The muslims are mostly known by their terriarists activities. They are troubling peoples and kill the peoples. Mostly they kidnapped and kill the people very horrible.This message is another example for their activity.

My Personal Blog

Yes, I know I took a shortcut with regards to the Crusades, but I didn't want to get diverted on that story while trying to make the point about how history was being revised by academics.
 
Robert Spencer goes into more detail about the Crusades in this recent interview, http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010582.php
 
The Crusaders bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1099 is always brought up as a reminder about how bad our ancesters were...strangely enough...for some reason....the Muslim bloody sack of Jerusalem in 1077 is never mentioned.   The Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.

Blaming culture is all well and good, but as I noted in my previous reply, it does not explain *why* that culture exists. As you'll note:

"saying that 'culture' is the problem is an easy way out. While undoubtedly true, there must be a reason that such a culture took hold in the Middle East but not in other regions, and that Islam did not change in the same way Christianity did."

While change can only be effected by individual actions, those actions must take place in a conductive environment - seeds must be sown in fertile ground, not in a desert.

@Van Roosbroeck
...."saying that culture is the problem is the easy way out...."
 
No, I strongly disagree with an extreme 'cultural relativist' like you.   I do not claim to be able to solve all the world's problems.  Who could make such a claim?  But, surely, these problems cannot even be 'approached' as long as people keep misdiagnosing the problem.  And, in the muslimworld, the central problem is NOT "oil" as you claimed earlier.  There are lots of other places in the world, that at one time or another, had an abundance of 'free resources' (oil, gold, copper etc...), and that fact did not prevent their 'development'.  On the contrary, it provided an EXTRA assist.  And, in a place like Australia, the abundance of 'desert and sunshine', did not stop development either.   
The problem is clearly 'culture'.  And don't blame me for not being able to move islamic cultures faster into modernity.  But as long as the naive-left western media keeps putting blame wrongly in other places like.... 'oil, European colonialism, Bush, racism.....etc...) many muslims will be prevented from making the necessary FIRST step, i.e. the realisation of the need for radical cultural change.   And this cultural change can only be brought about bij (morally) 'courageous' actions of many muslems themselves (with 'practical' help from others, not with cheap words).

- I do not think such concepts are incompatible with a belief in subjective values.

- Iran and Saudi Arabia depend on oil to a much larger extent than Norway or Holland. Anyway, saying that 'culture' is the problem is an easy way out. While undoubtedly true, there must be a reason that such a culture took hold in the Middle East but not in other regions, and that Islam did not change in the same way Christianity did. But that's another discussion altogether...

"Judging from their non-denunciatin of "savage serial mass murders" and appparent support perhaps indirectly to the criminal jihadis, the fraction of 'moderates' may be less than 20%!"
I think nobody is able to prove this, neither the contrary, neither any other percentage. Probably because their "silent majority", if it exists, remains very silent! For whatever reason that may be?

"Take the Crusades, for instance. Most Westerners have been taught to be ashamed of this piece of history. Without going into detail about that era, I believe that if the whole truth were taught, they would be proud of their ancestors."

Your sentence is a shortcut of history on what happened. More complete though still limited is that during decennies nobody cared about all the "pogroms" by the Crusades on their way to the Holy Land against the Jewish populations in Europe. But "thanks" to Eurabia politics Europe has now to apologize to... the Muslims, not to the Jews, for massacres and thereby forgetting that the real geo-strategic aims of the Crusades were to stop the Arab Jihad against Christian world since the 7th century. Christendom lost North-Africa, Middle-East, Constantinopel, Spain for many centuries and for a while Sicily and even the Vatican to the Jihad.

The question is rather when Islam/Muslims will also apologize for this as well as for the centuries of slavery, the dhimmitude enforced on other religions, etc...
My guess is "NEVER" as they feel always superior to any other people in the world because of their uncreated Qu'ran.

Judging from their non-denunciatin of "savage serial mass murders" and appparent support perhaps indirectly to the criminal jihadis, the fraction of 'moderates' may be less than 20%!

Pls voice yur opinion on this!!

@Van Roosbroeck

I "kindly" took note of your latest comments. 

-- Please, read more carefully before commenting.  I did not say that the decline of religious fundamentalism in 'christendom' came about purely through "individual conviction".  I said almost the opposite of what you seem to think I said.  Indeed, it was only through terrible "'offers" (bloodshed and suffering) that such decline could be 'won'.   It will not be different in any other civilisation, certainly not one as violent and intolerant as the moslem one today.

-- In the context of your reference to the importance of "conviction", if you have 'difficulty' with concepts such as "life after death" or "God", replace them by concepts as "meaning, source, inherent nature, etc...with respect to human life".

-- Indeed, you are on to something.  In economics there is such a thing called the "oil curse".  But this would apply to any (virtually) 'free' resources, whether they be oil, gold, gas, etc... In fact it used to be called the "Dutch disease" because of northsea gas.  The general idea is that the availability of 'free' resources can create other economic problems.  However, countries like Norway and Holland can manage the 'Dutch desease', whereas Iran and Saudi Arabia cannot.  This is a long story....the point is that the problem is not 'oil', it is 'culture'.     

@truth serum
I do...believe you!  Furthermore, I suspect that what you call "revisionist history" is not so much "revisionist" as 'incomplete, biased, ideological' history.  In other words, it is history seen through an ideological lens (with ideological 'goals'), not an empirical one, and it produces judgments that are one-sided, selective and disproportionate.  There is nothing more ridiculous than the sight of European politicians (and some naive-left american ones too), and the pope as well, making selective 'apologies' for actions of past generations, thereby making it harder for 'others' to be self-critical of their own civilisations.  A civilisation with such 'leaders' cannot long survive.
 

"Your "people who have studied history" needs to be taken with a grain of salt."
 
Believe me...I do.  Academics and their offspring have been very successful at revisionist history in Europe and America.  Take the Crusades, for instance.  Most Westerners have been taught to be ashamed of this piece of history.  Without going into detail about that era, I believe that if the whole truth were taught, they would be proud of their ancestors.
 
You might be interested to know that Hugh Fitzgerald, a contributer to www.jihadwatch.org and http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ has written and article on this very subject today entitled,  Scholarship and Sensitivity.  I do not know what his academic credentials are, but he does seem to be very knowledgeable on Islam...and is a very proliferate witer.
 

Jihadwatch.org is actually the website of Robert Spencer who has written many books on Islam. His life has been threatened too by Muslims and keeps his location a secret.

"No, "SUCH" fundamentalism does NOT exist anywhere in 'christendom' today (at least not to any significant extent). That should be obvious if you care to make serious empirical OBSERVATION. "

That's pretty much what I was saying. Fundamentalism still exists, though on a much more marginal scale than in the past. Of course it didn't automatically change, but factors other than individual conviction had a big impact on its change.

- I do not dispute that morality takes conviction to effect change - I dispute the fact that it takes faith in a life after death or a god.

- I have no doubt my analysis is severely lacking in many aspects, though I do think oil has something to do with it all. It is indeed something worthy of further study.

- Kindly note that a 'socialist welfare state' is not what I see as an ideal system.

@Van Roosbroeck
-- No, "SUCH" fundamentalism does NOT exist anywhere in 'christendom' today (at least not to any significant extent).  That should be obvious if you care to make serious empirical OBSERVATION. 
--And if you care to look at history, then you would realise that such christian fundamentalism did NOT authomatically "change and diminish over time".   To overcome it required enormous 'offers' by many "courageous" people (which is precisely why 'morality' is not a matter of 'mooie woorden' but of 'faith') in numerous civil wars and political upheaval over two centuries.   Similarly, the muslim world will not be able to create 'democracy' and free its religion from 'fundamentalism' without terrible offers of its own.  In fact, today they face an EXTRA obstacle to their own 'liberation', because they are confronted with a naive-left western media  which preaches false victimhood and which tells them that - not they - but  others (chiefly the west) are somehow to blame for their predicament.  
-- We agree that the wealth generated from oil makes radical islam much more dangerous, but your economic analysis is flawed.  This has nothing to do with "profits", but rather with "income" which enables 'investments' in the promotion of radical islam (long story).  The "unemployment problem" is not directly linked to "diversification", but rather to issues relating to the 'quality' of labor markets (its flexibility or lack theroff, etc...).  But this would require serious economic analysis to explain further.  The most dangerous islamists today are not "unemployed people" (far from it), and socialist welfare states can also be shown to support and 'cause' high "unemployment problems".  

-- "There is no proper possible comparison to be made between the threats and depredations of CONTEMPORARY radical islam and 'christian fundamentalism' in the distant past."

Nowhere did I state the exact problems posed by Islamic fundamentalism, or the solutions it requires, are equal to those of Christian fundamentalism. All I did was pointing out the fact that a) such fundamentalism existed and still exists today and b) changed and diminished over time.

- The huge profits afforded by oil enable Middle Eastern nations to support vast masses of unemployed workers and an oversupply of theology graduates. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that oil money supports less-than-democratic regimes and is at the base of Islamic extremist propaganda and operations. It is no fluke that Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, or that most of the 9/11 terrorists were.

Diversifying the economy would do something against the unemployment problem and cause the rise of new elites.

But again, this is more a gut-feeling than something supported by careful analysis.

@truth serum
Your "people who have studied history" needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  The study of history in many western countries today, certainly in their 'formal' educational systems is highly 'ideological' and not very 'empirical' (and outside the west it has always been highly ideological).   This is the logical result of the gradual descent of the 'humanities'-side of Academia (higher education) into extreme moral-relativism and anti-empiricism over the past quarter century or so.  And it is in Academia that journalists, politicians, and opinion-makers are 'formed'.   There are of course still great historians to be found here and there, mainly outside Academia in 'think-tanks' and the like, but they get little attention in the formal educational systems.  
An excellent example of recent great general historical analysis (in the grand tradition of Huizinga, etc...) can be found  in the work of the great French-American historian Jacques Barzun (ex-Columbia univ prof). Particularly his last book From Dawn to Decadence (500 years of western cultural life) , 2000 (Harper Collins publishers).
In many parts of the muslim world the educational system imparts hatred for nonmuslims, whereas today in the western world the childeren are taught perverse selfhatred for their own civilization.  

Thanks, your response to Filip Van Roosbroeck is much better than what I could have written.
 
What amazes me the most is that people who have studied history, are to blind to see it repeating itself today.
 
 

@Van Roosbroeck
-- In history one can find almost anything at one time or another.  It is fundamentally dishonest to make direct comparisons across many centuries.  There is no proper possible comparison to be made between the threats and depredations of CONTEMPORARY radical islam and 'christian fundamentalism' in the distant past.  It is also DISPROPORTIONATE to compare with "the anti-abortion movement in the USA".  The latter has caused 1 victim over the last decade in the whole north-american continent.  Islamic radicals cause the deaths of thousands of nonmuslims in countries like Indonesia or Nigeria almost every year, not to mention the countless (presumably moderate) muslim victims in the muslim world every day (Sudan, Irak, etc...).  And the Lord's Resistance Army has nothing to do with 'religion'. 
-- Why should "virulent ideologies' in the Middele East be based on oil?  What has the production pattern of a country got to do with ideology?  That doen't make any sense.   The only sensible link here is that the availability of 'means' (money) makes an ideology more dangerous.   That applies to any totalitarianism.  The chinese communists, islamists-with-oil (or copper, or whatever), Hitler was much more dangerous at the helm of 'industrial' Germany than he would have been at the head of 'poor' Rumania..... Rich totalitarians are more dangerous than poor peasants anywhere.  

"Exactly how are we supposed to deal with it NOW?"

By prosecuting extremist groups and those who support them, and taking away their support at the base, both at the national level and on an international scale.

"Are you a professor of history or something? "

No, but I am studying it.

"Where are all the writers, journalists, and newpaper editors that are in hiding today from fundalmentalist, fanatical Christians for a perceived insult against Christianity?"

History, as one of its prime features, is something that occurred in the past. But you might want to look at the anti-abortion movement in the US, or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

"And just how many "Christian" nations are there persecuting people of other faiths FOR Christianity?"

Such persecution regularly occurred in Europe in centuries past - up to persecuting people for not believing in the correct kind of Christianity.

"President Ahmadinejad of Iran has a very different idea about that."

I'm sure. The question is whether he spouts his rhetoric because he believes in it or because he has to maintain a level of support from the hardliners in Iran.

"Exactly how is this geopolitical change going to occur? Who or what nations are going to make this happen?"

That would be speculation. I would venture that as the economy of Middle Eastern nations shifts away from being based solely on crude oil, more virulent ideologies will slowly start to disappear as well. But this is pretty much a guess.

Txs Esther for reading and commenting the transcript itself. I was to informed about her to limit myself to that document only. I can only advice to read (and BUY) her books, as far they are not censured by the pc's in this country, as I guess is already happening in public french libraries controlled by the PS.

I would be very interested on your take as to why....
 
In Egypt, the Coptic Christians are not allowed to build new or repair their old churches?  And why do Muslims kidnap Coptic Christan women and force them to convert to Islam?
 
In Saudi Arabia, no other faith other than Islam can worshiped at all?  Why do they confiscate the bibles of Christians when they enter the country?
 
In Pakistan, Christian churches and Hindu temples are burned?  Why are Muslim men kidnapping Christian and Hindu women and forcing them to convert to Islam?
 
In the Sudan, there are hundreds of thousands of Christians, Animalists, and even Black Muslims are on the run to keep from being hacked or shot to death?
 
In Nigeria, the Muslims in the north are burning Christian churches and killing their worshipers?
 
In Indonesia,  Christian women have been thrown in jail for teaching Christianity to Muslims?  Or why Muslim men beheaded three little Christian girls on their way to school? 

"I do not advocate ignoring those death threats. All I'm saying is that it is by no means a new phenomenon which society has dealt with it in the past."

Exactly how are we supposed to deal with it NOW?

As for Christian and Judaic extremism, there's a plethora of examples in history both recent and ancient."

Are you a professor of history or something? 

Where are all the writers, journalists, and newpaper editors that are in hiding today from fundalmentalist, fanatical Christians for a perceived insult against Christianity?

And just how many "Christian" nations are there persecuting people of other faiths FOR Christianity?

"What I am saying is that geopolitical circumstances will change, so that their impact and power will diminish."

President Ahmadinejad of Iran has a very different idea about that.

Exactly how is this geopolitical change going to occur?  Who or what nations are going to make this happen? 

I read the transcript.. can you tell me what you think is disgusting about it? All I see is that she says there was a policy by European leaders to work together with the Arab countries (so, for example, we have the Euro-Med alliance).

Nowhere does she say that the Muslims have a secret plan to take over the world (though there are Muslims who would like to rebuild the Caliphate, but she doesn't even mention them). She simply says that when you relate to a Muslim, you should be aware of how they see things, and do not assume that simply because you think in European terms and European colors, that everybody else thinks in this way. She also mentions that there is a movement in Islam today (and this is true since the 18th century), of returning to the sources. A 21st century man who thinks of peace and love, must be very careful when he talks to a 7th century man who thinks of conquest and honor.

She also mentions the fact that a massive, uncontrolled immigration of one population group into another homegenous group, will cause severe problems. This would be true if the French would now move en masse to the US as well. This is a fact of life, and Europe is now dealing with it.

Islam In Europe
 

Ah, the normally sentence challenged abc has posted and linked to another in his(?) long running series of non sequiters. Where are the pictures of Christian fundamentalists standing in front of Papal or Protestant flags and reading incoherent suicide notes before bombing a mosque or, judging from the popularity of downloading pornography in Saudi Arabia and Iran, an internet cafe. I guess the question would be which part of the world would anyone rather be a prison? Cairo or Teheran vs. Guantanamo or Eglin?

"I'm sure an equilibrium could be found, just as it is found with other extremist groups." referred to the current situation with regards to far-right and far-left groups. They can be left alone, properly monitored, provided they limit themselves to words and remain a marginal phenomenon.

I am not suggesting Muslim extremist groups are currently in that position. What I am saying is that geopolitical circumstances will change, so that their impact and power will diminish.

I am not saying that Muslim extremism, today, is at the same level as other levels of extremism. Which does not mean that extremism did not have other inspirations in the past.

I do not advocate ignoring those death threats. All I'm saying is that it is by no means a new phenomenon which society has dealt with it in the past.

As for Christian and Judaic extremism, there's a plethora of examples in history both recent and ancient.

@vulture

You are assuming current trends are irreversible. I see no reason to think that this need be the case.

Dear The Brussels Journal, I always am wondering about using terms like those you use, what is Anti-Jihadists or Muslim extremists...I am really upset now! Is this link a Christian terrorism, American way of brain dissection or is it a pain in the ass, or all of the above!!http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=guantanamo&sa=N&tab=wi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Filip Van Roosbroeck
 
Right now you are trying to be fair and balanced, "putting these things into context"
 
Don't you find it a bit unusual that anyone who says anything anti-Islamic comes under a death threat, labled as a racist/Islamophobe, and accused of hate speech?
 
If you truely want to put things into context...where are all the death threats, racist and hate speech accusations, against those who preach the anti-Christian or anti-Jewish line?  If you find any at all, you will see that they are few by comparison.
 
Your education can start here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I agree with what you write.
I have read those "protocols". It is a real bunch of stupidity, only stupid people don't see it is a fake. And if one reads the introductions made by Muslims from the Middle-East, it becomes worse, though it is quite a similar speech held today by the "anti-sionists" and NGO's.

But I am reading also Eurabia and was present to Bat Ye'ors speech in The Hague. And it is not about a secret plot but about analysis of real existing EU documents.

Anyhow, read the transcript and try to find what pvdh finds so disgusting in it. I did not! But maybe I don't have the "right" mindset?

@pvdh

continued...

The reason why the nonsense of the "elders of zion" gets so much mileage in the moslemworld is because there is no freedom of speech there, so the nonsense cannot be adequately exposed. By contrast, Australians are a truly free people, they have access to freedom of expression and to 'unorthodox' opinions. If Bat Ye'or is talking nonsense it can be exposed, and will be.

Conclusion: The comparison you made is not valid. And it is not wise to assume that all "complot theories" are untrue. Some are, and some are not. The answer lies in an honest evaluation of the multitude of pieces of supporting and of contradicting empirical evidence in the REAL world.

@pvdh
I have not read the transcript in question, nor have I read the various versions of the "protocols of the elders of zion".  And I don't intend to read them either.  But I have read about them, and about many other "complot theories".

The point I want to make is this.  What is truly important about such "theories" is not the specific details of the theories but whether the 'gist' of the theory IS TRUE OR NOT.  Obviously there have always been many true complots in this world, and many imaginary complots, and the same applies to theories about them. 

Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to make empirical observations in the real world.  Read the speeches of the Iranian president, of the Iranian Supreme Leader, read what is being thought in 'moslem centers of higher learning' in Cairo, Teheran, etc..., and compare with the speeches of other world leaders and with what is being thought in other centers of higher learning in the world.   And take them seriously! Take them at their own word.   The alternative is to put one's head in the sand and to refuse to look into the future, as Europe has done often in the past vis-a-vis rising totalitarianisms, thereby bringing that unpleasant 'future' nearer.

to be continued....

@pvdh
You should first read the book and realize that this is NOT a plot theory. Bat Ye'or only cites official EU documents in her book and makes an analysis of them.
These documents are known for years, but nobody in the broad public took any attention to them. That is mainly what she is doing. And she knows what she is taking about: herself a refugee from Egypt and still a close friend to important Egyptians!

I am rather disgusted by your reaction based on your feeling and not on facts, in particular your statement 'from a jew". That looks more an extreme-right wing method than anything else!

One should read this transcript of a radio interview in Australia with Bat Ye'Or. truly disgusting. It sounds like the protocols of the elders of Zion. the big complot theory from the Muslim world against Europe, together with European leaders and against the will of the common people.
What dangerous nonsense’s! And that coming from a Jew! They above all should know how dangerous it is to spread complot theories from minorities. Only one word: disgusting.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1250346.htm

@vulture.
You are damned right! But do you realize that the books from Bat Ye'Or are not made available in public libraries in Belgium? And these are not the only ones on the censureship list in Belgium as culture is managed by the socialist party or associated political parties.

The only way to read it is to buy them. So the "plebs" will be kept ignorant.

In Flanders this is organised by http://www.vlabinvbc.be/
who "recommends" the books "worth" to be in public libraries.

Other books Europeans should read are the Koran, Bukhari's Hadiths (a collection of stories about Mohammed's pronouncements on life)and the Sirah by Ibn Ishaq (the biography of Mohammed).

In fact, all non-Muslims should read these books. This trilogy of texts form the foundation of the ideology of Islam and the beliefs that Hirsi Ali rails against.

Islam is in perfect position to conquer Europe and Britain by Muslim demographics and is in the process of doing so. Europeans will wake up one day and find they are the minority in their own countries.

Eurabia by Bat Ye'or is the one book all Europeans should read this year.

@Luc, txs for your explanation regarding our context. You would be a perfect teacher.
To relate it more precisely in the context of: "I'm sure an equilibrium could be found, just as it is found with other extremist groups." it refers to that part of the dhimmitude of submitting (the meaning of the word Islam) and paying the Jeziya for obtaining security. Because I don't see "equilibrium" with extremist groups in a way different than a submission and paying for security similar to mafia practises. (sicilian, probably originated from Ar. mahjas "aggressive, boasting, bragging.")

'Dhimmitude' in the Western context refers to the fact or the perception that some people are behaving themselves as if they were dhimmi's, as if they were already living under muslim domination. Their behaviour is characterized by an eagerness to adapt to the minority, to restrict freedom of speech in order not to 'insult', etc. They are acting as if they were dhimmi's.

'dhimmitude' seems to refer to 'the status of non-Muslim minorities' in conquered lands. Needless to say, today's situation is rather a touch different.

The Middle East is in no position to conquer Western Europe. The various Muslim immigrants are in no position to take over power anytime soon either.

There is a difference between a threat and incitement, yes. Pointing out a victim and saying that you're going to kill him seems to suggest more preparation and more preparedness.

Of course not, and I'm not suggesting that we should. As global circumstances change and Muslim extremism becomes a less potent force, measures against it can decrease. As I said, while circumstances remain as they are today, more monitoring and more intervention seems to be in order.

Have a look at this one:
http://www.dhimmitude.org
Quite genuine and complete.

Glad you make a big difference between "I'm going to kill" and "You should kill". Am sure the victims will appreciate that major difference.

I rather would not wait for the "action" to occur. Would you, if you were concerned?

Well, it's less like a threat, like "I'm going to kill..." and more like incitement, like "You should kill..." Hitler was worse because he combined threat, incitement, and actual action.

Kindly explain this term 'Dhimmitude' to me.. I haven't come across it before.

The equilibrium I mentioned could be similar to the equilibrium that seems to be in place with far-right and far-left groups. Let them have their websites and their pamphlets. They can be kept in check by the occasional lawsuit and razzia, and further attention would only encourage them.

Though, I agree, a closer watch should be kept on Muslim extremists while the geopolitical circumstances remain the way they are now.

Do you think that such "generic" speech "to kill homosexuals" or "to kill Jews" is less a death threat than to a specific individual?
E.g. would Hitler be worse if he made a specific death threat to 1 Jew, 1 Rom and 1 homosexual instead of to the whole groups?

"I'm sure an equilibrium could be found, just as it is found with other extremist groups."
In the particular case addressed this "equilibrium with extremist groups" has a name! It is called Dhimmitude!

By the way, I don't like to be right again. Unfortunately all these facts are very real today!

Let me first point out that these aren't quite death threats aimed at specific individuals, but more along the lines of general hate speech.

It's a tricky matter for sure. The Swedish Minister of Justice's explanation is clearly an odd one - if such laws exist, they should be applied equally. Even so, I'm rather uncomfortable with banning books. I'm sure an equilibrium could be found, just as it is found with other extremist groups.

Nevertheless, you're quite right that it's not a correct situation. Banning that book would be a step too far though, in my opinion.

"I haven't heard anyone excuse death threats with 'cultural relativism' yet, both in the media or in private, but perhaps it has happened on occasion."
maybe because you are only selectively informed by media such as VRT or other biaised media?

May I suggest you these exemples:
http://support.adl.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Connections_05_06_2
Happening this year in Stockholm with the Minister of Justice:
"He mentioned that the speaker called for a Jihad to kill Jews by suicide bombers and that the lecturer refers to Jews as “brothers of apes and pigs.” He eventually dropped the investigation because this hate speech against Jews could be considered to originate from the Middle East conflict. Therefore, it is acceptable to call for the massacre of Jews as long as the Palestinian conflict is mentioned." I couldn't find any Belgian press relating this event. If you want more about it google on "lambertz"+"apes and pigs". Success guaranteed.

Or the refusal by Onkelinx, also a Minister of Justice, to ban the book "de weg van de Moslim/le chemin du Musulman" wherein death threats towards homosexuals are very explicit. I already posted this somewhere on B.J. Sorry towards other readers who knew this already.

And is it definitively due to "cultural relativism" because the same threats from others would be treatened VERY differently. Don't you think so?
And by two Ministers of Justice of EU countries, not just a private chat on the Internet.

As far as I'm concerned, Rita Verdonk is guilty of an attempt at judicial murder by proxy.  By moving in less than 24 hours to remove Hirsi Ali's passport over an alleged 'lie' which had been known to others and to Verdonk for several years, hinted at something personal.  Certainly at malice and she had to know that by specifying Ali be deported to Kenya, she was flying her into the arms of the very people who have most reason to want to harm Hirsi Ali, the jihadists who infest the African countries, particularly the Horn of Africa and Kenya.  From where I sit, it certainly looks like she dotted all the 'i's and crossed all the 't's in the book where Hirsi Ali was concerned, and did it with unseemly haste;  then to nail it down, it wasn't enough to deport her and allow her to go to New York as she'd announced her plans to do.  No, Verdonk wanted to make sure Hirsi Ali went straight to Nairobi.  She specified Kenya as the country to which she would be deported.
 
We have a term in my country for this: it's called "the bum's rush".  Now why wouldn't Verdonk have extended professional courtesy to a colleague who might well fall under the statute, but could at least be allowed to tie up her loose ends and leave for New York as she'd announced.  Why virtually manhandle her onto the plane for Africa?
 
That abruptness speaks of personal malice at work and though she might deny she wants Hirsi Ali dead, Verdonk knew by extrapolation, her actions could well put Ayaan Hirsi Ali in MORTAL DANGER!
 
Here's lovely Rita doing her version of "Can't we all just get along" (hat tip: davidrietveld.nl):
http://www.davidrietveld.nl/pivot/entry.php?id=1001

I haven't heard anyone excuse death threats with 'cultural relativism' yet, both in the media or in private, but perhaps it has happened on occasion. Regardless, my point was that it's a problem going back several decades if not centuries and that in most instances, it has been resolved relatively quietly. These new threats should be taken just as seriously as the old ones.

If I were in a cynical mood, I'd say most of our culture is based on bloodshed, murder and brute force of arms, so it seems they're integrating quite nicely.

There are (dead) threats from several sources. That is only part of the problem! Another side of the problem is how is dealt with those threats and some are not taken seriously and sometimes even excused by "cultural relativism". And that is a real degeneration of our civilisation!

The “Wall Street Journal” wrote, that “Hans-Peter Raddatz, an Islamic-studies expert under police protection, recently moved to the U.S.”. That’s definitivly wrong, we met last week in Munich. He is living under police protection, that’s correct, after receiving a so called “prayer” via Internet saying that Allah should destroy him and all those who follow him in what he is writing; he is author of five Islam-related books, among them “Von Gott zu Allah?” and “Von Allah zum Terror?”. Raddatz announced today, that he will stay in Germany “as long as the constitution of his country has not been replaced by the Shari’a law”. His new book on Iran will be published in June.

All possible, but exactly my point. There is more than one group of people that sends death threats, and not all death threats need to be taken as serious. You'll have noticed that the VRT has also received a threatening letter a few days ago.

True, the far-left has had its share of extremists, just like the far-right and probably even the far-centre.

However, all of those threats have invariably been dealt with throughout various countries, including but not limited to Belgium, Germany and Italy, with relatively few casualties and relatively few lost freedoms.

Again, I'm not saying that Muslim extremism isn't a problem and shouldn't be dealt with. It should be dealt with, but, extremism -from all kinds of sources - is hardly a new problem in Europe.

Your example link is not exactly the best reference. This issue was everyday in the press until it was discovered that the threats could be more related to a sex scandal involving Rik Remmery with some female employees in that company than to racism. Since more than 1 year its is now very silent and Rik Remmery did not speak to the press anymore.

But yes, there were other threats in the previous years, mainly from extreme-leftists. It would be interesting however to check how may of those became converts.
http://www.codoh.com/inter/intgaraudy.html
"L'ancien communiste Roger Garaudy se convertit au révisionnisme" and
http://www.islamlaicite.org/article140.html
« Roger Garaudy s’est converti à l’islam après une longue évolution qu’il qualifie de "naturelle",(…) »
just to name a "famous" case.

Regarding physical security you might want to read
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/861
and
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/840
again:
"I discovered that the most famous of the conference participants were not registered at the hotel under their real names and a (plain clothes) guard was watching over them. Apparently, a gathering of people for a scholarly exchange of views on the preservation of Western liberties, can no longer take place in the free West without security measures."
and I can confirm this was only the top of the security-iceberg. I do not feel to write more about it either so as not to endanger future security mesaures.

Are those death threats coming solely from Muslim extremists, or are those from other sources and directions included in that figure as well? Such as, say, the same sources that death threats such as these came from? Or perhaps from the same direction Mr. Fortuyn was shot from? Or, though that would be a bit old-fashioned, maybe the same people that sent death threats, killed people, and bombed buildings in '80s?

Not saying that this isn't a problem, mind, but putting these things into context wouldn't hurt either.