Pim Fortuyn assassinated 5-6-2002

via Pim Fortuyn’s legacy | Radio Netherlands Worldwide.

Ten years ago today the Netherlands was stunned by the murder of Pim Fortuyn. The image of the tall, fit, flamboyant and charismatic politician lying lifeless on the pavement is etched into public memory. His death – and his life – marked a turning point in the nation’s history.

During his brief political career, Pim Fortuyn ushered in a new era, tapping into a deeply felt dissatisfaction with the status quo. He was the first Dutch politician to speak critically about immigration and to condemn Islam.

Pim Fortuyn was born 1948, the third of six children in a strict Roman Catholic family. He wanted to become a priest, but ended up pursuing a career teaching and writing before turning to politics. Originally a supporter of communism, Fortuyn later joined the Labour Party before enentually turning to the right-of-centre VVD in the early 1990s. But he was always an iconoclast, and when Fortuyn finally took to the political stage himself, it was as leader of a nascent party called Leefbaar Nederland (Liveable Netherlands).

But, true to character, Fortuyn was not willing to compromise his views to match those of the young party, and was deposed as leader within a few months. On the 11th of February 2002, just three months prior to national elections, Fortuyn announced the formation of his own party, the Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF – Pim Fortuyn’s List).

During the ensuing national campaign, Fortuyn was doing so well that some polls predicted his LPF could become the largest party in parliament, giving him the chance to become prime minister.

He was a controversial as well as a popular figure. He called Islam a ‘backward culture’ and said Christians in the Netherlands had more rights, morally, than Muslims did. He advocated scrapping the ban on discrimination enshrined in the first amendment of the Dutch constitution.

But he was also against many of the reforms of the 90s such as privatisation and new, technocratic management styles.

Many saw him as a rabble-rouser comparable to extreme right figures around Europe, including Austrian Jorg Haider and Frenchman Jean Marie Le Pen. But Fortuyn’s open homosexuality, his flamboyant lifestyle and his often playful manner complicated that picture. He himself fervently denied any association with the far right.

Then, on May 6th, Fortuyn was shot and killed in the car park of public broadcaster NOS. His killer was apprehended within minutes and police rushed to publish a description of the man. He was not Muslim, as many at first suspected. Volkert van de Graaf was a white Dutch environmental activist.

Just nine days later, his party managed something unprecedented in Dutch politics. In its maiden elections, the LPF became the second largest party, surpassing both the Labour Party and the VVD.

But the success – and the party – was short-lived. The LPF joined a coalition government which collapsed within the year due to infighting. The party lost most of its seats in the ensuing election and was disbanded within six years.

But Pim Fortuyn’s ideas have fundamentally changed the shape of Dutch politics. He gave voice to an entire class of voters who felt disenfranchised by the established political order. He opened a vein of populism in the Dutch body politic, the same vein Geert Wilders has so successfully tapped since.

Dutch politics since Pim Fortuyn has been characterised by instability. In the ten years since his death, the Netherlands has had five different governments. The three main parties (Labour, Christian Democrats and VVD) have lost their traditional dominance of parliament. Populist parties led by Rita Verdonk (Trots op Nederland – PON – Proud of the Netherlands) and Geert Wilders (Partij van de Vrijheid – PVV – Freedom Party) have emerged.

Since Pim Fortuyn, the most radical developments in Dutch politics have come from the right, not the left. The political agenda has been set by the right of centre, as the Netherlands turns away from the policies of tolerance established in the 1960s and 1970s.

6 May, 2002, was a watershed moment and, as the Netherlands enters the eleventh year of the post-Fortuyn era, his legacy lives on.

What they failed to mention is:

Pim Fortuyn was a flamboyant gay man — hardly a jack-booted fascist as the media sought to portray him. He condemned Muslim immigration because those newcomers to Holland refused to assimilate to the socially liberal Netherlands society, in which gay sexuality is as acceptable as straight. Problems have been stressful in highly impacted Rotterdam, Fortuyn’s home city, where the Muslim population is estimated to be as high as 45 percent. Fortuyn stated, “I have gay friends who have been beaten up by young Moroccans in Rotterdam.” His immigration philosophy derived precisely because of the socially tolerant nature of the Netherlands, a quality he treasured and wanted to preserve.

Like many in Holland, Fortuyn did not want to live in a northern extension of Morocco. A recent poll found that 50 percent of young Dutch people want no more Muslim immigration. As Fortuyn remarked, “in Rotterdam we have third-generation Moroccans who still don’t speak Dutch, oppress women and won’t live by our values.” While campaigning on the idea of ending Islamic immigration entirely, he believed that the government should do more to aid assimilation to Dutch society of Muslims who were already there. Interestingly, the second-in-command person in the political party Pim Fortuyn’s List was a black Caribbean immigrant, Joao Varela. Differences were understood to be about culture, not race.

And, although all references have disappeared down the memory hole, this remains:

Fortuyn killer ‘acted for Muslims’
At the beginning of his trial, accused murderer Volkert Van der Graaf admitted that he shot Pim Fortuyn and also revealed his motive — that he wanted to “protect Muslims.” The media has been avoiding the obvious motive for nearly a year, that the shooter is a multicultural extremist and couldn’t stand his ideology being upset by the moral coherance of Pim’s arguments. Another article about the assassin’s motive.

Feb 26, 1993: Muslim terrorists bomb World Trade Center (video)

17 18 20 22 years ago today.

View more CBS reports from that day here.

(video may be slow to load)

ABC report:

part II

part III

CNN report:

Video evidence keeps disappearing from terrorist-friendly Youtube.

The names of the six people killed in the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center. (AP)

The names of the six 7 people killed in the 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center (AP)

The blast killed 7:

Stephen Knapp, 48

John DiGiovanni, 45,

Robert W. Kirkpatrick, 61,

William Macko, 57,

Wilfredo Mercado, 37,

Monica Rodriguez Smith, 34 and her unborn child.

October, 1985: Palestinian terrorists hijack Achille Lauro, kill & dump wheelchair bound American overboard

Leon Klinghoffer relaxed in the sun on the deck of Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro two days before Palestinian hijackers shot him and threw his body into the sea.

Leon Klinghoffer relaxed in the sun on the deck of Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro two days before Palestinian hijackers shot him and threw his body into the sea.

On October 7, 1985, four members of one of the PLO’s factions, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak persuaded the hijackers to surrender, but not before they shot to death a wheelchair-bound Jewish passenger from the United States named Leon Klinghoffer, dumping his body overboard.

Mubarak allowed the PLF leader and hijacking mastermind, Mohammed Abbas, and the other terrorists to fly to their headquarters in Tunisia. President Ronald Reagan sent U.S. warplanes to intercept the flight, however, and forced it to land at a U.S.-Italian air base in Sicily. The United States and Italy fought over jurisdiction in the case, but the Italians refused to extradite any of the men.

Inexplicably, Abbas was allowed to go to Yugoslavia. An Italian court convicted 11 of 15 others associated with the hijacking, while Abbas and another terrorist were tried in absentia and found guilty. Abbas was sentenced to life in prison. Bassam al-Asker, one of the Achille Lauro hijackers, was granted parole in 1991. Ahmad Marrouf al-Assadi, another accomplice, disappeared in 1991 while on parole.

Abbas was never arrested. In 1990, he struck again from the sea, with an abortive speedboat attack on bathers on a beach near Tel Aviv.

Though he was sentenced to five life terms in Italy, and was wanted in the United States, Abbas remained a free man. He spent most of the years after the hijacking in Tunisia before moving to the Gaza Strip in April 1996, after the Palestinian Authority took control of the area as part of the peace agreement with Israel.

While in Gaza, Abbas said he was sorry for the hijacking, but the daughters of Leon Klinghoffer said that Abbas had been convicted of murder and should serve his sentence (CNN, April 23, 1996). As a result of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian interim peace agreement, however, Abbas and other PLO members were granted immunity for violent acts committed before the signing of the September 1993 Oslo agreement.

Abbas eventually made his way to Iraq where he was believed to be a conduit for Saddam Hussein’s payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces in a raid in Iraq on April 15, 2003. He died on March 9, 2004, at the age of 56 in U.S. custody in Iraq. Klinghoffer’s daughters said, “Now, with his death, justice will be denied. The one consolation for us is that Abul Abbas died in captivity, not as a free man.”

Sources: Mitchell G. Bard. Terror Aboard the Achille Lauro.

“From the mouth of our cannon”: brief history of Bainbridge & Muslim piracy

Interesting piece below from the Northeast Intelligence Network. It led us to some historical research on the Barbary Wars. It turns out, that the naval ship the Bainbridge is named after one Commodore William Bainbridge who was once captured and held by Muslim pirates: “Bainbridge and his officers and men were made prisoners, and two days afterward the ship was extricated and taken into the harbor. The officers were treated as prisoners of war, but the crew were made slaves.” Prior to that, Bainbridge was forced to:

“…carry the Algerine flag at the main, and that of the United States at the fore. He sailed out of the port of Algiers an obedient slave, and then, placing his own flag in the position of honor as a freeman…”I hope,” he wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, “I shall never again be sent to Algiers with tribute, unless I am authorized to deliver it from the mouth of our cannon.”

Bainbridge may have been watching as his namesake sailed to the other side of Africa with tribute, from the mouth of Navy Seal sniper rifles.

“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!”

The Barbary Wars redux: Muslim terrorists at sea
Report by Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

The mainstream media will not tell you that the recent attack against the U.S. merchant ship off the coast of Somalia was an act of Islamic terrorism, but it was, and it’s not new. Quite simply, the majority of Americans have forgotten U.S. history despite the presence of a large monument in front of the U.S. Naval Academy to remind us. That is the Tripoli Monument, the oldest military monument in the U.S., honoring the heroes of the First Barbary War.

Following the Revolutionary War, American commerce ships sailing in the open waters of the Mediterranean were being attacked and destroyed by Muslim pirates, led by the “Dey of Algiers,” the Islamic warlord ruler of Algiers. The Muslim pirates were vicious, taking the mostly Christian crews as hostages. At that time, America had no navy to protect the ships and was virtually powerless to fight against the savage attacks. In 1784, the Continental Congress negotiated with the four Barbary States of North Africa (Morocco, Tripoli, Algiers and Tunis) in an effort to stop the piracy. At first, America paid protection money – $18,000 a year – to allow our ships to proceed unmolested by the pirates of Barbary.

As demonstrated in this case, succumbing to the demands of extortion never works out very well. Those who extort always want more, and payment of protection money is always a sign of weakness. Like today, the leaders of America in the late 1700’s tried to settle the piracy issue through diplomacy. As such, two American diplomats, Thomas Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, the American ambassador to Britain, were dispatched to London in 1786 in an attempt to resolve the piracy issue. They met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain. It was during that meeting in London when Jefferson asked the Muslim ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation they had virtually no contact with at that time.

The answer is as relevant today as it was in 1786 – perhaps even more so. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja stated :

“Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sound familiar? In 1786, Continue reading

Muslim Academic Questions Muhammad’s Existence

Below are translated excerpts from an article in German entitled, “Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad — Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking,” by Germany’s Prof. Muhammad Kalisch, a Muslim. (See related article.) via WSJ.com

Up to some time ago I was convinced that Muhammad was a historical figure. Although I always based my thinking on the assumption that the Islamic historical narrative regarding Muhammad was very unreliable, I had no doubts that at least the basic lines of his biography were historically correct.

I have now moved away from this position and will soon publish a book in which I will, among other things, comment on this question and explain my arguments in more detail. This essay is only a short summary of my most important arguments. It also deals with the question of what implications historical-critical research has for the Islamic theory and how I deal with my research results as a theologian.

With regard to the historical existence of Muhammad … I consider my position simply as a continuation of the most recent research results. It appears so spectacular only because it has been said by a Muslim … Most Western scientists turn down such an hypotheses out of respect for Islam or because they are afraid of the reactions of their Muslim friends or because they think it is speculative nonsense. Continue reading

Raymond Ibrahim’s “Today in History”: Charles the Hammer saves the West from Islam at Tours

Thus any number of historians, such as Godefroid Kurth, would go on to say that the Battle of Tours “must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe.”

Read it all: Jihad Watch: Raymond Ibrahim’s “Today in History”: Charles the Hammer saves the West from Islam at Tours

History: President Bush Declares “War on Terror” – Sept. 20, 2001

Bush certainly rallied the United States on the days after 9/11, even if he was mistaken about Islam and Muslims in America. As we’ve seen since that speech, many American Muslims have betrayed this country in favor of Islam. The 11,000+ attacks by Muslims in the name of Islam are evidence Islam is not a religion of peace. But even so, what happened to this aggressive George Bush? Where did he go? Relentless beatings by Democrats, foreigners, Muslim groups like CAIR, and the leftist lamestream medias across the world surely affected Bush’s agenda.

George W. Bush, “We’re not fooled by their pretenses to piety.”

On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush delivered an inspirational speech to America that rallied support for the “War on Terror,” which would eventually lead to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On this Day: President Bush Declares “War on Terror” from findingDulcinea

Following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush addressed a joint session of Congress that was broadcast to the American people, delivering one of the defining speeches of his presidency.

According to Time magazine, Bush’s speech “rallied” the nation in five steps. First, President Bush explained what had happened on Sept. 11. He then made an important point for diplomacy, noting that America did not hold all Muslims responsible and acknowledged that terrorists were a small and extreme portion of the population. Bush then discussed the challenges that lay ahead for an America at war with an elusive and unclear enemy. He gave “marching orders” to Americans, advising them to continue their lives as usual and to pray for the victims of 9/11 and the U.S. military. Finally, he took responsibility for leading America through one of its darkest moments, saying, “And in our grief and anger, we have found our mission and our moment.”

Bush outlined his plans for a “War on Terror” that would begin with al-Qaida, but would not end there. He proclaimed that America would “pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

Bush’s speech also marked the night that he unveiled his plans for a new U.S. Department of Homeland Security. His inspirational speech continued with the now-famous line, “We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.”

His speech was immediately hailed as a success, and his ability to rally support following the Sept. 11 attacks led to America’s temporary defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the establishment of a free government in Iraq after five years of war. Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: