that some of my concerns were answered but most of all, I am happy that it turned out that it is obviously not a case of "Just pay up, or shut up" like so many seemed to think to be the right attitude.

55. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89524 by Nighttripper on November 21, 2007 at 2:13 am

A response to the questions! Must say I didn't expect it. I'm not completely convinced by the answers but I am happy that the questions which the article raised are being adressed.

I'm doing a one time donation for the joy of seeing the questions taken seriously...

56. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89341 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 10:46 am

I have to ask...
Does anyone feel I went too far in my posts? (Apart from the obvious posters who have made their point so crystal clear to me, that is...)

57. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89293 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 7:47 am

Like Josh, I've been pretty amazed at some of the things I've read on this thread and it raises the question of why selfishness feels the need to speak.

But why put it up on the discussionboard if you do not want the issue to be discussed? It has nothing to do with selfishness. It seems that we can't stop labeling people with a moral judgement for thinking differently and saying so (on a discussion board!). Perhaps I better stop posting here. It is obvious that this particular thread is not intended to be discussed, just acknowledged in elaborate posts or refuted in silence.

In the future, we should put these kind of articles up as an article that has no reply functionality or, preferably, put up a lead-in text making clear that it is not to be criticised, only rejoiced. For I am finding it hard to judge which articles can be criticised and which, quite obviously, cannot.

58. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89290 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 7:41 am

173. Comment #89285 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 7:27 am
What she truely has to fear in the US is people who have heard of her from people in the Netherlands.

(If I'm wrong I invite you to correct me, but this is the situation as I understood it)

I guess we both don't know then. You might have a point on the number of fundamentalists in percentages in europe and the US. But I don't think that americans hearing it from someone in The Netherlands is the only thing she has to fear. She is an international personality and she is constantly publishing and broadcasting her views on islam. Something that I would think has not gone unnoticed in the (muslim)world.

All said and done I can totally understand why she wanted to leave The Netherlands after Theo van Gogh got murdered, almost lost her passport (which was the action of one minister "Iron" Rita Verdonk, the most horrible person in dutch politics). That one was turned over because the rest of the government didn't agree with Verdonk's decision. On top of that she got evicted from her house by courtorder because she should have consulted the neighbours before moving in. Shamefull indeed but not government policy.

But the primary reason was not safety so it seems from the pressconference she gave.

59. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89277 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 6:46 am

And before I here the inevitable "well if she's safe what's the money for": "Safer" does not mean safe.

Haha I wouldn't say that. That's a seriously flawed argument.

I doubt if she is really that much safer in the US though. I mean, she published her books internationally. Wouldn't that mean that she also made some enemies internationally? I don't think the US has less fundamentalist muslims then The Netherlands does. I wouldn't think she is so hated by those Islamist because she lived in holland, or because she made her film in holland. It would seem to me that they hate her for her outspoken opinion about islam. And islam is everywhere (as are fundamental islamists). How do you see that she is safer in the US then in The Netherlands? (that's a serious question).

I have done some poking around and Hirsi Ali has given a press conference in which she gave three reasons for leaving for the US:

Quoted from expatica.com
"In the first instance, she wants a bigger stage from which to present her views. Verdonk's letter about her naturalisation and a court order forcing her of her rented apartment in The Hague caused her to accelerate the move."

I must admit, the court order was a shameful action but the government doesn't have any power to change that.

On the point of who picks up the tab. I think that a government is responsible for the protection of the people living in that country. I'm not sure about the legal situation but it would seem quite logical to me since criminals from another country are also treated and tried by the local laws (and thus the country takes responsibility for putting that person on trial).

60. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89272 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 6:17 am

165. Comment #89267 by wednesdayguevara on November 20, 2007 at 6:10 am
People keep bringing up the issue of the US gov't paying for Hirsi Ali's protection. Never going to happen.

Indeed and that once and for all puts down the "shame on the Dutch government" alligations from the side of Rushdie and Harris et al. At least they had the decency to protect Hirsi Ali in her own country. Unlike the US.

61. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89207 by Nighttripper on November 20, 2007 at 2:39 am

Comment #88990 by admin on November 19, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Nighttripper, Appleby, and the like:

I am horribly sickened and ashamed of many of the comments on this thread. I spend nearly every moment of my waking life working on this website (along with the foundation and related responsibilities), in hopes of providing something good for the world.

Admin (or, Josh)
I have never ever said anything about you not doing a good job or not putting in enough hours and I don't see what I have done wrong to make your day so miserable just by stating my opinion.

I am not flaming anyone, or spamming this forum so I don't feel like I am doing anything wrong in here. It is a place for discussions after all. So is there really a problem with letting another sound be heard? A different opinion then the common one? Since this is a discussion board I don't see any problem with me expressing my heartfelt opinion on this matter. But if you feel personally attacked by my posting then I do apologise for it. I had no intention to.

I feel that my posts have been argumented and it might be strong in some of them but I have not disrespected anyone, including Hirsi Ali. I have all the time kept up the opinion that she undoubtably SHOULD be protected and in none of my posts I have said anything about her strategy or methods of getting her point across (except in my very first post in one line and adding that that should be put aside). I am realising very well that her ideology is not the point of the discussion. After all; whichever ideology she has, she still deserves protection when needed.

My point is solely about the people in here who are trying to shame me into donating because I "have to put my money where my mouth is" or else I am a "contemptible hypocrit", "sickening", "lice", "greedy bastard" (not really, I donate 20+ euro every month to good causes, just not this one), "disgusting","respectless" (shall I go on? The list is quite long). Even telling me that it is practically my fault when Hirsi Ali is murdered in the streets tomorrow. Those are some seriously strong words, still I see no reply from you to those posts. You even, in your role as Admin of the forum, pour some more on it by saying that my posts make you feel "horribly sickened and ashamed " and that I am now a "heartless grump" although if you read through the posts one by one, my posts are rather tame compared to the invective words some people are putting up here in response, and they are given thanks for it by you.

It is obvious on what side you are standing and it feels kind of like being in a debate in which the debate leader has already chosen a side (and even actively contributes to the naming and shaming part). It's not that I feel left out or anything, it just doesn't look good.

On the point of making a wrong impression to "new readers". I have used that argument when we were discussing some Christian guy coming into the forum who I felt was getting rediculed even before he could say what his opinion was. But someone else pointed out to me (sorry, can't remember who it was, I think Keith) that new people coming in here can read the posts and make decisions of their own just fine and that is the truth I think.

So all in all, I am sorry I have ruined your day, but I don't feel my posts were out of line or that I have done anything other then putting up my arguments, making my point and doing it without the naming and shaming that some others in here have resorted to. And if that is no longer allowed in a freethinking discussionboard like this one then we are in a sorry state indeed.

62. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88869 by Nighttripper on November 19, 2007 at 5:13 am

People have every right not to donate. They have, however, no right to change what that implies about them. They can't change that, whenever they think to object about religious bullying in the future, they have made themselves the most contemptible hypocrites.

Me not wanting to donate money to her does not disqualify me of my personal opinion. And it's fine with me that you seem to think of me as a hypocrit for making my own decision on what I think is a cause worthy of donating and what isn't, but it sure is a lousy argument.

It seems that donating money to Hirsi Ali is the only way to still be able to speak my mind without being a "contemptible hypocrit" in your worldview. So I at least demand a free-to-speak button if I decide to donate. So as no one can say that I am not on the "good" side.

You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists!

63. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88857 by Nighttripper on November 19, 2007 at 4:47 am

Comment #88852 by decius on November 19, 2007 at 4:29 am
am very willing to discuss anything with you, as long as you stop putting words into my mouth or distorting what I say beyond recognition.

For the second time, it's not about Harris being above criticism , or gifted with super-natural powers or always right by definition.

I havn't put words in your mouth, I quoted you directly. And it's fine that you have so much unquestioned trust in Harris' judgement on this particular matter. It's just that I (and some others in here) don't. And I see no harm in asking him to explain why he thinks we should all pay up for her protection in the US. Nothing wrong with asking critical questions before commiting yourself to something.

And indeed, it is a request and as such, one can freely choose to donate or not, but since there is this discussion board attached, people will give their opinion on the matter. And so do I. Especially when people start saying that I "must" donate if I care for freedom of speech or that I "should put my money where my mouth is".

64. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88838 by Nighttripper on November 19, 2007 at 3:52 am

Comment #88831 by decius on November 19, 2007 at 3:37 am
I was referring to Harris (not Hitchens),

Harris, Hitchens, guess I misread. Point still stands that it is pretty astonishing thing to say that asking someone for their motivations is "insulting" because he can't possibly be wrong on the matter. If we would all do that, this website, or any other freethinking place wouldn't exist.

Comment #88831 by decius on November 19, 2007 at 3:37 am
probably only serving the purpose to relieve your own conscience of this matter.

Haha yeah surely my conscience does need to be relieved on this matter. In fact, I think I wont be able to get any sleep over it these coming months.

But actualy I sleep very well each night knowing that the money I donate every month is spended on people who don't have any means to keep themselves sheltered, feeded and clothed without it.

65. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88827 by Nighttripper on November 19, 2007 at 3:26 am

;)

66. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88824 by Nighttripper on November 19, 2007 at 3:22 am

Ik hou von Amsterdam!

It's "Ik hou van Amsterdam", "von" is German...

67. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88822 by Nighttripper on November 19, 2007 at 3:14 am

May I suggest that certain people - you know who you are - consider what they spend each month on, say, cinema? Outings? Books? Fill-in-your-luxury-here? And then compare that with a five pound a month subscription to protect one of the bravest human beings alive today.
Shame on you.

Oh yes, because that poor woman deserves so much more (luxurious home, big car and dinerparties F.E.) then the average african mother trying to keep her children from dying from dysentry and hunger... Like I said, there is only so much I am inclined to spend my money on, and paying for the protection of Hirsi Ali is probably somewhere at spot 93 of the list of great-causes-to-spend-money-on.

Comment #88820 by decius:
Asking him for more details, as if he might be wrong, is insulting.

Oh yeah, let's not ask critical questions because we all know Mr. Hittchens is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient.

68. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88791 by Nighttripper on November 19, 2007 at 2:08 am

I think there are better causes to spend money on then Hirsi Ali's multimillion dollar protection in the US. The same US that apparantly doesn't even feel the least inclined to pay one penny. And the same Hirsi Ali who has earned truckloads with selling her books. On top of that, I don't think her stategy is doing any good to the closing the gap between the west and the east but hey, let's put that aside.

There surely must be more urgent causes to donate your money to, then the protection of a woman who is living in luxury in the US, moving from The Netherlands where she was very well protected and now asks the common I-got-a-9-to-5-job Joe to pay for her protection.

"But she MIGHT be killed!!"
Yes, and in the meantime, 20.000 other people will DEFINITELY die today. Because they don't have food, water, shelter, medicine and are mutilated, murdered or die of diseases that we in the west cure with a few pills and a good night's sleep. The reason being; They were born in the wrong place...

If you make big money you can easily decide to back both causes, but your average middleclass worker will have to decide which of the causes deserves their support more. And my decision didn't take a second...

69. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86090 by Nighttripper on November 8, 2007 at 5:30 am

Comment #86082 by steve99 on November 8, 2007 at 5:03 am
No, it isn't like that at all. The problem is that much religious reasoning seems to be about trying to re-define words to make things fit. Faith becomes compatible with logic because they declare it so.

I quoted Martin Luther to show that there isn't even a consistent religious view on this.

Ah, then I did indeed misinterpret your point.

I think this is a very interesting debate by the way. It does make things alot more interesting when there is someone who is actualy religious making some points instead of the people who are in basics of the same opinion. Not to try and convince him otherwise but just out of the sheer joy of the brain gymnastics.

70. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86075 by Nighttripper on November 8, 2007 at 4:31 am

100. Comment #85944 by keith on November 7, 2007 at 2:36 pm

To tell you the truth, it's still a mystery to me why you wrote it. Was it funny? Perhaps in the same way that saying, "That was a great movie - NOT!" is funny?

Hehe well I'm sorry you didn't like my joke. But that is hardly the point. Let's not discuss our personal senses of humour.

I also believe in letting people have their say. Strangely enough, me including my own sarcastic answers doesn't preclude ADH from responding or adding his. Were you under the impression that the number of answers allowed per question was limited to one and I had used them all up?

There you did it again! haha. No I don't seriously think that you giving a list of answers does prevent your opponent from forming his own. But by proposing the answer yourself you apparently assume I am such a dimwit I would believe such a rediculous statement to be true.

Really? This is overly disrespectful for you? Nighttripper, you really are quite a delicate flower, aren't you?

No I am not much of a delicate flower. (you really hurt my feelings saying that! )

It was just an example of a comment since you asked me to specify some of the posts I meant. Wind explained why he said it like that in post #85821 in which he points out that it has to do with earlier christian posters in here. I am pretty new here so for me this was the first time I encountered a religious person actualy trying to have a discussion. Maybe it hit my delicate flowery spot to see ADH trying to debate ten people at once (although that could have been expected when you post on this website).

"Or Steve99 practicly assuming that ADH automaticly makes anythin Martin Luther says, his own opinion."

You're making me go back over the entire thread by not quoting but I remember this one quite well and I think you've misunderstood it completely.

Maybe or maybe not. I don't know. I just gave my view on the argument he used.

Nighttripper, this is a grown man we're talking about here. Do you think he's made of candy floss? What are you trying to protect him from? Our nasty views expressed in a forceful way? Please, have a little confidence in him. He won't suffer any lasting damage from this exchange, I promise.

Haha no, I think my comment on the harsh reactions has grown out of proportions somewhat by the many posts that followed it. I am not afraid that ADH will get psychological damage from people writing on a forum. i was not trying to protect him from anything. I just gave my opinion on how I think a debate should be and I'm just that sort of guy that thinks that we should actualy try to listen to what his real opinion is before we start putting words in his mouth or making assumptions about how he "says" that he doesn't want to force his children into believe or threatens them with eternal hellfire, but he actually "means" the opposite.

Oh well, maybe I am a little less rigurous then some people on this site. But hey, as we both know very well; Atheist come in all stripes right? ;)

71. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85931 by Nighttripper on November 7, 2007 at 1:57 pm

83. Comment #85842 by coretemprising on November 7, 2007 at 10:06 am

oh that felt good.

I'm glad I got that out of your system! ;)

72. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85801 by Nighttripper on November 7, 2007 at 6:28 am

Who, precisely, do you think has been inappropriately uncivil, bearing in mind that this is a debate and this is an atheist website?

Oh well, since you ask; I thought your first comment wasn't very fair (although I see it has been altered somewhat since the first time you posted it). Posing the man with questions to which you already give some sarcastic answers in the same sentence. I believe all in letting people have their own say. Another example would be Comment #85652 by walk. Or Steve99 practicly assuming that ADH automaticly makes anythin Martin Luther says, his own opinion.

It's kinda like responding to the statement "Italy is not a warmongering nation." with;

Let me quote Benito Musolini:

"War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and imposes the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to make it."

I didn't quite catch your drift on the "this is an atheist website" comment though. What do you mean by that?


And in response to your other post:

I think you need to go back and read your own post. Does all of it belong in sarcasm tags or only part of it?

No, only the part:

And here I was thinking that all Atheists were well-thinking, repectful people! (Just like all religious people are sweetnatured, softies who always practice what they preach). Oh well, another perfect-world-assumption down the drain. ;)

I really think you wouldn't have to be a mindreader to see the sarcasm in that...

73. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85794 by Nighttripper on November 7, 2007 at 5:59 am

Now what would have made you think that? It's like saying, "And here I was thinking that all people from Manchester were well-thinking, respectful people!" Atheists are real people with human emotions and come in all stripes.

I see you didnt quite catch my sarcasm on the "all atheist are well-thinking respectful people". I thought the sentence following it would be the dead give-away.

They really should make a "[sarcasm] [/sarcasm]" tag on this site...

74. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85781 by Nighttripper on November 7, 2007 at 5:11 am

Is it just me or are there other people in here who got the feeling that some of the posters here are not keeping this discussion very respectfully towards this christian guy here (The first religious active contributor I have seen on this site. Commendable...). I don't agree with what his world view, but hey, that is to be expected. It wouldn't be much of a discussion otherways right?

I do think ADH is respectful in his way of getting his point across (although I am assuming here that he will indeed respond to some of the questions asked here later on as he stated, otherwise this discussion will probably bleed to death).

And I'm sorry but the way some of the people here are posing these questions is quite degrading in my personal opinion. It shows prejudice and smugness, either one of them not good traits. Someone coming in here for the first time will see ADH forming his arguments in a perfectly respectable manner on the one hand and (among to the well argumented and very honest posts from others) the bigotted and presumptional way some people are aproaching him on the other. Bad image on the latter...

And here I was thinking that all Atheists were well-thinking, repectful people! (Just like all religious people are sweetnatured, softies who always practice what they preach). Oh well, another perfect-world-assumption down the drain. ;)

Or maybe it's just me getting this feeling...

(Sorry for going so blatantly off-topic from the original article here, but the thread seems to be jumping from the one discussion to the other all the time).

75. Go Ahead, Rationalize. Monkeys Do It, Too

Comment #85570 by Nighttripper on November 6, 2007 at 8:02 am

"Of course, when you see others engaging in this sort of rationalization, it can look silly or pathological, as if they have a desperate need to justify themselves or are cynically telling lies they couldn't possibly believe themselves."


As far as this article and the comparison to religion holds; the above quote is the main reason why in my experience, as an atheists trying to understand the religious mind, I always have to prevent myself from becoming smug about it. The ridiculousness of a religious person claiming that that there is a God or that their God is the only true God (these blue M&M's are way more tasty then the other M&M's!) is obvious for anyone observing that religious mind from the outside. It looks like silly, pathological self justifying BS to us, yet to them it is not even much of a concious thought. It just is...

And this will go on until they get their consciousness raised in a way that makes them really sit down and look critically at what they are claiming to be true.

And the only way that will happen is when a religious person starts realising that their religion has downsides to it. After all, when you don't see any downsides to believing what you believe, why reconsider it? That is why warmongering fundamentalist christians or choirboy groping clergy, disgusting slime that they are, still seem to fulfill a function in this world. Although I wouldn't wish any of the two of them onto anyone...

Read TGD, it is the much preferable way ;)

76. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85543 by Nighttripper on November 6, 2007 at 6:09 am

Well that is somewhat of a leap from what ADH actually wrote. I don't think there is any reason to assume that ADH is an insane christian fundamentalist (uhm...right?).

I would like to hear what "consequences" ADH thinks that shutting God out of their lifes would have for his children though.

and indeed, great speech by RD. I enjoyed it.

77. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84091 by Nighttripper on November 1, 2007 at 6:29 am

BTW
I find it strange, how some people here seem to think of psychological abuse as "not real abuse" as opposed to physical abuse. If indoctrinating children with their parents religion is child molestation then this certainly can be seen as abuse too...

78. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84083 by Nighttripper on November 1, 2007 at 6:15 am

Disturbing a funeral with hateful allegations pointed at the deceased and their family/friends is just psychological abuse. period. Especially since the people they are harrasing are not even related to, or have any power to change, the things these protesters are agitating against. They should be standing at the white house or their local mayors office. There is absolutely no reason why they should disturb such an emotional event as the burial of ones loved one.

Would american laws have accepted fundementalist muslims protesting at the 9/11 commemoration? Holding up signs saying "Thank Allah for the victims of 9/11"? Would laws have accepted neo-nazi's protesting at an Auswitch commemoration?

Yes, freedom of speech should be protected at all times, but willingly causing such psychological harm upon people who (as anyone should be able to know) are so emotionaly vulnerable has nothing to do with "protesting". After all, what power does the grieving family have to change the tolerance of gay people in the US? Their protests is pointed at the wrong people and as such, does not solve the protesters problems but DOES force a possibly traumatic experience onto the family and friends of the deceased.

Needless to say that 11 million is a ridiculous amount of money, but hey, every courtcase in the US seems to always end in the millions when it comes to paying damages, so why not this one too...?

79. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80859 by Nighttripper on October 23, 2007 at 8:13 am

The same could be said of trying to debate the conflict with Israeli's. I expect the majority of both sides wouldnt give an inch in any debate. Still I am sure both sides do have reasonable minds on 'em who would like the brain-gymnastics of debating someone that is not of their opinion on the matter. "Palestinian" does not equate to "closed-minded".

80. The Price of Freedom

Comment #80816 by Nighttripper on October 23, 2007 at 5:25 am

In a popular late night talk show (Pauw & Witteman) Britta Böhler, the lawyer and spokesperson of Ayaan, yesterday explained that the documents you talk about were one year old (and therefore in no way address the security issues today), she sent them only to members of Parliament, plus she mentioned that the news that Hitchens has money for Ayaan is nonsense.

Hmm interesting. I didnt see that show. Thnx for the info.

81. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80798 by Nighttripper on October 23, 2007 at 4:36 am

It's such a fascinating feat of human psyche that anyone that convinces themselves to leave a certain conviction always seems to swing to the extreme opposite of that same conviction. As if they have to "proof" something to their new peers. It often works the same for western people converted to islam.

...and on a much lighter note; ex-smokers ;).

82. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80774 by Nighttripper on October 23, 2007 at 2:35 am

I am glad to see that not everyone on this website is hanging onto every word that some "expert" (Hittchens, Hirsi Ali) writes down (as I was fearfully beginning to suspect). It makes this place a true Clear-thinking Oasis.

I am also reading this article with some big reservations towards her extreme views on the matter. And as a Dutch guy, I have been hearing these kind of argumentations from Ayaan Hirsi Ali for many a year. It is just too extreme for my taste to state that "we are at war with islam".

Since a few years, moderate muslims have stood up in the Netherlands to try and change the faith from within. People like Achmed Aboutaleb (son of an imam, of all professions) and Ahmed Marcouch.

Do we realy want to alienate those moderate muslims (and yes, there are many) by declaring war on them? Isn't that the same as Bush shouting out "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists!" ?. I believe there is no way to change islam from the outside. Changes must come from the inside.

And that is not left-wing talk, it is just plain common sense if you ask me.

83. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77666 by Nighttripper on October 10, 2007 at 4:23 am

Tell me what is more disgraceful; the country from which she came not wanting to pay for her protection on foreign soil, or the country where she is living nowadays not wanting to pay for her protection on their own soil?

Still people seem to believe that the dutch government just decided to stop protecting here
out of the blue. As said before, her protection had been extended twice to allow her to set up her own protection. She has also never been without protection as the article is implying.

Hirsi Ali herself has stated that it is not reasonable for the dutch government having to pay for her protection on foreign soil. Rushdie, Hitchens, and Harris are barking up the wrong tree. And I have a deeprooted suspicion that they knew exactly what they were doing when they were writing this misinformed article. That is; trying to kick up dust and create outrage against the dutch government who is doing something that any normal democraticly chosen government would do; Criticly looking at what the taxpayers money is spent on. 4 million a year might not be much for a country like the US, it is for the Netherlands.

84. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77656 by Nighttripper on October 10, 2007 at 2:45 am

I will post the same comment here as in the other article by Hitchens. For this is a misinformed and incomplete representation of the whole situation.

From the Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie article:
"She returned to the U.S., and the Dutch government has been paying for her protection here -- that is, until it suddenly announced last week that it would no longer protect her outside the Netherlands, thereby advertising her vulnerability to the world".

I am surprised by their apparent believe that SUDDENLY, out of the blue, the government decided she was not going to be protected anymore. And adding in an accusing way that this puts her in direct danger of being murdered. As if the dutch prime minister woke up one morning and thought "Hey, let's take away Hirshi Ali's protection today, that'd be a hoot...". As if the dutch government is going to decide next week to not pay for the protection anymore, escort her out of the building and into the hands of armed muslim militants... righto.

The article says she would get "protection without qualification", which leaves open the question if this was considered to mean outside of The Netherlands too, since no one could have forseen her going to the US before she became a politician.

Every country is responsible for the protection of the people living in, and visiting their country. Why should the dutch government pay for her protection while the country where she is living nowadays isn't even prepared to contribute a penny. Why is the dutch government such a target in this discussion when the obvious candidate for paying for her protection should be the US or the AEI. As even Ayaan Hirshi Ali herself has stated she thinks it is reasonable for the dutch government to not want to pay for her protection in the US.

From the Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie article:
Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, has recommended that Hirsi Ali simply quit the Netherlands and has refused to grant her even a week's protection outside the country, during which she might raise funds to hire security of her own.

Read that again...the statement they are making (or at least implying) is that the dutch prime minister has told Hirshi Ali to leave the country now, without any protection. Now that is some serious factbending.

The simple fact is that there were problems with acquiring a greencard with which she could get on with the fundraising for her protection in the US. Because of these problems, her protection has been extended twice. Now, the Dutch government has asked her to come back to the Netherlands, in anticipation of her receiving a greencard, so that it wouldn't have to extend her protectioncontract with a third period (since the US didn't want Dutch policemen on their soil, the Dutch government has been forced to hire a private company).

Now think about it... Why would the dutch government suddenly decide to leave her unprotected for a week when it has been paying for her protection for over a year.

-----------------------------

End of the story is: the Dutch parliament has debated the question and the general consensus seems to be that they do not intend to vote for continuing paying for the protection of Hirshi Ali while she resides in the US (she will still be protected on dutch soil). There will probably be a transitionperiod. Ayaan Hirshi Ali has gotten her greencard en flew back to the US in the meantime.

There were some voices in the parliament for extending the protection period one last time. Yesterday though, Ayaan Hirsi Ali sent the highly classified documents containing all the details of her protection program in the Netherlands and the US to the members of parliament and the media. Why she did that is beyond me because it only hurt her cause. Those parties that were somewhat inclined to extend another period of protection were appalled by this action and felt like their hands were being forced.

Hitchens was in the newsreport too by the way, saying that he has found some wealthy people ready to pay for her protection.

85. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77644 by Nighttripper on October 10, 2007 at 1:29 am

Well, end of story: the Dutch parliament has debated the question and the general consensus seems to be that they do not intend to vote for continuing paying for the protection of Hirshi Ali while she resides in the US (she will still be protected on dutch soil). There will probably be a transitionperiod. Ayaan Hirshi Ali has gotten her greencard en flew back to the US in the meantime.

There were some voices in the parliament for extending the protection period one last time. Yesterday though, Ayaan Hirsi Ali sent the highly classified documents containing all the details of her protection program in the Netherlands and the US to the members of parliament and the media. Why she did that is beyond me because it only hurt her cause. Those parties that were somewhat inclined to extend another period of protection were appalled by this action and felt like their hands were being forced.

Hitchens was in the newsreport too, saying that he has found some wealthy people ready to pay for her
protection.

86. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77374 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 6:42 am

I have made an argument for the US or the AEI having to pay, in my posts above.

I was writing my last comment at the same time as yours so I missed out the explanation you gave. That makes my nr 39 post kinda redundant ;).

87. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77364 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 6:12 am

Indeed. The protection of public persons is a responsibility of the country that the person is living in. Wether it be the Netherlands, or the US or any other democratic country. There is no use in having freedom of speech without the intent to protect the person executing this same freedom of speech when it is needed. That would be like saying "Sure you can buy a house, but don't expect the police to help you when you got a burglar."

88. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77337 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 4:48 am

Well I can imagine Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens wanting to beef the story up a little since their goal is to generate consternation around the subject and kick up some dust for the coming debate in the dutch parliament. But indeed things are more complicated then how they are represented in both articles.

89. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77318 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 3:34 am

I don't know about Holland but here in Australia ex politicians get very, very well looked after.

She is being looked after very well over here too, when she is on dutch soil. And has been protected very well for over a year on foreign soil.

I don't think we have anyone living under protection overseas but if it was needed by someone as brave as Ali I would support it.

Oh yes, I would too... But would your government?

From the Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie article:
"She returned to the U.S., and the Dutch government has been paying for her protection here -- that is, until it suddenly announced last week that it would no longer protect her outside the Netherlands, thereby advertising her vulnerability to the world".

I am surprised by their apparent believe that SUDDENLY, out of the blue, the government decided she was not going to be protected anymore. And adding in an accusing way that this puts her in direct danger of being murdered. As if the dutch prime minister woke up one morning and thought "Hey, let's take away Hirshi Ali's protection today, that'd be a hoot...". As if the dutch government is going to decide next week to not pay for the protection anymore, escort her out of the building and into the hands of armed muslim militants... righto.

It is quite unlikely that the dutch government has promised her protection "everywhere and anywhere". The article says she would get "protection without qualification", which leaves open the question if this was considered to mean outside of The Netherlands too, since no one could have forseen her going to the US before she became a politician.

Every country is responsible for the protection of the people living in, and visiting their country. Why should the dutch government pay for her protection while the country where she is living nowadays isn't even prepared to contribute a penny. Why is the dutch government such a target in this discussion when the obvious candidate for paying for her protection should be the US or the AEI. As even Ayaan Hirshi Ali herself has stated she thinks it is reasonable for the dutch government to not want to pay for her protection in the US.

From the Sam Harris, Salman Rushdie article:
Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch prime minister, has recommended that Hirsi Ali simply quit the Netherlands and has refused to grant her even a week's protection outside the country, during which she might raise funds to hire security of her own.

Read that again...the statement they are making (or at least implying) is that the dutch prime minister has told Hirshi Ali to leave the country now, without any protection. Now that is some serious factbending.

The simple fact is that there were problems with acquiring a greencard with which she could get on with the fundraising for her protection in the US. Because of these problems, her protection has been extended twice. Now, the Dutch government has asked her to come back to the Netherlands, in anticipation of her receiving a greencard, so that it wouldn't have to extend her protectioncontract with a third period (since the US didn't want Dutch policemen on their soil, the Dutch government has been forced to hire a private company).

Now think about it... Why would the dutch government suddenly decide to leave her unprotected for a week when it has been paying for her protection for over a year. Come on, we're not that smirched yet...

90. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77309 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 2:29 am

A reputation takes a long time to build, but only seconds to destroy. I have no doubt that the Netherlands understand why their reputation took a knock in Srebrenica, and their desire to do a bit of rebuilding.

Absolutely. Although I think the dutch are more concerned with the actual 7000 muslims having been executed, then the dutch reputation in the world as a peaceful and democratic country.
Still there is no reason to say that "the peacefull and democratic image" of the Netherlands has been smirched. I think the Srebrenica Massacre says a lot more about the "the peacefull and democratic image" of the Serbian army...

Hmmm i'm going somewhat off-topic here, excuse me. I'm getting a little over-passionate when I feel that an argument isn't fair...

To get my point across; Ayaan Hirshi Ali deserves protection from the Dutch government, as does any politician that receives deaththreats for stating their opinion. And she does get the protection. It is not a question of "Should we protect Hirshi Ali from raging religious madmen?", believe me, the dutch government isn't looking for another murder in the streets after Theo van Gogh and Pim Fotuyn had been murdered within a three-year timespan. It is a question of "Should the dutch government indefinetly pay for the protection of someone living abroad?". In which even Hirshi Ali agrees that that is not a reasonable demand.

91. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77306 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 2:15 am

Comment #77176 by Tawn:
I once heard that the most common name for a newly born child in the Netherlands is "Mohammed".

It is the most common name in the 4 biggest cities in the Netherlands, and not that surprising. Since every muslim family seems to have at least one son called Mohammed (by far the most common name in the muslim world, for obvious reasons...). I think that this argument only proofs that apparently, dutch parents have more imagination in naming their children.

92. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77299 by Nighttripper on October 9, 2007 at 1:27 am

Thank you bartvdo. I was kind of squirming in my seat here at this quite misinformed article and the reactions. I don't blame anyone. I'm sure that most of the news about this doesn't get through to the rest of the world. But it's a good thing to get some nuance into this story.

As Bartvdo has said, the agreed term of protection had been extended twice and were based on an agreement between Ayaan Hirshi Ali and the dutch government in which she agreed with having to find another way of financing her protection when she would be living abroad. You can rest assured that the dutch government would never revoke her protection as long as nothing else has been organised. What would you think would happen if the dutch government takes away her protection and she is shot in the street? Now THAT would be a bonafide sullying "the image of peaceful and democratic consensus".

And I am wholeheartedly dissapointed by the Srebrenica comment. Ignoring the fact that it has as much to do with Ayaan Hirshi Ali as King Tut had with WWII, it is a rather more complicated story then the Dutch UN soldiers lavishing on champagne with the Serbian generals while 7000 muslims were being executed on the spot. The Dutchbat force was undermanned, underarmed and did not get the UN airsupport they had been promised when it was most needed. Despite these facts, it is still is considered the most horrible mistake in recent dutch history and regretted every day.

It is a cheap and unfair argument for "the sullied image of a reputation for peaceful and democratic consensus". Please explain what part of the dutch "peacefull and democratic image" has been sullied by the Sebrenica Massacre...

93. Talking Action Figure Jesus

Comment #73462 by Nighttripper on September 25, 2007 at 3:11 am

Hah, that reminds me of the first time I saw this kinda thing at www.jesuschristsuperstore.net. I'm afraid the original site is gone now, but thanks to the Internet Archive it's still viewable:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010330082638/http://www.jesuschristsuperstore.net/index.html

All the mainstream religions prophets, the pope, the ayatollah, even God Almighty and Allah.

Jesuschristsuperstore: putting the "Fun" back in Fundamentalism, and the "Laughter" back in sectarian Slaughter.
Priceless...