Jump to content

Talk:Party for Freedom: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
reply
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Shouldn't this page be moved to [[Wilders Group]]?
Shouldn't this page be moved to [[Wilders Group]]?
:I think that the party will be renamed when the elections come around. That'll probably be a good time to rename the article. Right now I'd leave it where it is. [[User:Jacoplane|Jacoplane]] 17:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
:I think that the party will be renamed when the elections come around. That'll probably be a good time to rename the article. Right now I'd leave it where it is. [[User:Jacoplane|Jacoplane]] 17:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Saying that Group Wilders is 'close to the neoconservative movement' is bogus. Neocons have a very different strategy than Group Wilders. E.g. after 9/11 Bush kept describing Islam as a 'religion of peace' and supported Turkey's entry into the EU, presumably with the rest of the Arab world to follow after successful regime changes. By contrast, Group Wilders is consistently critical of Islam and opposes Turkish EU membership. And with the Muhammed cartoons, Group Wilders were keen to pick a fight with the entire Islamic world, whereas Neocons condemned the cartoons. It's also worth pointing out that Neocons were in vocally in favour of intervening to protect Kosovan Muslims from Serb Nationalists, something which is hard to imagine Group Wilders doing.

Group Wilders is much, much more hardline than the Neocons. Their argument is with the entire Islamic world. Neocons want to fight al Qaeda, but they plan to keep the majority of the Islamic world to be uninvolved in this fight, and reach some modus vivendi with them if and when they win.

Revision as of 01:18, 23 March 2006

Shouldn't this page be moved to Wilders Group?

I think that the party will be renamed when the elections come around. That'll probably be a good time to rename the article. Right now I'd leave it where it is. Jacoplane 17:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Group Wilders is 'close to the neoconservative movement' is bogus. Neocons have a very different strategy than Group Wilders. E.g. after 9/11 Bush kept describing Islam as a 'religion of peace' and supported Turkey's entry into the EU, presumably with the rest of the Arab world to follow after successful regime changes. By contrast, Group Wilders is consistently critical of Islam and opposes Turkish EU membership. And with the Muhammed cartoons, Group Wilders were keen to pick a fight with the entire Islamic world, whereas Neocons condemned the cartoons. It's also worth pointing out that Neocons were in vocally in favour of intervening to protect Kosovan Muslims from Serb Nationalists, something which is hard to imagine Group Wilders doing.

Group Wilders is much, much more hardline than the Neocons. Their argument is with the entire Islamic world. Neocons want to fight al Qaeda, but they plan to keep the majority of the Islamic world to be uninvolved in this fight, and reach some modus vivendi with them if and when they win.