FITNA - the film

Fitna is a 2008 short film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. The film explores Qur'anic motivation for terrorism, Islamic universalism, and Islam in the Netherlands. The film's title comes from the Arabic word fitna which is used to describe "disagreement and division among people", or a "test of faith in times of trial".

On March 27, 2008, Fitna was released to the Internet on the video sharing website Liveleak in Dutch and English versions. The following day, Liveleak removed the film from their servers citing serious threats to their staff. On March 30, Fitna was restored on Liveleak following a security upgrade, but was promptly removed by Wilders for copyright violations. A second edition was released on April 6.

I was borne, raised and I live in a western type society so I admit that my opinion might not be justified, this is why I’m trying to avoid making any personal comments. The reason of this post is not to offend Islam, neither to argue on which religion is the best. Personally, I have faith on the goodness every person carries individually, regardless religion.

...to veto or not to veto?

There's been quite a lot of criticism over whether Greece should have vetoed or not the accession in NATO of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the Bucharest NATO summit.

Unfortunately the media, especially in the US, are trying to present what happened as something rare and immoral. But in fact it's neither rare nor immoral. Veto is a legal and legitimate foreign policy asset that governments have on their disposal and it has been used numerously.


Example A: The case of two NATO allies, UK and France that disputed over the term "Britain", in concern of the background history, leading in two French vetoes.

The United Kingdom has been a member of the EU's forerunner, the European Economic Community (EEC), from 1973. Prior to that in both 1961 and 1967 United Kingdom requested negotiations on accession to the EEC by the name "Great Britain". Each time French leader Charles De Gaulle vetoed because France objected to the term "Britain" due to the association with the French territory of Brittany.

For the ones that are interested on the background history of the issue, I'll try to present in short some key facts:

UKs official name has been "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" since the Republic of Ireland broke away from the UK in 1920, and the ratification of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, where the UK recognized the independent Irish Republic.

Before then, it had been the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" since the Acts of Union of 1707, and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" since the Acts of Union of 1800.

French Brittany had ties with Britain during the High Middle Ages, when both territories were rules by the Angevin Kings of England. In the Breton Revolt of 1173, Bretons rebelled against the attempts of Henry II to annex Brittany to the possessions of the English Crown. Lead by Henry II's sone Geoffrey II, the Bretons were successful, and established the independent Kingdom of Brittany.

Brittany became part of the Kingdom of France in 1492, when Anne, Duchess of Brittany, the sole heir to kingdom of Brittany, married Louis XII of France.

Example B: another case of David vs Goliath, is the case of Turkey that has exercised its veto power in a total of 8 organizations blocking Cyprus' participation.

But of course in the case of Cyprus no one seams to be annoyed by the fact that Turkey has invaded and occupies 37% of the territory of an EU member state; neither do I see criticizing the 70.000.000 people Turkey who vetoes the 800.000 people tiny and divided Cyprus.

So, obviously Greece -that has not invaded another country- vetoed the accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for preserving its national interests in the same sense France preserved its national interests by vetoing twice "Great Britain" objecting on the use of the term "Britain".

At this point, I will remind that in Bucharest NATO summit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the warmest supporter of the Greek positions, who said in his address that "We stand in solidarity with Greeks, we believe that a solution must be found. I have Hungarian roots, but I also have Greek roots and I fully assume them". Of course his Greek roots come from the city of Thessaloníki, so he is obviously a Macedonian; a Macedonian who identifies himself as a Greek!

Merci Nicola!

The Macedonian Problem for Dummies

The background history of the former Yugoslavia is more or less well know. On the left side of the map is the area occupied by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (until 1992) and on the right side is the same area after the fragmentation of the Federation in several States.

The following story is FICTION and is used as an example.

Let’s suppose that Mexico falls into civil conflict and as a result three other States are born, the Republic of Michoacan, the Republic of Tabasco and the Republic of Texas.



The “Republic of Texas” applies to the UN for membership under the name “Texas”. After strong opposition by the USA, it is agreed that the “Republic of Texas” is accepted by the UN under the provisional name “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) until the name dispute is resolved by the two countries.

For several years, talks for a solution fail, and the “Republic of Texas” or “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) constantly rejects proposals as:

• “Latinotexas”
• “Latin Texas”
• “North Texas”
• “New Texas”

One after the other, the EU / major countries start referring to “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) as “Texas” by overlooking the UN provision stating that until a solution is agreed between the USA and “Texas” the country will be referred as “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas”.

In the mean time, the “Republic of Texas” or “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” (FMROT) uses propaganda and instills hostility and a rationale of irredentism in portions of the population of the “The Former Mexican Republic of Texas” toward USA and the history of the USA.

The “Republic of Texas” publishes military textbooks which contain maps of "Greater Texas" extending many miles into the USA.

Students in schools of the “Republic of Texas” are being taught that parts of the USA, including the State of Texas, parts of New Mexico and Arizona, are rightful parts of the “Republic of Texas”.

More over the “Republic of Texas” claims that the “Texans” are descendents of Stephen F. Austin, known as the “Father of Texas” and they are blood related with the native “Texans” since ancient times!

At this point let’s also suppose that the “Republic of Texas” would like to become a NATO member while Greece, France and Germany pressure the USA government to accept the new member with the name “Texas”, because it’s good for their foreign policy of course!

Would the USA accept such thing? Would the USA accept such a hoax?

Why should Greece…?