Not on the front page, though. In the International section.
Although we learn elsewhere (from Amir Taheri) that the rioters are shouting "God is great!" as they set fire to everything in sight in twenty French cities, nowhere in the New York Times piece do we encounter the word "Muslim."
But we do learn that
...[t]he continuing unrest appears to be fueled less by perceived police brutality than by the frustration of young men who have no work and see little hope for the future.
One would like more first-hand reporting, of course, to be certain of one's first impression that, it appears, mysteriously absent from the rioting are those non-Muslim elements of the population that despair for their futures.
Note: Just to be perfectly clear: I am not saying that all Muslims are rioting in these communities, still less that most Muslims in any community are inclined to riot. But it is important for anyone seriously interested in understanding what is happening now in Europe to openly acknowledge that these riots, in part, derive from attitudes and beliefs of a portion of the Muslim population. How large is this group? I don't know. None of us can know until we begin openly to discuss the issue. If it turns out that the "bad" ones are a tiny part of the population, who can be easily isolated and neutralized by (one hopes) rational arguments and a positive counter-example -- then that is very good news indeed.
30 comments:
The next step is the formation of Muslim "homelands" within individual European countries. At some future date, when Europe is further weakened, expect that a resurgent Caliphate will come to the rescue of their beleaguered compatriots.
Expelling them now would save much trouble down the road, but the liberal virus has paralyzed its hosts to such an extent that self-preservation is no longer acceptable.
Bah, preview is your friend. rewrite the last paragraph to be...
They're trying to save their world view by defanging Islam. In spite of gloabal Islamic violence, it is always painted as the provoked Religion of Peace. Failing that, they'll pretend somebody yelling "Allah akbar" as they torch a Renault is just a youth frustrated by poverty.
knuck,
I agree, the longer they try to keep their multicultural utopian dream alive, the more it is going to cost in blood. A dimension I haven't much seen mentioned in all of this is the EU rules on open borders.
If a salafist were to miscalculate and suicide bomb a French tourist spot, you can bet French paratroopers in armored cars would flood into these neighborhoods. Following the path of least resistence I imagine a lot of these immigrants would slosh across borders into England, Germany, Spain and Italy.
I think the open border stuff is going to bite them all in the butt.
there is a writer at
asia times (www.atimes.com)
whose nom-de-plume is "Spengler".
he has some thoughts on Islam
as being essentially
a "militant religion"
and describes the distinct differences between it, and Judaism and Christianity.
perhaps this isn't news to
many readers here at YARGB.
i have found
his OpEd pieces insightful
and would suggest them as
a source for readings about the current "culture wars".
Your "Note" is really more of a disclaimer. One of the problems that all this PC nonesense presents us with is, when we do want to discuss issues such as these, we first have to present our disclaimer.
It's really a problem, and, as it is such a pain in the ass (many times as much thought or more goes into the way to phrase the disclaimer, as does the initial point), it is an inhibiting factor in discussion.
Disclaimer: I'm married to a brown-skinned woman, and more than half of my family are non-white.
;-)
Knucklehead,
Your separatism idea is probably not too far fetched. According to Wretchard at The Belmont Club, The Phillipines basically ceded the Southern part of the island of Mindanao to the Muslims a few weeks back, when they granted them the right to write their own constitution.
I have not seen anything in the MSM about this, but I trust Wretchard's word on it, as he is Filipino.
Gumshoe,
Spengler is a poet of pessimism who loves the sound of his own voice pronouncing doom. I don't know that he has gotten anything right yet. I tossed him into the silly bin when, IIRC, he predicted that Russian soldiers would be sent to Iraq.
knuck-
i recently read(can't recall source)
that the moral-relativity
attack on Christianity's
"spread by violence" can only be relevant to the period some 400 to 600 years *after* its founding,when it became an official "state religion"...the intitial
conditions and nature of its spread were *not* militarily or politically based.
the author also noted that the *rate* of expansion became curtailed with co-opting by the State,in addition to the expansion being limited,in the main,to Europe.
_________________________
i think you intended:
"It is *not* very difficult to make a case that Islam is an expansionist religion (or culture, take your pick) and often quite militantly and violently so."
the experience of the Hindus
you mentioned would likely be the prime example.
re: the "sad state of affairs"..
go have a read on some of Spengler's articles. the Islamists are struggling with their "population bomb"...Spengler suggests some of their manuevering is out of desperation...Iran's in particular.
re: Spengler
thanks,Chuck.
i'll keep that in mind.
pastorius,
You are of course correct that my "Note" is a disclaimer; perhaps I should have labeled it as such.
Whenever I am writing or saying something like I did in this piece, I always think first what does it sound like if I substitute the word "Jew" (I am a Jew) for the word "Muslim"?
It makes me a bit more cautious. Without, I hope, going quite as far as political correctness might dictate.
And I really do believe that this overall problem is, first and foremost, a problem of the Muslims themselves, a kind a civil war in the Muslim world which spills over (to put it mildly!) into ours.
Jamie Irons,
I hope it didn't come off as me correcting you. My comment was more just to say that there was an irony in the fact that your post talked about how we are afraid to discuss these things in our PC culture, and yet, still even guys like you who aren't afraid have to add your own little PC element.
And, of course, as I said, it's a pain in the ass, and for someone like me who is lazy, sometimes the pain is enough to make me keep my mouth shut.
Knucklehead said:
Even if there is a grain,or bit of insight or anything approaching "truth" in the Comskeyite position of those like Jez regarding the reasons for the initial flareup of this situation, there lies the danger of salafist opportunism in this.
My comment: I don't think these riots started spontaneously. Why? Because, when reporters showed up to interview the rioters in Denmark last week, he met teenagers who told him they were expecting him, and that they were the "spokesmen." They told him their message was "This is our neighborhood. Get out." And they told him they were "Palestinian." Then, they told him that it was planned three weeks ago:
http://cuanas.blogspot.com/2005/11/evidence-riots-planned-three-weeks-ago.html
This suggests some central planning authority, as teenagers wouldn't think to call themselves "spokesmen" even if they were saavy enough to realize reporters would show up because of their rioting.
Now, check it out, as best as I can tell, those quotes from the Danish rioters were from October 31. If the riots were planned three weeks before, then, think about what has happened in the last three weeks.
First, there were riots at a Coptic church in Egypt, where Muslims rioted because one year ago a play had depicted Muslims rioting. When the priest at the church was asked about the riots, he commented that he couldn't understand why they were rioting over something that took place the previous year.
Then, there were riots in Birmingham, England. There, Muslims rioted after a meeting where they had gotten together with leaders of the British West Indian commitee to discuss a reported rape of a West Indian girl by a group of Pakistanis. After leaving the meeting, the West Indian people thought things were ok. When the Muslims started rioting instead, it came as such a surprise that one West Indian person was described as saying, At first, we thought they were joking."
Then, the French riots started, and then the Danish riots.
The root cause is the Jihadi mentality. The only role poverty plays in this is that it is easier to recruit poor people, then it is to recruit rich people. Although, as we know, the Jihadis don't have a lot of trouble recruiting the wealthy and middle class either.
How often is the descriptor neccessary to understand the story missing?
It has become de rigeur in crime reporting, even when it occasionally results in the absurd result of the press asking for help in locating a perp without giving the racial identification necessary to do so?
It is almost always the case in stories involving political corruption where Republican identification is always there, but not Democrat affiliation.
Pretty soon we will all have to read the press accounts as though we were in some third world country where the real story is what is not reported.
BTW, Steyn who's been reporting on Eurabia forever, has some interesting comments on today's radioblogger about the situation in France, Denmark, and Holland where the "intifada" is also being waged. And about the extreme embarrassment by the French government because these events are clear to anyone arriving in Paris from the two major airports.
(Also about the Sarkozy-Villepin split.)
Roger L. Simon reports of the spread of the riots to Provence and elsewhere in France.
I agree with Jamie. I think that there is a struggle in Islam between the fanatics and the other elements of Muslim society who want to be a part of the larger world. I honestly do not know what will happen because Islam is so resistant to change and reform. It may be that the religion will destroy itself. I hear that many of the young people in Iran do not go to Friday prayer anymore.
I think many of these people are dangerous but the truth is they lack the ability to even support themselves without the west.
They may hate us, but they can not live without us.
The greatest danger they pose is the capacity to create chaos through indiscriminate violence.
As we see in Paris.
I do not think the French are as tolerant as they would like the world to believe. The time will come when they will have had enough of this.
Terrye
"They may hate us, but they can not live without us."
But they don't know it. When I was pretty new at this I followed a link to an islamist board (it was in English) and they were discussing how to harness the infidels and keep them doing their current work after they've taken over.
----
re France
I just posted over at Roger's. I think the sheiks and muslim brotherhood leaders will try very hard to get this under control...if it's not too late. Then they can return to da'wa.
And, yes, a fight within Islam. The core belief in expansion and to rule over all the infidels, but do it in a mostly peaceful manner until the time is right to take over.
The time isn't right yet.
The other part just wants to destroy now...no waiting.
Then there are most? who aren't actively involved in either endeavor but see nothing wrong with it.
Then there are the few who are against it but remain quiet out of fear.
Then there are the handful who dare to speak out. Then they get murdered.
Anyway, I hope it settles down in a couple of days. Otherwise it won't be pretty.
I hope this makes sense because, Amib, PIFW (Preview is for wimps). :)
Syl:
The fanatics do not know they can survive on their own, but even they would figure it out.
Be about like watching the hippies get back to the land. That rarely lasted through one hard winter.
The Sufis are mystics and as such are despised by the jihadis.
I look at Islam today and I think is like the Army of God and the Quakers..nothing in between.
Let's hope Iraq will help change that. Once they have to keep the lights on and the garbage picked up maybe they will seem more like men and less like the messengers of Allah.
Heaven forbid I should be unPC, but if cmparisons must be made to the Crusades, it could always be argued that the Crusades were defensive.
If the French had not stood their ground then, would there be a Europe today?
dislaimer: I know that not all the Crusaders were noble knights.
The story about the woman in the wheelchair is here:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13457760,00.html
Still could be a rumor.
Here is an article which brings out the pain of some of these young people, in a sympathetic way, from the International Herald Tribune:
"We're French, But Not 'Real' French"
Jamie Irons
I'm not being critical either Jamie, but I'm pretty much past the point of feeling I need to stick that type of disclaimer in my comments. It should be obvious we're not the kind of nutters who think the Middle East needs to be walled off and nuked into oblivion.
Besides, I'm sure a lot of nice, friendly people got buried in the rubble of Dresden and Hiroshima. They ended up dead because they did not control the militants in their own countries.
I'll grant there is a civil war of sorts in the Moslem world, and I'll grant that religious nuts wandering around your neighborhood with AK-47s -- and no compunction about using them -- make facing down the extremists an act of considerable courage.
That said, particularily in the West, it is well past time we stop excusing the moderates and start demanding they display that courage. We expect them to turn in extremists. We expect them to tolerate others. We expect them first line of policing their own religion and ferreting out radicals.
Insisting on this is the way to minimize future bloodshed. Wars always turn uglier and uglier. Forgiving them for their silence today will end up painting targets on them in the future.
Ambi,
Unless the moderate can be protected from the extortionist Islamothugs we cannot demand that he speak out. Religion has (IMO) very little to do with this any more than religion had anything to do with the PLO gaining and maintaining power through terror in the West Bank. Arafat was no more a devout muslim than Billy Graham is. He was a very devout believer in the use of terror as a means to extortion.
The people in the banlieus may not have much but they have enough so that an effective extortionist can collect a little "protection" money every week.
A hard look at the protection rackets operated by the Mafia in Sicily, New Orleans, New York and Chicago is good background for understanding this vermin. Keeping the flics out of the banlieus would condemn the people within to immiseration comparable to that suffered by the Palis in the West Bank.
I wonder what Kerry thinks now about the wisdom of the French approach to militant Islam?
Also, because of the peculiar status of Christianity in Western Europe, particularly France, (CINO, pronounced "CHINO", or "SHEENO",or "SEENO", and meaning "Christian In Name Only") efforts to make this into some sort of religious struggle seems to be a bit of a stretch unless by that it is meant that the Islamiscists intend to convert the CINO's into a more orthodox and observant group of believers.
What hath worldly sophistication wrought?
And what has political correctness and appeasement gained the Etat?
I wonder what Kerry thinks now about the wisdom of the French approach to militant Islam?
Who cares? The man is too empty and self-absorbed to bother with.
I don't think the French are nearly as multi-culti and politically correct as folks say. If push comes to slaughter I doubt they will pay much attention to the world at large: the beurs aren't the only ones in France who can riot. Nor are the Islamists the only ones who can play politics with the situation.
Nor do I think Peter's scenario will play out, if only because the neighboring countries are not going to support the insurgents and allow themselves to be major conduit for arms. The Spanish will follow the French and the Germans will show no love. That is the flip side of the European prejudice against Africans and Muslims. I don't even know that the result would make me happy.
These are Europeans we are talking about. Deep down inside they are not the turning the other cheek kind of people.
It took a half century of American bases all over their continent before they began to get all pacifist. It is not their natural state.
My guess is the French will only take so much..but all of this has gotten so out of control that the short term response will seem like childs play to making the big changes.
Irony, Chuck, and sarcasm.
I don't really care about that opportunist. But those who ate him up should at least wonder, shouldn't they?
When do the guillotines come out? It might be only a matter of time. And who got us into Vietnam in the first place? Dien Bien Phu was only 51 years ago.
Ambi,
We can demand that the blind see as well. The individual's duty to speak out against injustice is an artifact of Judeo-Christian moral and ethical teaching. There is no such individual duty that I have been able to identify within Muslim theology. Islam is a bandit's theology, it's all submission and God's will. Properly understanding the term 'Inshallah' is very difficult from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint or from the viewpoint of the pseudo-Christian derivatives that are descendants of Hegelian historicism.
That is the reason that hope for a Muslim reformation is futile.
"No doubt the Arab League,the UN and the usual carrion birds will flutter over an embattled Paris,lending support to one or other of the political gangsters who have enough firepower to claim to represent the Banlieus."
-PeterUK
Paris= Lebanon?
I think it is about time that we read somewhere that Bush is responsible for the Paris riots.
Let's see ... he snubbed France and referred to them as "old Europe" which in turn knocked them off balance drove them into the hands of the Jihadis against their better judgement...
or...maybe the parts for the electrical step-down station where the kids were killed were made by Halliburton...?
This is a role typically filled by family and one that the welfare state, as well as immigrant status (particularly poor immigrant status), tends to break down.
Speaking of family breakdown, I think most of the adults in the banleaue would also welcome a bit of law and order. One of the biggest failures of the French state has been its failure to provide a safe and orderly environment. Without that, nothing good can happen. Teens are teens, the Lord of Flies is always a possibility when there is no law. Providing order, I think, was one of the great successes of Giuliani in NYC. Sarkozy seems to realize this, but the French cabinet is so consumed with politics and ambition that it is hard to see any firm response forthcoming.
Peter,
What tends to happen here is that immigrants settle in the old, cheap, and run down areas of cities. Then they provide their own services, grow their own businesses, and move into the local school boards and government. Key to this is the ability to save by using cheap, family labor, to work insane hours at lowpaying jobs, to later get loans from banks, and to take part in local government. I doubt that any of these factors exist in France: the housing and its location is provided by the government, taxes work against family savings, labor laws limit the chance to work hard and advance, investment monies are lacking, and the government is an exclusive club for the graduates of the civil service universities. France embodies all the problems of the EU writ small.
Post a Comment