It used to be riots flaired over the long hot summer. The riots in French Moslem neighborhoods have begun to spread to other neighborhoods as they stretch into the sixth night of unrest. Meanwhile, underreported in the English language media, riots by Moslem youth in the Dutch city of Arhus enter their fourth day. (link via No Pasaran!)
This looks like it might be the beginning of large scale clashes between Moslem youth and Police in Europe. Reactions are muted so far, with some officials calling for a stern response, and others predictably wringing their hands at root causes and talking about throwing understanding, and wads of cash, at the ghettos. Meanwhile, the salafist youth are of course outraged at slights to their honor, as the vast moderate Moslem majority is no where to be seen.
This could get ugly.
65 comments:
Also in the city of Sedan, someplace in Denmark, and I think I heard of something going on in Spain. I kind of expect (hope?) Stockholm to come into play soon and maybe some of the southern French towns such as Marseille or Nice. Then there is Italy. Of course, there is no future in being a prophet 'cause they're almost always wrong.
Reactions are muted so far, with some officials calling for a stern response, and others predictably wringing their hands at root causes
I really don't see any easy answers. Changing the economics will take 10-20 years, changing the fruity-tooty governing philosophies maybe as long. Changing the racism on both sides? Gimme a break. Ain't going to happen anytime soon. It will probably get worse.
So, let's just be happy it ain't here while they're getting hit there. And this time let's keep the fight where it belongs: Europe. No more 9/11's. I just hope that suicide bombings, beheadings, and ieds don't come into real fashion because Europe is going to get ugly if they do.
BTW, isn't tourism one of the big industries in France? I wonder how this will play.
Not only ugly, but quite revealing regarding the problems that beset Western Civilization today.
Apparently the "French way" is no more effective than a number of other approaches to the challenges presented by Islamic militancy.
I fear for Italy and Rome. On their side this is a religious war and the Vatican, and Italian churches in general, have to be natural targets.
Up to nine suburbs now. Looks like Villepin is trying to come on as the "nice" guy contra Sarkozy.
anonymous,
Thanks for that link. Theodore Dalrymple is indeed one of the greats. He has made me rethink the whole socialist state idea in entirely new ways. We should blogroll him or something.
Chuck, Isn't Malmo the city in Sweden most at risk?
I heard an older guy in his sixties telling stories about the French and Algerians fighting in the streets back in the 60's.
Maybe they did not leave Algeria behind...maybe it came to them.
I just don't think of radical Islam and the city of lights as being compatable.
Like the song says, something's gotta give.
Do any of you actually know France?
There has been a tense relationship between France's 'beurs'(second and third generation North Africans)and the authorities since long before Bush declared his 'crusade'. Remember France colonised North Africa, and that colonisation, the independence wars and post-colonisation attitudes towards North Africans lie at the root of the unrest.
You can fantasise as much as you want, but it won't make your fantasies come true.
Jez,
Yes, I am aware that long before 9/11, and even long before the colonial era for that matter, there were tensions between Arabs and Europeans.
If rioting flickers across the continent, in several cities in several countries, it will be a new manifestation of that centuries old friction.
Oh wow. I didn't know it had spread beyond France.
Now things are going to get downright interesting.
Folks, I think jez is saying that it's all the West's fault. Colonialism is the only explanation.
Things are never that simple, of course.
I don't think these are "race riots" guys. I do believe that many of the kids who are doing the rioting are angry, and that their anger has much of it's origin in poverty and racial ostracization, but I don't think the kids doing the rioting are purely motivated by those concerns.
Instead, I think these riots are being directed and coordinated by Jihadis.
The rioters in Denmark, for instance, admitted that they had planned their rioting for three weeks. They said they were rioting because of the Mohammed cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. They told the reporters that they knew they were coming, and they were ready with "spokesmen" to talk to the reporters.
Does that sound like the kind of stuff angry kids do?
No.
Here's a link:
http://cuanas.blogspot.com/2005/11/evidence-riots-planned-three-weeks-ago.html
jez,
So do the riots in Birmingham recently point to historical tension between West Indians, Pakistanis and Europeans?
I suspect it is a species of the usual tensions between different immigrant groups. There used to be similar tensions between the Poles, Italians, etc, in places like Pittsburgh. On the other hand, there seems to have been some racism in play, adding a bit of spice to the mix.
I suppose one could label this sort of thing historical, because many groups have historical records of racism. It is hardly a western thing, the West is/was just another example of this universal human tendency. Heck, I remember some German disdain for Italians. I mean, how much did Italy help Germany in WWII?
Anyway, life goes on. The cure is more complicated than the simple nostrums of root causes and "understanding". What could make things really ugly is if more lethal weapons come into play. There is only so much damage one can do with knives, clubs, rocks, and matches. Thank God for modern construction and fire departments.
Knucklehead,
I LIVE in Europe. Anti-semitism exists, and much of it emanates from 'neo-nazis' or extreme right-wing parties.
I'm not aware of anti-semitism being ascribed to sparatists, though I am aware of racism in general within separatist groups, since their 'struggles' are of a nationalistic character.
Within the general population, there may well be some anti-semitism, but it is no stronger than racism in general. There is definitely a presence of anti-zionism, but that is of course not the same as anti-semitism.
In fact, in recent years, there has been an upsurge (at least it's more visible) of anti-Arab feeling and islamophobia(witness the anti-headscarf ban episode and various articles and books which purport to explain the dangers of the so-called 'islamization' of France-talk about paranoid fantasy!).
The idea that the riots aim to create an 'enclave' is based on the same kind of fantasy, I'm afraid.
Pastorius,
Jihadists? Again:fantasy.
Your 'explanation' of the Danish riots doesn't show that it's the work of 'Jihadists'. I don't know the background or the situation of Muslims in Denmark, and I doubt you do either.
Peter, I suggest you re-read all the comments, and then you might understand better.
Chuck, racism has indeed long existed, and there are many causes, of which one is colonialism. I don't think 'understanding' is a simple nostrum. Usually, when attempting to solve a problem, one looks at the causes.
While there may well be an islamist presence in certain immigrant suburbs in France, this
far from indicates that riots are 'coordinated and directed' by 'Jihadists'.
Jez,
I don't know where you live in France but I would suggest that Peter(UK) may live closer to Birmingham than do you.
One of your favorite books was authored by Chomsky? How very droll.
ex-pat, right?
Jez,
In replying to your first post I purposesly changed your "Bush declared his 'crusade'" to mention of 9/11, and your talk about colonialism to pre-colonial conflicts between Islam and Europe. It was a polite way of pointing out that where a narrative starts can color how it progresses.
You want to talk about root causes? How about increasing desertification of the central portion of the Silk Road, coupled with the Europeans opening a sea route to the Spice Islands, knocking the Caliphate's economy into a tailspin it never recovered from?
What does that get us in regards to riots in France and Holland today? Precious little. The "Root Cause" business is little more than an exercise in affixing blame.
One needs to, as best as possible, understand all sides in a conflict, and have some idea how they got to be where they are -- but in the end of the day it is people today who are influencing the events of the day. We are either helpless puppets on the end of history's string or we have to accept responsibility for our actions.
I have no idea where these riots are leading. Even though I'm not sitting in a cafe drinking tea with them, I have little doubt that the religion of Mohammed is being discussed by many doing the rioting.
racism has indeed long existed, and there are many causes, of which one is colonialism.
True enough. The Frankish conquest of France led to the original "class" concept being based on the racist theme of the original natives vs the Germanic conquerors who constituted the nobility.
The Muslim conquest of India led to similar patterns of racism, and of course the arab trade in slaves is well known, as well as the continuing practice of slavery in North African countries. God forbid that the anti-slavery impositions of the religious colonial administrators should continue into the present day.
Likewise, the widespread racism in Russia can no doubt be attributed to their imperial conquests as well as being a justified response to their own days of servitude after Kievan Rus was conquered by maurauding Mongols back in the days of the Golden Horde.
I don't think 'understanding' is a simple nostrum.
It is a simple nostrum because the understanding is simple. Nor is understanding of much use to the understood, it tends to be a lazy out for the understanders. Understanding, after all, is easy. One merely mouths the proper platitudes and, voila, one understands.
Nor is France going to provide useful employment for their youth anytime soon. Even the college educated can find it work hard to come by. That is the core problem, really. The rest could be dealt with.
Incendiary statements by some Imams make it quite clear that there is a wing in Islam,which is anti-Western,antisemitic and fascist in nature.
The extreme left have combined with this wing and are apologists for it.
I don't find this odd. One of the chief aims of the left from Marx to Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, has been to pull down Western Civilization and its religious foundations in order to remake it. I think this fits well with the Jihadist desires.
I think Knuck is onto something, though, when he conjectures that this is just another European separatist movement. I am trying the thought on for size.
I'll try and summarise an answer to the last few comments
Ironically bringing historical events into the debate doesn't do much for your argument.I think most rationally-thinking people will understand that there is a difference between comparing events today with events that happened less than a century ago, and comparing them with events that took place several centuries ago. Christian crusades don't mean Christians today are all fanatics.
I suspect if one were to travel around the US, one would find several examples of anti-French feeling. I don't think this translates as a racist attitude, though. The same goes for anti-American feeling in Europe. Such feeling has more to do with criticism of official policy. Why would it be different regarding Israel? Why does criticism of Israel and Zionism(a political idea)racist?
I very much doubt there is anymore real anti-Jewish racism here than there is anti-Arab racism. I would in fact say that there is probably more of the latter. I haven't, however, conducted a survey, it's merely an opinion.
Oh, and why is it wrong for Europeans to generalise about attitudes towards blacks in the US, yet alright for Americans to generalise about attitudes towards Jews in France?
Peter, again, I suggest you re-read previous posts, and you might understand.
The fact that there are people in France who preach fundamentalist Islamism doesn't prove that riots are conducted by Islamists. It was suggested that 'Muslim enclaves' existed in France. That is simply not the case. There are suburbs with a high immigrant population, of which the majority come from North Africa, but these suburbs are not Muslim ghettoes.While there are probably 'no-go areas' connected to gangsterism, this is not an indicator of 'Muslim separatism' in France.Again, I believe such an idea is fantasy.
Your last comment, Knucklehead, doesn't show that these are 'MUSLIM enclaves'.
They were between youths from poor suburbs and the police.
And in Arhus too? And why shouldn't the police be there? If French law is kept out, I think it a good bet that it will be replaced by general thuggery and criminal oppression of the most atavistic sort.
As to banning the Hijab, while I think it would be ridiculous in this country, religious as we are, I am multi-culti enough to understand it as a reflection of the anti-clerical strand in French society dating back to the Revolution. At least they didn't burn the mosques, execute the imams, and murder 200,000 muslims in revolt. France *has* made progress.
Peter,
I've heard that some people had a whale of a time on their way to Nineveh...
I assure you those ancestors had no particular love for France or the French
Yeah, who remembers the crusades. Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, those are the battles that still resonate.
PeterUK,
The figure I remember for the suburb where this started was about 80% muslim, or at least mustlim heritage.
I think my position on Palestine is pretty clear from my post.
Knucklehead, we can debate forever on the relvance of different periods in history, but it would be chronologically more logical to refer first to recent periods when looking for causation.No doubt you will disagree, but in that case we'll just have to agree to disagree.
There has indeed been criticism of US policies in France for a long time-possibly since the US took on a more agressive role in world affairs and started exporting it's culture. A lot of this criticism is exagerrated and unfounded, but it is still not racially based.The same is probably true of anti-French feeling in the US.And I'm sure the same goes for anti-Israel feeling. I never equated governments with their citizens, by the way.
I repeat that I am doubtful there is any more anti-Jewish racism than anti-Arab racism in France.There are plenty of cases of anti-Arab racism, particularly within the establishment.
The fact that anti-semitism exists(where doesn't it-I even saw reports of anti-semitism in Israel coming from 'fake' russian Jews)and that anti-zionism also exists does not mean the two can be equated.
Furthermore, there are more reasons for Jews to emigrate to Israel than just anti-semitic attacks.
Describing areas as 'Muslim enclaves' and talking of 'Muslim separatism' in France give the impression of a religiously-motivated effort to separate within France. There is no factual evidence as far as I know to support this.
Good night!
I repeat that I am doubtful there is any more anti-Jewish racism than anti-Arab racism in France.There are plenty of cases of anti-Arab racism, particularly within the establishment.
Oh, I don't doubt the French are equal opportunity snobs. I say snobs for lack of a better term. Race sounds like, well, like race is involved. Anyway, I don't doubt there is plenty of prejudice of all sorts floating about: anti-American, anti-muslim, anti-semitic. I expect Le Pen appeals to all three. Such is life in a stagnating country.
Another report from the London Times. I find it amusing that Villepin puts down the British multicultural model as a failure. Guess everyone has to be the perfect Frenchman. Maybe the poor souls in the Vendee should start their own separatist movement. Anyway, the French establishment seems opposed to Sarkozy. I wonder how is popularity is holding up among the ordinary citizens?
I'm curious as to why Jez was trying to make the argument that these riots were not occuring in Moslem ghettos ringing Paris?
Especially since he started out by pin pointing the French colonization of North Africa as the root of the problem. One would think ghettoized, down-trodden masses would come in handy for the point he seemed to be trying to make.
-------------------------
From Chuck's article, "The defiant anti-government talk of Mohamed and Sidi is the norm among the disaffected Muslims of the estates after clashes with France’s heavy-handed riot police."
From the article I linked to yesterday, "The president of SOS-Racism, an anti-racism group, called Tuesday for a 'massive investment plan' to cure suburban ills. 'The police response alone ... are not at all adequate to the problem in question,' Dominique Sopo said on France-Info radio, calling for a 'real policy of breaking the ghettos.' The money must go not only to building, but also to caring for the people via local associations, he said.
The interesting thing is that often times it is the second generation that seems to feel the most isolated. Sometimes I wonder if the original immigrants from a generation ago were more desirous to be a part of the larger culture and thus made a greater effort at assimilation.
PeterUK,
Teenage girls for example disappear from school on reaching puberty and are sent back to the old country, returning with a husband
I know that some of this goes on. How common is it actually? Do you have any sort of statistics?
The same sort of thing went on here with, for instance, Greek immigrants. It didn't seem to keep them from integrating. Maybe it is just easier here.
PeterUK,
So far the US is lucky, you are not all competing for the same space
The countryside is remarkably empty. Moreso, I think, than 50 years ago. Meanwhile, the Mennonites are buying up the abandoned farmland and spreading. I think Dearborn may be a Muslim majority city but no one really cares. The Michigan banks offer Muslim acceptable loans, etc., and tests may be rescheduled around Ramadan. Not a whole lot different, really, than Jewish holidays in NYC schools. At least, ISTR some Jewish holidays. Anyway, this country really does adapt, and why not if you can make a buck doing so? The dollar is the universal solvent. I think problems here are really quite different than in Europe, but living in the sticks as I do, I would hate to put money on it.
There are also some disfunctional and totalitarian nations who feel that they now have a say in our affairs.
Well, didn't the Europeans bend over forward to give them that priviledge? I can't see the French staying in that position forever. Whatever else they are, they *are* French. What is disheartening about England is that the Tories have wimped out. What sort of conservative party is that that doesn't care about tradition and spouts touchy feely fluff?
BTW, I was reading that the V for victory came from Agincourt as the English archers taunted the French by showing the fingers that the French threatened to cut off if any archer was captured. True?
I hate to say this but we acquired political correctness from you,there was nothing wrong with burgers and rock and roll,but PC!!
Yeah, sorry about that. We sent you syphilis too and got socialism in return. Not sure who lost most by that yet.
As to the V sign, the fingers to be cut off were the thumb, first, and index fingers. Why the French omitted the third finger, I don't know, but I expect removing the listed fingers would be effective nonetheless. It is remarkable how few long bows have survived to the present, is it not? The Mary Rose seems to have been the largest source for historical specimens.
Chuck and Peter:
This thread ties in pretty neatly with your long engagement commenting on Wretchard's analysis of Newt's latest theory that I just plowed through.
Newt does have a historian's approach to this stuff. I would love to watch a few days with him, VDH, Wretchard and some of you commenters.
It would be a good thing for the Army War College or similar organization to sponsor. They sure would learn something.
Sorry Peter, my mistake:I got confused with the 'other' debate I'm in:
http://www.blogusblogaeblogum.blogspot.com
There, that should help you!
I won't comment any longer on the anti-zionism/anti-semitism debate, since in the face of logic, most of you just answer with standard fallacies. I'll just say this, in case somebody did'n get it: I have never claimed anti-semitism doesn't exist in France. There is no excuse for anti-semitism or any other kind of racism. I am of Jewish origin, as well as various european origins. I don't claim to be a 'victim' of racism(that would be stupid), but I have felt it. Racism is a loaded word and an innacurate one most often, but it's the best we have in this debate, I guess.
Knucklehead, I knew you'd pick out one small phrase in my last post and string it out into a debate, and I knew that would be the phrase-how clairvoyant of me! I did mention, did I not, that a lot of anti-american feeling in France is exagerrated and unfounded, just as it probably is in the reverse form. You seem to wish to turn this into a french vs american debate, but I'm not interested in that.If you visit my blog, you'll realise I am far from being a french patriot or even a british patriot. And my native languages are irrelevant, by the way!
The 'muslim enclave' debate is becoming rather stupid too, I'm afraid, still I'll add this:sometimes(often), words are important. There is a difference between an 'immigrant suburb'(or ghetto if you must) and a 'muslim enclave'. While dictionary definitions are important, common usage is also important. I am not that familiar with US-English(though I do watch Saturday Night Live sometimes!), but in UK English 'enclave' is not a word often used to describe an area with a high population of one ethnic/religious group. Ghetto might be, but remains a loaded term. I have no doubt Peter will correct me, but I can assure you I have plenty of experience of growing up and living in the UK
Oh, and Terrye, you seem to have missed something:Israel does not represent Jews. You can repeat fallacies like a mantra as long as you like, but it won't make them any more true.
Peter, I see BNP-style speech is alive and kicking. No doubt it's members love Israel for dealing with the 'Jewish problem'. If only there could be a 'Muslim democracy' which would deal with all those troublesome Muslims, eh?
Thanks Rogera, thanks Knucklehead. You are welcome anytime too!
Terrye,
While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general. Furthermore, why I should have to tell them is irrelevant to our discussion here. I am neither muslim, nor a terrorist.
As for 'European homicidal antisemitism', sure there was such a thing, though it was more specifically German, and even more specifically Nazi. The Americans, Northern and Southern, murdered natives by the...well, I don'thave the figures and will not make them up. Does that make Americans today homicidal? More recently, Blacks were segregated against and generally treated as second class citizens. Are Americans slave masters? What about the Afrikaaners? Could they be accused today of being a bunch of murdering slave-masters?
If you want to fight racism and bigotry in general, you ought to refrain from using such hyperbolic language. Then again, perhaps what drives you is not so much fighting bigotry as defending Israel.
I've pointed out the fallacy of equating anti-zionism with anti-semitism.
Equating immigrants with fanatics is another fallacy.
I was not the one who spoke of 'enclaves'. I accepted the term 'ghetto'. So, I suggest you failed to read my comments, and those of others.
For your own sake, Peter, I suggest you spend more time researching factual and rational arguments rather than relying on sarcasm which really has nothing to do with the matter at hand. You really don't come accross as very serious.
While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general. Furthermore, why I should have to tell them is irrelevant to our discussion here. I am neither muslim, nor a terrorist.
Jez,
Well, it only took a day, but at last we can call a Moslem a Moslem and a ghetto a ghetto. I suppose that is progress of sorts.
You might want to reread what you've written, which I have quoted above. Misguided individuals killing citizens and why should you be bothered condeming such acts? Nearly perfect, if only you could come up with a euphamism for killing... perhaps life-impairing would do?
To be blunt, you spend so much time noodling around with words you bleed them of all meaning. Parsing and reparsing commonly understood words and then declaring you've pointed out obvious fallacies isn't exactly the height of serious debate.
Oooops, I just realized he didn't say kill, he sanitized it to attack.
I said:
"While I abhor the harming and killing of innocent civilians, it seems to me that the terrorists (be they fanatics or simply misguided individuals)attack citizens of Israel, NOT Jews in general."
Peter said:
"Sorry but your leftoid dissembling has gone too far here,the attacks are on Jews,not Zionists,after all do the Muslims ask them before assaulting them? It is quite possible to be a Jew and not a Zionist."
So who is assuming Israeli citizens are all Zionists?
I didn't. I said I abhored the KILLING of innocent civilians.
Same to Abministral.
AMBISINISTRAL, so sorry!
Here are a few quotes from a French website. I have translated them in brackets. Here is the link:
http://www.afrik.com/article8965.html
Sur le parking de la mairie, plus de 150 jeunes, essentiellement d’origine africaine (Afrique noire et Afrique du Nord), sont venus écouter le maire.
[On the town hall carpark, over 150 youngsters, mainly of African origin(Subsaharan Africa and Northern Africa), came to listen to the mayor.]
"Il a fait trois pas vers les flics pour leur parler, un des flics lui a dit : ‘Arrête ou je t’allume’. Nous nous sommes sauvés jusqu’au dixième étage, ils ont commencé à tirer des balles à gaz dans le hall », explique, écoeuré, Jérémy.
["He advanced three teps towards the cops to talk to them, one of the cops said to him:'stop or I'll light you up'. We ran away up to the tenth floor,they started firing gaz bullets in the entrance" explained Jeremy, disgusted.]
« Ils nous provoquent de trop, j’ai des amis qui se sont fait tirer dessus, comme ça, pour rien, avec des balles en plastique. Cela ne peut engendrer que la violence. Tout le monde est chaud. Maintenant si ça doit péter ça va péter. Je n’ai pas peur d’eux et de leurs armes. On va arriver à un stade où l’on va se procurer des armes. Ça va devenir comme en Amérique ici », prophétise Jonathan.
["They provoke us too much, I have friends who were shot at, like that, for no reason, with plastic bullets. This can only provoke violence. Everyone is fired up.Now if it has to explode it will explode.I am not afraid of them and their weapons. We will get to a stage where we'll get ourselves weapons. It's gonna be like America here", prophesises Jonathan.]
Subsaharan Africans are Christians as well as Muslims. Subsahara Africans Muslims, follow on the whole a very different type of Islam, much less strict, than in Arab or southern Asian countries.
Jeremy, Jonathan? Hardly Muslim names, are they?
8:45 AM
Delete
Peter, do you have Attention Defficiency Syndrome?
You really should go over those last few posts again, slowly, making sure you don't miss anything out, and that you understand the links between each argument.
Failing that, I reccommend a course in argumentative discourse.
Well, Knucklehead, if that's the way you feel, I can only bid you farewell. I will however address the points which seem to have elluded your understanding:
The post being about immigrant suburbs and the assumption being that these are 'Moslem enclaves' as you yourself put it, I think I was entirely justified in opposing that belief, which to me, is un-justified.It's very convenient for you to make incendary comments and then claim that I am 'rattling around'.
I never claimed 'bigotry isn't bigotry if there is equal or greater bigotry toward multiple groups', but simply showing that there is no monopoly of anti-semitic violence, despite what some would like to believe.
As for Anti-Zionism/Anti-Semitism, I assumed you were knowlegeable enough to grasp the difference yourself. Still, I guess I was wrong, so here goes:
Anti-Semitism, at least in today's usage, defines an irrational dislike for people of Jewish origin, akin to racism.
Zionism, again in today's usage, is a political stance which advocates the necessity of a Jewish state. As Peter himself pointed out, Israeli citizens are not necessarily Zionists. So surely there is even more chance that Jews are not necessarily Zionists. Therefore, anti-Zionism is an opposition to the Israeli state. Nothing more. While some anti-Zionists are no doubt also anti-semitic, it is not a pre-requisite. Unless of course, 'Zionism' has magically changed definition to take on the meaning 'Jewishness'.
Terrye wrote:
"Maybe then they will stop chanting Kill the Jews in reference to Israel."
To that I answered that the terrorists he/she was referring to attack and kill Israelis, not Jews in general.
No, I don't think it is right to harm ANYBODY, unless it is in self-defense. I don't think it is justified to harm anyone physically for their opinions or beliefs.
I have never claimed that it was RIGHT to do such a thing.
Peter, don't you know what the words 'self' and 'defence' mean?
Jez,
Don't be disingenuous, you know Peter is asking a valid question. I'll rephrase it and ask the same question slightly differently.
In assymetrical warfare, is the targeting of civilians justifiable as self-defense, or should assymetrical warfare only be directed towards legitimate military targets?
Peter, don't you know what the words 'self' and 'defence' mean?
It means shoot the son of a bitch when he threatens you, right? I knew we had something in common somewhere. Now if only France and Britain would allow the guns needed by the good citizens in self defense...
And you know, because I stated it clearly enough, that I don't believe in killing innocent civilians unless it is in self-defense (which I suppose could include bystanders).
Ok, I expect you're going to need an example:
If you come at me to hit me, and I hit you in defense, and you subsequently fall on top of a bystander, then my hitting you would be justified, even if I unintentionally caused physical harm to the bystander.
Somehow, I think we have drifted from the original question. But since you wanted me to define a term for you, I've done it.
KH,
Ok, so you're now claiming you didn't use the term 'Moslem enclave' in an effort to define the riots as 'Moslem riots'?
KH wrote:
"his latest round of riots - if what little bits and pieces of reporting we can find are accurate and there's no good reason to assume that they are - seems to be something akin to a "seperatist" movement to try and wall off Moslem ghetto enclaves from "outside interference" from the, ummm..., nationals."
I am aware of the differences between UK and US english, and the differences in meaning between French(from France) terms and UK and US terms. A suburb remains a suburb, though. In France, predominantly immigrant areas happen to be in the suburbs. I was obviously not talking about 'suburbia' or 'leafy suburbs'.
As is clear from my translated quotes a bit further up, these 'ghettoes' can not be simplistically defined as 'Moslem' and neither can the riots or the angry youths.
Jez,
I see from your dancing around over my question about asymetrical warfare and self-defense, that you think you're avoiding a trap I'm setting for you. Actually, I was simply curious as to how honest of an answer you would give me.
To get back on topic in this thread, I was struck and rather puzzled by your objections to me using the term Moslem Ghettos. After probing a bit -- and seeing you so fervently try to get the label changed to North Africa, immigrant, or gangster -- I gather it is far more the Moslem then the Ghetto part that you're objecting to.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from reading your comments and blog you define yourself as multicultural and un-national. I assume you believe the Nation State has outlived its usefulness. In fact, Nations are liable to cause strife. I assume you believe that a better social organization would be some sort of International organization replacing nationial governments. You also believe that the level of natural social organization exists at a much smaller scale than nations and that borders should dissappear so that people could freely move where they wanted?
Is that all fundamentally correct, or am I reading you wrong?
Amb,
I am not here to discuss my beliefs regarding states and nations. I came here to discuss the original post which commented on the riots in France.
I gave perfectly valid answers to your questions about innocent civilians and self-defense. I'm no longer willing to play your silly little game.
Amb,
My goal is not to beat you at a game of twisting people's words and second-guessing people's opinions. So, unless you can come up with something relevant, I'm giving up responding to you.
I thought you left, Peter. Evidently, you have nothing relevant to say, either.
I commented only on France.Not on Denmark or Sweden, of which, as I have said, I don't have much knowledge.
KH wrote:
I will point out, however, that while these various "immigrant suburbs" scattered around Europe (they exist in or around cities other than Paris and in countries other than France) do not all share "North African", or "Middle Eastern" or "Arab" ethnicity. They do share "immigrant" and "moslem" commonality. Which is more important to what is going on I do not know for sure but if I were somehow required to make a wager picking one of the two, I'd opt for "moslem".
In France, you are right that they do not all share North African, Arab or Middle Eastern ethnicity. You are wrong, however, in claiming they share moslem or even immigrant commonality. Look, I know areas such as the ones we are discussing. I've been there, known people there, go to university there(though not in the Parisian area). So, I'm not making a wager. I'm speaking from experience. Did you read the translated quotes?
Peter, you're still playing the same game. Take a leaf out of Knuclehead's book.
Pretty much everything I've written here shows that there is little, if any, rational basis for the idea that these riots are about religion. All you have offered is speculation.And yet, if there is burden of proof, it lies heavily on your shoulders.
By the way, you said you had often 'eavesdropped' on conversations in France. I hope your translator was better than the one you just mentioned!
Perhaps this discussion of root causes is a bit too esoteric. Have we forgotten the simple fun of smashing things?
Chuck,
Could be, but I think you'll have to work in North Africans by the name of John, who incidently never, ever think of Islam, into your theory before you'll get Jez on board.
Jeremy and Jonathon,sound more like a couple of English public schoolboys.
Gap year, perhaps. A chance to do something different while resurrecting the traditional English approach to France. When they return to University they will roll back their sleeves, bare their hearts, show their scars, and say, "These wounds I received on the way to the Feast"
KH,
Being Franco-British of Austrian-Jewish and Italian origin, I doubt I could be accused of thinking there is nothing more to Europe than France.
You, however, as you have just admitted, generalise about Europe on the basis of speculation and 'eavesdropping' conversations that apparently are not in French. Imagine, for a moment, that I were to judge Americans and the US based on my one week in New York(and an hour at Seattle airport!).And yet, the US is one country with one official language.Europe is not, and despite what some want us to think, Europe is nowhere near being a close-knit community, as much as I want to believe in that idea. It seems to me, you(and others)would like to equate the French with their leaders. If you really knew the French(a cross section) you wouldn't think they thought of Europe as nothing more than France. Many French tend to overreact to what they percieve as foreign threats(Brussels, Britain, US, Turkey, Muslims), but I think you'll find French thinking is not as simple as the actions of French governments.
Again, should I come to the conclusion that Americans are bible-bashing, flag-waving belligerant morons, just because that's how President Bush comes accross? Thankfully, I have a little more jugment than that.
BTW, Jeremy and Jonathan are more likely to be Subsaharan Christians, but you couldn't know that, could you?Of course, they could well be Jewish (no sarcasm), even if that is less llikely. First and foremost, however, they are likely to be French. Probably more French than I am-despite my white skin.
Well done, Peter, you've finally managed to prove yourself stupid beyond any doubt, and quite probably racist as well.
Knucklehead, if you think this is a game of who spent most time in the other one's country/continent, too bad.
As you have admitted you generalise about Europe. You said you could be wrong about the Islamic background to the riots in France, and I think I have shown that there is no basis for such an idea. If you can't accept that speculating is not evidence, too bad. I'm bored now. Either come up with some kind of evidence that what you are speculating is true, or accept that you are wrong. Failing that, there really is no point in carrying on. If you want claim to have 'won', fine:I'm not after recognition, I just can't stand speculation based on nothing and/or lies. I think we've had a reasonably civil debate.
I'm sure Peter was trying to be funny...
Knuck,
I speculate that the other feller is pretty familiar with having is head located in the place where merde emerges.
'Course, if he speculates otherwise I guess I'll have to eat a plate of crow after being "proved" wrong.
Everyone in this thread has consistently spoken of these riots as if they were the acts of Muslims, led by Muslims, coordinated by Muslims. If you want to now act as if you were just guessing, that's fine with me. I've wasted enough time. What interests me is reality, not empty speculation, based on what I'd like to believe. I'm sure you think all I want is to defend Muslims. In fact, I spent several months in a similar kind of debate with people who claimed the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world, and who praised Bin Laden. They may have been more extremist in their beliefs, but like most of the people here, they just wanted to believe in something, and no amount of reasoning could make any difference.
Post a Comment