The Peroxide Bandit is at it again, this time saying that Obama is sucking up to the Mulsim world. Precisely, he said that Obama was acting like Neville Chamberlain in the late 1930s.

http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/2080909/wilders-...hamberlain.html

While earlier this week denying that his hair doesn't have dark roots (which it seems to in photos), it seems like now he wants to avoid any invites from the White House. If he's inspired by some of the loons grabbing headlines on US media right now, then let's see how he really does when the spotlight is on him.

This boy really does remind me of the frog who keeps inflating himself to try to impress others.

What a windbag.

Well, Obama is regularly compared to Hitler, so I suppose a comaprison to Chamberlain was inevitable.

I wouldn't be surprised to read that Wilders has some interesting and unusual supporters in the US.

Reportedly, Wilders regularly attends fundraisers in the US to bolster his legal defense and election campaign funds. It could tip the scales in an interesting way.

He's right, Hussain Obama isn't the only one though.

Where and when exactly did the Peroxide Bandit denied earlier this week that his hair has dark roots? I can't find anything. Do you have a link, Blarfy?

By no means, Wilders admitted it and as such Barf is a big fat liar.

For the record, history has given Neville Chamberlain a bum rap, he was one of the better Conservative Prime Ministers. His work on Ireland was exceptional for its time (as DeValera noted at the time) and Palestine aside, most of his foreign policy decision making was good.

The Munich affair was simply a realpolitik recognition that Britain was not ready to go to war at that time. Britain did not have the arms and munitions (in particular not enough planes), it's forces were too scattered, and the Commonwealth nations were reluctant to go to war at that time.

Immediately after signing the Munich white paper Chamberlain issued orders for a massive growth in military 'plane production. Something that Churchill profited from, but cynically failed to publicly recognize.

He was also the first politician in the world to effectively utilize the moving camera and the new cinema and tele-media effectively.

Have a look at some of his photos. Dark roots.

Chamberlain sold off Poland and Czechoslovakia, hoping to appease Hitler. It's kind of hard to see what Obama is doing which is anything like anything from that time. There's no great force which is looking to cross borders and occupy anything, nor is NL being sold out to anyone.

Amazing that Senor Peroxide is going around like a drunken sailor looking for fights. He's either an incredibly stupid egomaniac or actually believes his own propaganda.

For all you guys who want him in government, your country will become an international laughingstock within days should that ever happen.

Has anyone read an intelligent analysis of what's really going on in these court cases he's involved in, and what's probably going to happen?

(You know, I keep asking my Dutch friends and family if they know a good columnist or blogger who understands The Hague and explains what's really going on, but no one seems to know anyone. Isn't that strange?)

How about you answer Emilio's question instead of rambling incoherently?

Too tired to find links for you right now, but here's a summary.

1. No-one in power wanted this trial to happen. It's a PR nightmare.
2. The justice department, either because they had good political sense or because they were asked to do so by higher-ups, dismissed the complaints against Wilders.
3. Various left-wing organisations disagreed, and went to court; a superior court ruled that the justice department was wrong to dismiss the charges out of hand, and ordered them to prosecute.
4. Numerous more right-wing yokels have been tried and found guilty of breaking the law for far less. I don't think any case resulted in anything other than a (hefty) fine, but Wilders' hypothetical acquittal would require a serious breach with precedent.
5. Wilders' defense probably counted on the European Court of Human Rights, which has a reputation for being far more liberal and serious about freedom of speech. The EHCR overturning the decision of the Dutch courts would make his opponents look, I suspect, very foolish.
6. However, the EHCR recently (narrowly) confirmed a ruling in Belgium in which a right-wing Wallon MP was stripped of his passive and active voting rights for spreading anti-immigrant pamphlets.
7. In short, Wilders is probably going to lose this case. Politically, he'll gain by it either way, although I have no idea what kind of punishments the courts can hand out.

OK, I hadn't realised all that.

Can you explain exactly how an individual can force prosecution in this way? I didn't think that was possible in the NL. Sorry but I haven't been following this story closely enough.

(Who do you read, by the way, to get all this? Is there a single source that explains the ins and outs of The Hague in a neutral way? I can read Dutch but I only have about 15-30 minutes a week to devote to this. Unless of course I spend less time on Expatica!)

btw, if there will be no further delays, the case will start in court next January.

Blarfy, I didn't ask what YOU think about Wilders' "dark roots" ( his Indonesian antecedents are evident!) but what he said about it himself. You didn't provide any answer... I suggest the Gel Bandit didn't say anything of the sort...

With his signature under the treaty of Munich, Chamberlain indeed "sold off" fellow Europeans to Hitler without any hope avoiding the War. That's why most historians (except some British ones, of course) still consider him at least a "feeble" person, not able to his task of defending the values of democracy. Whatever his motives may have been (personally I don't believe the good talk No Pasaran gives us!), he "lost" everything there was to loose. He was a real shame to Britain, contrary to Sir Winston Churchill, who will always stand as the Bulldog who would fight in every nook and crannie. Churchhill would never have signed the Munich treaty and you know what: Hitler would probably have backed down, giving Britain time to re-arm!

Only one of the shameful aspects of the British Foreign policy. However this is off the topic.

Is there anything not shameful about Serbian foreign policy?

Yes many things, like kickig the Turks, AustroHungarians and Germans out occupied teritories in Balkans.
My debate on this stops right here in this forum thread. This is Dutch News Subforum.

If you want to debate about Serbs feel free to start another topic in the "International News".
I don't know why you ressurected on this topic I thought you mentioned that you don't visit Expatica anymore because it is so negative place.
Are you addicted?

Is there anything not shameful about USA foreign poilicy?

That's simply not true. You are just making this stuff up.



Nonsense. Churchill would have gone to war and we would have lost.

Churchill was arguably the worst P.M. Britain has ever had. And we've had some turkeys believe you me.

Wasn't Disraeli one of the better PMs UK had?

Nope. He screwed up in Ireland, and his ill-advised invasion of Afghanistan lead to hid electoral defeat.

Clement Atlee was clearly the best.

This article in the Volkskrant has the specifics about the prosecution. The 'article twelve procedure' referred to is Article twelve of the Wetboek van Strafvordering.

This article discusses the decision by the ECHR.



Alas, no such thing as a truly 'neutral' news source in the Netherlands (or anywhere else, I suspect). I've found it helpful to read NRC Handelsblad, de Volkskrant and Elsevier--Geenstijl, when they actually have something newsworthy, rather than outrage they've fanned themselves, is also good.

if Wilders sees Obama as Chamberlain, does that mean Wilders sees himself as Churchill? Where does that lead us to?

I doubt that as Churchill was an anti-semite and hated the Dutch.

Your problem is that you don't read historians in other languages than English (if you have ever read one single book about the Munich Treaty).
Btw, I do not discuss the merits of Churchill here. He surely had many flaws as well.

Churchill saved all your asses. Perhaps the greatest man of the 20th century and certainly the last truly great prime minister.

My Dad said (in one of his many moments of wisdom)that Churchill was a basterd.

Naw - there are thousands before Churchill on that list.

Tony Benn would've made a better prime minister.

General Zhukov, for an example.

WW2 comparisons are so tiresome but so burned into the concious that it seems almost impossible to escape them.
The historic Chamberlain wasn't as bad as many make him out to be. But his legacy tends to be viewed as someone who was naive in the face of a growing threat.
An appeaser of Hitler someone who rather gave in to the Fuhrer then stand up to him.
Thats the analogy that Wilders makes of Obama as someone who thinks that by giving in to Muslim demands he will somehow make the world a better place.
I think that there are legitimate problems with US foreign policy, there support of dictators in the Middle East for short term gains (access / control of oil) and there support of Israels occupation and slow ethnic cleansing of the Palestine for the past 30 years.
Him prattling on about democracy while in Egypt was a disgrace, but then the USA talking about democracy is always a dubious thing to behold considering it's foreign policy of the past 60+ years.

Obama as a black guy simply does not have that deeply rooted contempt that so many WASP folk have with respect to just about any other race or confession in the world: muslims, jews, slavs, blacks etc, anybody who in their opinion is not clean enough. He seems to be just a normal guy, and that's exactly why I fear for his life.

I'm surprised Godwin's Law hasn't been cited here before now (or has it?)!