The Way of the Muslim: with 1300 cars torched so far [Archive]

View Full Version : The Way of the Muslim: with 1300 cars torched so far

Claverhouse

6 Nov 2005, 10:09 PM

Lest we grow too self-absorbed: some members may have missed that Paris ( and other parts of France with the same vying envy that made St. Bartholme's Night so widely emilated in the provinces ) have now been fighting minor riots for the last eight days.

Dunno what sort of coverage it gets in the States, other than a belief that it is God's Vengeance for the French opposition to the Second Saddamite War, but over here the BBC and other liberal media are finding great difficulty in comdemning the French too much for being racialist bastards who have deliberately kept those poor immigrants in squalor and misery.

The touch-paper was when:

So far, the parisien race riot (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=72750), which centres on the death of two young african born teenagers has outlasted Birmingham's inter-ethnic rioting (which started because of a rape rumour) of the previous weekend, and even Belfast's "love ulster" bash in the summer.
It all began on 27/10/05 at 17h20 when police stationed at Livry-Gargan put on their blunt trauma protection wear and went to restore order, order had been lost when locals got very upset over the death by two teenagers. The boys had been electrocuted whilst trying to escape police. Irish Indymedia

The police say (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051102080909990010) they were not chasing the youths who died, but another nearby group. "We have witnesses who saw them being chased by two policemen. They had done nothing, but if the police chase you around here, you run, guilty or not, because you can be sure they won't be kind with you," said Kolan.

Chêne-Pointu typifies the problems of many of the urban ghettoes that surround Paris and other large French cities: a high immigrant population, soaring unemployment and drug dealing.

Many of the youths blame Mr Sarkozy for the continued violence, with what they consider to be highly provocative language. He has pledged to "industrially clean" council estates and to rid them of "scum".

On Sunday night, he promised "zero tolerance" of suburban crime. Two rioters have already received three-month jail sentences and a dozen more face charges.

"We're not dumb. Sarkozy has declared war on suburban youth," said Karim, 23. "Unless he apologises for the way he has treated us, then he can expect 40 nights of violence," he said.

But others around the estate back Mr Sarkozy. "What he says may be crude, but he's right. Drug runners and petty criminals have had it good too long around here.

"There's only so much social prevention you can do, then you have to repress," said Marie-Jeanne Sacré, a social worker. News Telegraph [ Funnier bits highlighted in red by me ]

On the tv news Chirac has made a pompous speech and vowed to protect the Republic; whilst his police chiefs claim the riots around France are not spontaneous, but being organised by criminal gangs sending couriors around on motorbikes utilising the internet visa their mobile phones.

Presumably the fact that this, whether true or not, is totally irrelevent, escapes them.

Some interesting takes:

From the Indymedia article above:

Why is Paris Burning?
by Dave Friday, Nov 4 2005, 2:52pm
Why have the riots happened? From many accounts one would think that the riots have been caused by France’s failure to implement Marxism. “The unrest,” AP explained, has highlighted the division between France’s big cities and their poor suburbs, with frustration simmering in the housing projects in areas marked by high unemployment, crime and poverty.” Another AP story declared flatly that the riots were over “poor conditions in Paris-area housing projects.”

Reuters agreed with AP’s attribution of all the unrest to economic injustice, and added in a suggestion of racism: “The unrest in the northern and eastern suburbs, heavily populated by North African and black African minorities, have been fuelled by frustration among youths in the area over their failure to get jobs and recognition in French society.” Deutsche Presse Agentur called the high-rise public housing in the Paris suburbs “a long-time flashpoint of unemployment, crime and other social problems.”

One might get the impression from this that France is governed by top-hatted, cigar-smoking capitalists, building their fortunes on the backs of the poor, rather than by socialists and quasi-socialists who have actually strained the economy by spending huge amounts of money on health and welfare programs. Nor does the idea that the rioting has been caused by economic inequalities explain why Catholics and others who are poor in France have not joined the Muslims who are rioting. Of course, all the news agencies have either omitted or mentioned only in passing that the rioters are Muslims at all. The casual reader would not be able to escape the impression that what is happening in France is all about economics — and race.

The areas hardest hit by the riots, according to Reuters, are “home to North African and black African minorities that feel excluded from French society.” AP shed some light on this feeling of exclusion: “the violence also cast doubt on the success of France’s model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community — its Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe’s largest — by playing down differences between ethnic groups. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities.”

So evidently France’s failure to live up to its policy of playing down the differences between ethnic groups has bred the simmering anger that has now boiled over in the riots. However, in fact France has done just the opposite of playing down the differences between ethnic groups. In her seminal Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, historian Bat Ye’or details a series of agreements between the European Union and the Arab League that guaranteed that Muslim immigrants in Europe would not be compelled in any way to adapt “to the customs of the host countries.” On the contrary, the Euro-Arab Dialogue’s Hamburg Symposium of 1983, to take just one of many examples, recommended that non-Muslim Europeans be made “more aware of the cultural background of migrants, by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities or ‘supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant communities in the school curricula.’” Not only that: “Access to the mass media had to be facilitated to the migrants in order to ensure ‘regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country.”[1]

The European Union has implemented such recommendations for decades — so far from playing down the differences between ethnic groups, they have instead stood by approvingly while immigrants formed non-assimilated Islamic enclaves within Europe. Indeed, as Bat Ye’or demonstrates, they have assured the Arab League in multiple agreements that they would aid in the creation and maintenance of such enclaves. Ignorance of the jihad ideology among European officials has allowed that ideology to spread in those enclaves, unchecked until relatively recently.

Consequently, among a generation of Muslims born in Europe, significant numbers have nothing but contempt and disdain for their native lands, and allegiance only to the Muslim umma and the lands of their parents’ birth. Those who continue to arrive in Europe from Muslim countries are encouraged by the isolation, self-imposed and other-abetted, of the Islamic communities in Europe to hold to the same attitudes. The Arab European League, a Muslim advocacy group operating in Belgium and the Netherlands, states as part of its “vision and philosophy” that “we believe in a multicultural society as a social and political model where different cultures coexist with equal rights under the law.” It strongly rejects for Muslims any idea of assimilation or integration into European societies: “We do not want to assimilate and we do not want to be stuck somewhere in the middle. We want to foster our own identity and culture while being law abiding and worthy citizens of the countries where we live. In order to achieve that it is imperative for us to teach our children the Arabic language and history and the Islamic faith. We will resist any attempt to strip us of our right to our own cultural and religious identity, as we believe it is one of the most fundamental human rights.” AEL founder Dyab Abou Jahjah, who was himself arrested in November 2002 and charged with inciting Muslims in Antwerp to riot (Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said that the AEL was “trying to terrorize the city”[2]), has declared: “Assimilation is cultural rape. It means renouncing your identity, becoming like the others.” He implied that European Muslims had a right to bring the ideology of jihad and Sharia to Europe, complaining that in Europe “I could still eat certain dishes from the Middle East, but I cannot have certain thoughts that are based on ideologies and ideas from the Middle East.”

What kind of ideologies? Perhaps Hani Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan Al-Banna and brother of the famed self-proclaimed moderate Muslim spokesman Tariq Ramadan, gave a hint when he defended the traditional Islamic Sharia punishment of stoning for adultery in the Paris journal Le Monde. In Denmark, politician Fatima Shah echoed the same sentiments in November 2004. That same month, filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who had made a film, Submission, about the oppression of women by Islamic law, was murdered in Holland by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri. Bouyeri later declared in court: “I did what I did purely out my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted.” In other words, his problem was religious, not racial: Van Gogh had blasphemed Islam, and so according to Islamic law he had to die. Significantly, Bouyeri maintained during his trial that he did not recognize the authority of the Dutch court, but only of the law of Islam.

How many European Muslims share the sentiments of Mohammed Bouyeri? How many of these are rioting this week in Paris? Alleviating Muslim unemployment and poverty will not ultimately do anything to alter this rejection of European values by growing numbers of people who are only geographically Europeans. And the problem cannot be ignored. For France is not alone: Muslims in Århus, Denmark have also been rioting this week. And in France, Sarkozy recently revealed that this week’s riots are just a particularly virulent flare-up of an ongoing pattern of violence: he told Le Monde that twenty to forty cars are set afire nightly in Paris’ restive Muslim suburbs, and no fewer than nine thousand police cars have been stoned since the beginning of 2005.

Blame for the riots in France has thus far focused on Sarkozy’s tough talk about ending this violence. On October 19 he declared of the suburbs that “they have to be cleaned — we’re going to make them as clean as a whistle.” Six days after this, Muslim protestors threw stones and bottles at him when he visited the suburb of Argenteuil. He has been roundly criticized for calling the rioters “scum”; one of them responded, “We’re not scum. We’re human beings, but we’re neglected.” However, as a solution the same man recommended only more neglect, saying of the Paris riot police: “If they didn’t come here, into our area, nothing would happen. If they come here it’s to provoke us, so we provoke back.” Others complained of rough treatment they have received since 9/11 from police searching for terrorists: “It’s the way they stop and search people, kneeing them between the legs as they put them up against the wall. They get students mixed up with the worst offenders, yet these young people have done nothing wrong.”

But of course, all these problems are exacerbated by the non-assimilation policy that both the French government and the Muslim population have for so long pursued: the rioters are part of a population that has never considered itself French. Nor do French officials seem able or willing to face that this is the core of their problem today. It is likely that the riots will result only in intensification of the problems that caused them: if French officials offer an accommodation to Muslims, it will probably result only in further intensification of the Islamic identity, often in its most radical manifestations, among French Muslims. The French response to the riots is likely to unfold along the lines of a decision by officials in Holland last May: they declined to ban a book called De weg van de Moslim (The Way of the Muslim), even though it calls for homosexuals to be thrown head first off tall buildings. The Amsterdam city council did not want to contravene “the freedom to express opinions.” And vide Baron Haussman's destruction of Old Paris and the mob's penchant for lifting up paving stones***

Cont:

Claverhouse

6 Nov 2005, 10:10 PM

Obviously Cars or Offices burning, are different in different places -

France, Argentina, Baghdad...
by iosaf Saturday, Nov 5 2005, 10:36am

(1) You can be useful by telephoning the Argentinians and asking them to be tolerant of political expression and respect the legitimate democratic role of indymedia in covering this global event and protests against it, and mindful of the influence on certain sectors of the community that Diego Maradona and Chavez's rhetoric of yesterday might have caused. & do your best to identify the french citizen and the bristolians.

(2) You can enjoy google earth. Google earth as you might already know is a collection of aerial photographs of pretty much most of the largest urban areas in the world. You can download it from the usual Google site and thereafter you can look at cities from an elevation of a few hundred feet, (it helps if you have a quick computer). Unsurprisingly the first place you see is the USA, but there is a search engine type in countries and you go there. The "principal" places get little pins, and you can zoom in 34º 36' 37"S by 58º 22' 50"W is just about where you need to look when you goto Buenos Aires. Thats the widest avenue on the planet. Have a look at that city at altitude between 15,000 and 20,000 feet. It was built that way to stop people rioting and also to make a typically masonic symbolic statement. I learnt my architecture...running away from police. Now goto Paris, 48º57'N 2º21'E at around 10,000 feet - thats Stains railway station, where the french ali.g and his massive live. Scroll over northern Paris at the same altitude 48º54'36"W 2º18'E thats just about where the riots in Paris began. Observe the shape of the roads, the squares are highdensity highrise flats. Go up to 20,000 feet and scroll around. Now if you've ever been to Paris, or seen it on telly you've been looking somewhere else, at "point zero lattidue=48.8535074727, longtitude=2.34868030867" The centre of France. If you scroll in any direction from "the centre of France" at 15,000 feet for a few kilometres you see "streets designed to stop riots". If you paid attention in school you'll remember Haussman. and he got an -ism. which is why people are being locked up in Buenos Aires whereas in northern Paris, the cops can't find them. The cops can't take away their message of gang fun either. Just imagine how many mobile telephone photographs and videos of local arson have gone round the teenage disaffected this last week.
Which is why Friday night (last night) youngsters in Marseille, Rouen, Lille, Toulouse and Nice started burning their local cars and business too. Not that racial motives as well as religious don't play a part, Olivier Guitta's Mugged by Reality (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RMQ/is_28_10/ai_n13787800), back in March 05:

On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism. Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground.

Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites" don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he "has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire to "take revenge on whites."

Sometimes petty theft appeared to be the initial motivation. One or two bullies would approach a student and ask for money or a cell phone. Even if the victim complied right away, they would start beating him or her. A striking account was provided by Luc Colpart, a history and geography teacher and member of the far-left union SUD. Colpart said the scenes of violence were so disturbing that he could not sleep for days. He saw students being beaten or pulled by the hair. He stressed that assailants who stole cell phones smashed them in front of their victims: "It was a game. Hatred and fun."

Colpart, who is active in anti-racist causes, confirmed that "these were racial assaults," and the attackers used "far-right slurs, violent and racist." One black student he saw come to the defense of a fellow student under attack by three blacks was called "a white sellout" by the assailants. Some scores of victims were taken to hospitals. Those who were interviewed confirmed that they had been caught up in an "anti-white" rampage and that the cops did nothing to protect them And the religious again: Lawrence Auster's: I Love the Smell of Illusions Burning in the Morning (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004485.html):

Does this mean that American interference in the Mideast has nothing to do with Muslim hostility? Of course not. We must try to understand reality as it is, not reduce it to simplistic, and, as in the case of the current anti-American mania, resentment-driven theories that conveniently single out a single hated party as the sole cause of all ills. Many specific factors may exacerbate or provide pretexts for increased jihadist activity. These include America’s imperialistic democracy-spreading efforts (as the left believes) and Europe’s multicultural accommodation to Islamic immigrants (as is now being more widely realized in the wake of the London bombings and the Paris riots), as well as many other factors. For example, if a Muslim terrorist group attacks America, and America then strikes back at that terrorist group by invading the country that it controls and where it has its headquarters, that will anger some Muslims and stir them to jihad. If Europeans require Muslim school children to conform to Western dress, that will anger some Muslims and stir them to jihad. And if French police enter a Muslim-dominated town in France to enforce French law, that will anger some Muslims and stir them to jihad. Speaking of jihads, naturally Jihad Watch has the usual stuff about Islam, here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008844.php), but this was particularly poignant --- Old Left communists feel the New Left is to blame:

Re: Politics of Confrontation. Shiva and I have written on this often, my take coming from the U.S. and France in the late 1960s when the New Left, the red diaper babies' response to their parents' old-style party-based Communism was seen to be an obvious failure in the eyes of the public-- working classes-- left the backrooms of the union halls and took to the campuses of elite Western colleges to bring forth the people's revolution. Unsurprisingly, the working classes weren't buying into it, given that they were relatively prosperous and paying for their children's educations. Young students though, raised in the atmosphere of combined Stalinism and affluence, felt themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to their parents, and seeing clearly that the working classes were "part of the problem" rather than part of the solution took to a new constituency for support and power: the barbarians and lumpen-proletariat i.e. the Third World peasants and the street people in ghettoes, abandoning the classical thrust of socialist concern, the working people.

There arose the clear division between the Left socialist and the Left fascist, which to this moment most of our Leftist contributers here don't understand. Briefly, the New Left, not having any base in the working classes took up with barbarians, hence "philobarbarism," and, with no support from the Old Left Communists, were cut adrift from their roots.

Like today's homicide bombers, they had little actual power but a great deal of media awareness, which they put into action in the politics of confrontation in the streets of major Western cities, battling with police, and cetera. The idea, fairly successful, was to confront the authorities with an intolerable situation that would require, in the interests of the state, that the state act in violent response against the Left and its constituents, thereby radicalizing the marginals, drawing them in and dividing them between those who supported state reaction and those who would by necessity side with the "revolutonaries" to halt genocide. To start riots in Watts would be to expose the racism inherent in the system, would show the white poice beating the black rioters, and would thereby show the world just how evil the whole system is, forcing people to take sides even though they'd rather live quietly and go to work and raise their children.

This is the "politics of confrontation" that Shiva and I write about. We feel that to stir the pot and bring to the surface the clear evidence of our problems will divid the nations' people between those who will fight and those who will side with our enemies, there really being no middle ground left.

Before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion that I or Shiva promote terroist vigilantism, please search here for posts, and there are many, on the legitimate rule of law in legitimate states.

If there's any call for it I'll post this with revisons and elaborations at my blog in a day or two. In the maentime, you may turn to the link below for a review and excerpts from Eugene Methvin's book The Riot Makers, a classic look at the mind of those who followed the politics of confrontation to its limits.

Aside, the graphics refer to An America in Paris, particularly the song "Singing in the Rain," sung by Alex, the thug in A Clockwork Orange." The central thesis of Burgess's novel, as I understand it, is the nature of individual will, whether one is good by choice or by conditioning. That's something we might all benefit from considering, and in light of the text in the blog piece I hope it'll be interesting.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2005/11/just-singing-in-rain.html

Posted by: sonofwalker (http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?__mode=red;id=139142) http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif (http://profile.typekey.com/dagaldwalker) at November 5, 2005 02:47 PM (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008844.php#c139142) Additional poignancy is added by the fact that muslims are demanding their own autonomous enclaves in France, where they can treat their womenfolk as Allah demands, cut goats' throats in the gutters and have homosexuals leap off the top of very tall buildings. And it's even funnier when you realise the pro-immigrationist crowd whether New Left, Liberal or Capitalist will in the name of fairness, equality and love, give them exactly what they want.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

***
Note: on paving slabs, the recent murder of a racialist in Arizona's Phoenix Federal Correctional Institute --- sentenced for 20 years for plotting to bomb a mosque and also a Lebanese US congressman's office --- was carried out by an irritated fellow-prisoner picking up a concrete block and smashing it down on his head whilst he was exercising.

They allow concrete blocks laying about in American prisons ???

panda

6 Nov 2005, 10:39 PM

I've been "following" the riots. Can't say I'm surprised. This has been brewing for quite some time. I only see things getting worse, considering the growing (exploding) Arab population in Europe.

I'm going to come right out and say it: I think Islam is one of the most detrimental ideologies ever conceived.

KuJo

6 Nov 2005, 10:45 PM

Ive been following this story since it broke, but the American media is doing quite a bad job of covering it. they stopped reporting it so they could show a couple mobile homes that got hit by a tornado.

atleast alabama got rid of that record. :p

kuranes

6 Nov 2005, 11:58 PM

There was a big "anarchy in the streets" thing going in Paris in the late 60's too, I believe. Vive la Liberte! Uh . . or something like that.

It will be interesting to see how far governments everywhere are willing to go to "be accepting of cultural differences". One more reason to keep church and state separate, regardless of the religion.

I see these boys raising hell in the libraries I've visited over the last few years, who are often middle eastern, with no parents around supervising. The librarians are tired of playing babysitter. One told me "Well, you know they were raised in a different culture." I went over and tried the nice guy approach for a while with these kids. At first it seemed to work, perhaps because I am a male. They didn't immediately go back to business as usual after being spoken to. But before long they'd be raising the ante again. ( I'm usually trying to concentrate on some fine print text in these situations. ) I would typically have to go over and lower the boom on them before they finally got the message. STFU!! People have said to me before, after hearing this, "Why do you feel a library should be quiet, Kuranes?" That really irritates me. The same people will tell you, in a bookstore, "Y'know, this isn't a LIBRARY, pal" if they're making a racket in there, while you try and read. I imagine that they also feel that they should be allowed to ride their bicycles on the interstate etc.

joft

7 Nov 2005, 12:25 AM

I'm planning on spending any significant amount of money that I may happen upon on a plane ticket to France so I can join the riots.

"Fuck the police," etc.

Serotonin

7 Nov 2005, 12:38 AM

If you're going to move to a different country, of course you should make an effort to assimilate yourself in order to get by. It's a shame that the overly-tolerant EU has played right into the hands of some sections of the Islamic community by defending their odious ideology, who have no semblance of reason or tolerance themselves.

There's only a certain point to which you can bend over backwards before you say "this is ridiculous".

Claverhouse

7 Nov 2005, 12:42 AM

Bit difficult to separate Church from State in Islam... Confessional politics certainly plagued old Europe, but nowhere, except for extreme prottie puritan outfits like the Anabaptists and Calvinistic states ( say, Geneva, Scotland, and some Nordic places ), not even Austria or Spanish extreme Roman Catholicism ever reached the subordination of the state to the pulpit as do muslim countries. Back there even the most devout King or Emperor would sharply slap down the Jesuits if their suggestions didn't co-incide with his own necessities; whereas in Islam even the Saudi 'Royal Family''s are pretty well bound to do what the religious insist on ( especially since the Saudis themselves fostered the puritan Wa'habbist extremists who developed bin Laden's lot and the Taliban ). For muslims, as for most other religions, the rest of the world is sinful for not submitting to their dictates; but especially for them the State is merely an instrument for their religion.

Actually, having looked, the link in the last quote is quite interesting for riots past: ( http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/20...ng-in-rain.html (http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2005/11/just-singing-in-rain.html) )

I liked this:

When we focus our attentions on the hand and dismiss the mind behind it we fall into the trap of obscurantism that will be our downfall as a civilization. We must know our enemies well, better than they know themselves, in fact, and Methvin's work, though it's dated and odd to our minds today, is still, for those with the curiousity and sensitivity for extrapolation, a wonderful textbook for study of the rioter's psychology and tactical programmes.
Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

kuranes

7 Nov 2005, 12:51 AM

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 01:04 AM

I read an interesting article yesterday or the day before but now I can't find it. The author mentioned population distributions, where the poor surburbs of Paris and other major french cities have become significantly less diverse (many now mostly consisting of Muslim immigrants) with white french citizens moving away. I think one of the figures was as high as 95%, unfortunately I can't remember the details, how big an area they were talking about, etc. But if that is true, then this explosion is not very surprising. As Claverhouse's posts say, the lack of integration is a serious issue. Even though the French claim to be good about it, an area that is 95% poor Muslim immigrants says otherwise. I can't remember if it was this article or another one that mentioned the Rodney King riots but wikipedia's "underlying causes" seem pretty fitting for the french case too:

In addition to the immediate trigger of the Rodney King verdict, there were many other factors cited as reasons for the unrest, including: the extremely high unemployment among residents of [[South Los Angeles|]], which had been hit very hard by the nation-wide recession; a long-standing perception that the LAPD engaged in racial profiling and used excessive force, supported by an investigation led by former diplomat Warren Christopher; and specific anger over the light sentence given to a Korean shop-owner for the shooting of Latasha Harlins, a young African-American woman. Additionally, in the time between the public revelation of King's beating and the trial verdict, the two largest L.A. street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, agreed to a truce with each other, and began working together to make political demands of the police and the LA political establishment, leading to the establishment of the Christopher Commission.

All it takes is a spark and all the tension expodes out onto the streets.

I'm going to come right out and say it: I think Islam is one of the most detrimental ideologies ever conceived.

Heh, I'm sure you expected a response to this; hopefully this doesn't explode into another race debate. I generally find statements like this a bit strange because they're so general. How would you describe the Islamic "ideology"? How do you feel the effects of Islam to be significantly different those of other "ideologies"?

Claverhouse

7 Nov 2005, 01:11 AM

I don't know all of the details on how effective they've been over the years, but there are some Muslim countries with a much more secular approach to things. In fact, I thought it amusing to note that Al Quaida disapproved of Syria for ostensibly being such. I hadn't thought Syria to be "on the outs" with Osama.
That would depend on the particular level of religiosity in the current community: say, the Barbary States weren't excessively devout, they were more interested in trading slaves. As for Syria, it was/is Ba'athist, which is although muslim through circumstance more of a pan-arabic socialist technocratic thing with strong beliefs in equality and other western concepts: Saddam's Ba'athist regime in Iraq was probably the most feminist government anywhere in the Middle East --- obviously, as in the West, one reason for this was to destroy traditional family structures, but it was quite sincere, as most evils are.

I don't understand why the Shiites are getting pushed around so much in Iraq either, if they outnumber the Sunni. I realize that in the Baghdad area, and a few others, they used to have more of a strangle hold, but that's over now. So why wouldn't the Shiites have quickly taken advantage of that vacuum?
I thought they had, thanks to America having shoved off Saddam: their new 'government' is Shi'ite dominated. And Sunni ex-airforce pilots for Saddam are being visited in their homes by squads with machine-pistols, but that's something for another thread...

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 01:21 AM

I don't understand why the Shiites are getting pushed around so much in Iraq either, if they outnumber the Sunni. I realize that in the Baghdad area, and a few others, they used to have more of a strangle hold, but that's over now. So why wouldn't the Shiites have quickly taken advantage of that vacuum?

They are. It just takes time. As the US sets up "democratic" structures for everyone, they have been letting the local politicians wrangle about the new constitution. The thing is though, that every (I'm fairly sure it is every) article in the constitution can go to a vote in the Iraqi parliament which is naturally going to have a Shia majority. I'm fairly sure that most of the constitution has not yet been agreed upon by all sides, Shia politicians being the main culprits in stalling the process. They will wait for things to settle and then pass all of their desired ammendments through the parliament. (Unfortunately I can't remember a lot of the details now, but that is the general idea anyway. I'm taking a course on Iraq next term so I will probably try to make a detailed thread about this in a few months.)

Claverhouse

7 Nov 2005, 01:24 AM

I'm going to come right out and say it: I think Islam is one of the most detrimental ideologies ever conceived. Heh, I'm sure you expected a response to this; hopefully this doesn't explode into another race debate. I generally find statements like this a bit strange because they're so general. How would you describe the Islamic "ideology"? How do you feel the effects of Islam to be significantly different those of other "ideologies"?
Although the present French troubles are partly about race --- both black and North African Arab immigrants et al --- Islam has nothing to do with race.

Although it is far more suited to Arabic peoples than White, but then I think the same about christianity: most world religions came out of the Middle East/India... but it is in itself an extremely anti-racialist religion, just happens that most of it's leaders are Arabs.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 01:40 AM

Although the present French troubles are partly about race --- both black and North African Arab immigrants et al --- Islam has nothing to do with race.

Although it is far more suited to Arabic peoples than White, but then I think the same about christianity: most world religions came out of the Middle East/India... but it is in itself an extremely anti-racialist religion, just happens that most of it's leaders are Arabs.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

Yes. . . what I meant was just that the likelyhood of a discussion on Islam turning into an anti-Arab (and reverse) flame war on forums is quite high given the massive spread of misconceptions and propaganda from both "sides." I didn't mean to sound like I was implying that it makes sense.

panda

7 Nov 2005, 01:46 AM

Heh, I'm sure you expected a response to this; hopefully this doesn't explode into another race debate. I generally find statements like this a bit strange because they're so general. How would you describe the Islamic "ideology"? How do you feel the effects of Islam to be significantly different those of other "ideologies"?

Is·lam Audio pronunciation of "Islam" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-läm, z-, släm, z-)
n.

1. A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.

i·de·ol·o·gy Audio pronunciation of "ideology" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

When I say Islam, I mean the religion.

I realize people will use any ideology and/or religion to justify their hate and violence. However, I think Islam is particularly bad.

This page (http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm) does a good job of exposing many of the more destructive aspects of the religion. (It's written from a Buddhist perspective, but is very informative for anyone. I encourage everyone to read the entire page if they have the time. The references are quite good.)

EDIT: There's a lot of dubious information in that article I linked to. It's not what I remembered it as being.

kuranes

7 Nov 2005, 01:50 AM

It seems like I'm always hearing about Shiites being blown up by bombs. I'm sure Sunnis get their share of this occasionally, but it's usually the Shiites I hear about. Even in the Sunni dominated areas.

Claverhouse - I was thinking of Turkey and Malaysia. I'm sure you can find some articles about screwed up things happening there too, but they are supposed to be less involved with religous zealotry. There may be places that are even better examples, if I were more familiar with this subject. Regardless, if there aren't any it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to keep the two separate here and elsewhere. See the threads on Pat Robertson.

Claverhouse

7 Nov 2005, 02:07 AM

I don't know anything about Malaysia, other than that Dr. M has strong views on our neo-imperialism and combines a refreshing lack of respect for western mores with a fondness for our technology; but Turkey is a secular state thanks to Ataturk ( which means our objections to Turkey joining the EU are more racialist than religious ), as I said where the religious impulse in a specific country is low the Islamic threat to others is equally low.

But the fact is, if you give muslims what they want in the name of tolerance, they will respond by setting up an intolerant state subjecting government to religious diktat: that doesn't matter in their own countries since they have the right to do what they wish, but it is a problem when they do it in the host country.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

kuranes

7 Nov 2005, 02:14 AM

If you're saying "Don't take shit from ANYBODY" I agree. Muslims no exception. I just know there's a lot of good ones out there being tarred by the brush of these firebrands.

BTW - I sometimes find my SELF with a lack of respect for Western mores.

Enigmacrypt - I am fond of Buddhism myself. Have you encountered Buddhists who are completely different than you? We were talking in other threads about this. There are forms of it which involve much ritual and formality - and who knows what else. And there are others that clearly show why it is considered more of a PHILOSOPHY, and NOT a religion. Yet all of these call themselves Buddhists.

Could not the same thing happen with Christianity? To explain the difference between warm people looking to help others and the zealots of the Inquisition?

What about Muslims? Probably a lot caught up in "radical forms" these days, and for sure we need to do something about that when it's a threat to us. But aren't there a lot who are NOT? You just don't hear about them. I don't care if they want to use a rock to symbolize their faith. Sometimes their criminal justice leaves something to be desired. So does ours, if you think about it. People getting raped because they're not in a gang, and don't have the bribe money. We just have to watch that nobody tries to get "God" into the courtroom or the whitehouse/congress.

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 02:27 AM

When I say Islam, I mean the religion.

I realize people will use any ideology and/or religion to justify their hate and violence. However, I think Islam is particularly bad.

This page (http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm) does a good job of exposing many of the more destructive aspects of the religion. (It's written from a Buddhist perspective, but is very informative for anyone. I encourage everyone to read the entire page if they have the time. The references are quite good.)

Ok first any site that references this: http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html deserves some skepticism.

I think your link suffers from the need for revenge. It doesn't really say that much. It defends Buddhism, fine whatever, but most of it's attacks on Islam are no different than the attacks Islam made on it. That is, they are ill-informed and poorly argued. I particularly enjoyed the comment on lack of arab culture, his argument being "how many Muslim sculptors, painters, composers or dramatists can you name?" Goodtimes.

Perhaps it would be best if you showed me the arguments that you think are particularly strong so I don't have to respond to the whole article. I'll do my best to address the points you feel are most important.

The main problem I see is that the article is focussing on either archaic or modern extremist forms of the religion. These are minority movements not really representative of Islam. Islam as generally practiced is not misogynistic, or hateful.

There is a common misconception, that this article also makes, that modern extremism is an Islamic movement. It is not. Islamic extremism is a modern movement and the religion is irrelevant to the the movement, which is more of a poor man's response to colonialism than anything. The fact that the the Europeans were the colonists, is based on geography and the fact that there are a lot of Arab (who happen to be Muslim) people responding is also geography. Islam is currently being used to recruit rebels but there are very few ideologies political, relgious whatever, that cannot be used this way.

I thought this discussion might synch up with the main topic again but I fell it drifting. . . if you are concerned about derailments maybe it would be better to PM.

panda

7 Nov 2005, 02:44 AM

Ok first any site that references this: http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html deserves some skepticism.
Everything deserves skepticism.

I particularly enjoyed the comment on lack of arab culture, his argument being "how many Muslim sculptors, painters, composers or dramatists can you name?" Goodtimes.
Yeah, I laughed out loud when I read that.

Perhaps it would be best if you showed me the arguments that you think are particularly strong so I don't have to respond to the whole article. I'll do my best to address the points you feel are most important.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to debate that article. I linked to it because I saw it the other day (so I knew how to quickly locate it), and I thought it had a few interesting points.

The main problem I see is that the article is focussing on either archaic or modern extremist forms of the religion. These are minority movements not really representative of Islam. Islam as generally practiced is not misogynistic, or hateful.
Really? That hasn't been my experience. *shrug*

I thought this discussion might synch up with the main topic again but I fell it drifting. . . if you are concerned about derailments maybe it would be better to PM.
I don't see how discussing Islam is a derailment. But I'll cease and desist if Claverhouse thinks it's off-topic.

panda

7 Nov 2005, 02:47 AM

There is a common misconception, that this article also makes, that modern extremism is an Islamic movement. It is not. Islamic extremism is a modern movement and the religion is irrelevant to the the movement, which is more of a poor man's response to colonialism than anything.
I'm not sure I follow you.

The fact that the the Europeans were the colonists, is based on geography and the fact that there are a lot of Arab (who happen to be Muslim) people responding is also geography.
Sure, but I don't see what relevance this has.

Islam is currently being used to recruit rebels but there are very few ideologies political, relgious whatever, that cannot be used this way.

I realize people will use any ideology and/or religion to justify their hate and violence.

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 03:25 AM

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I wanted to debate that article. I linked to it because I saw it the other day (so I knew how to quickly locate it), and I thought it had a few interesting points.

Really? That hasn't been my experience. *shrug*

Ah ok, fair enough. Two questions then:

What points? and

What experience? (if you don't mind me asking this potentially more personal question)

I'm not sure I follow you.

Ok. I used to have good article explaining this to great length but I lent it to my parents and I can't find it online. Anyway, to shorten it (from what I can remember) it responds to the common way that the religion of Islam is blamed for global terrorism (the bit that involves Muslims anyway, though that distinction is rarely made by attackers anymore). The author views Islamic extremism as a modern movement, in that it is primarily in response to European colonialism, not anything rooted in the Koran. The Koran and Islam provide a useful surface with which they can recruit, but the extremist instruction is based firmly in a 20th century revolutionary mindset, not one of religious instructuction. The recruiters say, "you are muslim, and it is because you are muslim that you are being oppressed. Allah wants you to fight back." But this could just as easily be any other doctrine.

Sure, but I don't see what relevance this has.
This is important because it means that it is not the religion that happens to reside in the geographical hotbed of resistence that is to blame, but the overhanging colonial dominance and the individual resistors that should be blamed for the phenomenon of religious extremism.

ptGatsby

7 Nov 2005, 03:59 AM

that the religion of Islam is blamed for global terrorism

All information from "Terrorism as state sponsored Covert Warfare", 1986.

Acts of terror, worldwide (Data from Risks International Inc.);

1981:
Europe 454
Latin America 1711
Middle East 352

1984:
Europe 470
Latin America 2218
Middle East 161

Note the time periods; This is after several upheavals by the CIA in an attempt to overthrow (and successfully, twice) governments in Latin America. (For more information, Bitter Fruit is the book to consult.

Twenty years later, and a few interventions in the Middle east later, the roles are reversed. I wouldn't be blaming religion for things until a lot of other correlations are first explained.

panda

7 Nov 2005, 04:08 AM

What points?
For example, the way they're encouraged to lie to non-Muslims if it advances Islam. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually taken directly from the Quran. More generally, the way in which they view non-Muslims.

What experience? (if you don't mind me asking this potentially more personal question)
I'm too lazy to go through my experiences in detail, but they've been (mainly) negative. I've lived all over the world, so I've been exposed to a good deal. I'm not saying all Muslims are bad; I've known a few Muslims who seemed like decent people. However, I'm sad to say that most Muslims I've encountered have been very disagreeable (and even dangerous) people.

I've actually run into several (Muslim) terrorists, overseas. On two different occasions. Not fun. I admit that these experiences have probably biased my views.

Ok. I used to have good article explaining this to great length but I lent it to my parents and I can't find it online. Anyway, to shorten it (from what I can remember) it responds to the common way that the religion of Islam is blamed for global terrorism (the bit that involves Muslims anyway, though that distinction is rarely made by attackers anymore). The author views Islamic extremism as a modern movement, in that it is primarily in response to European colonialism, not anything rooted in the Koran. The Koran and Islam provide a useful surface with which they can recruit, but the extremist instruction is based firmly in a 20th century revolutionary mindset, not one of religious instructuction. The recruiters say, "you are muslim, and it is because you are muslim that you are being oppressed. Allah wants you to fight back." But this could just as easily be any other doctrine.
Ok. Again, I agree that any doctrine can be used to justify extremism. What I'm saying is that I think Islam is highly conducive to such "misuse", if you will.

Claverhouse

7 Nov 2005, 04:15 AM

No objection to derailing ever, provided it returns eventually to France. Not that the primary interest is in Islam anyway, but it's a side-branch.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

Not that colonialism really affected the Middle East that much, more neo-colonialism once they discovered they needed oil after the invention of the combustion engine.

The Crusades weren't imperialistic: more like minor race movements to secure the Holy Land ( although you could say the Byzantines were interested in expanding their state; however they were instead steadily contracting it due to Turkic imperialism ). Anyway the Muslims were grabbing parts of Europe just the same.

Africa was the main place for western imperialism from the 18th century on, and India. ( Although India has been subjected to imperialism since she began, the French and British presences were mere short interludes ): no-one was much interested in the Middle East until the 20th century.

The British took over Egypt in the late 19th century, not very enthusiatically and not for settlement; and after WWI they and the French messed up the political status in the Middle East just because they could. After WWII the Americans did the same, genially slipping into the neo-colonial role it insisted those too, and the Dutch elsewhere, must abandon.

And of course Israel was founded, but that wasn't a western plot: that was down to the founding fathers of Israel, including Hitler amongst them: had he not persecuted the jews it is doubtful that the zionists could guilt the UN into recognising their land-grab.

Which all is another derailment.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 04:28 AM

For example, the way they're encouraged to lie to non-Muslims if it advances Islam. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually taken directly from the Quran. More generally, the way in which they view non-Muslims.
But that's the thing, Islam as generally practiced doesn't tell you to lie to non-Muslims. It's just an ambiguous phrase, pretty much all political and religious documents have them but that doesn't mean that text itself is bad because it can be misused.

I've actually run into several (Muslim) terrorists, overseas. On two different occasions. Not fun. I admit that these experiences have probably biased my views.[/QUOTE]
Bummer.

I realize people will use any ideology and/or religion to justify their hate and violence.

Whoops sorry, I missed that the first time and then forgot to make a note of it by saying "oops" the second time. hehe.

Anyway back to France. . .

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 04:36 AM

Serotonin

7 Nov 2005, 04:36 AM

booyalab

7 Nov 2005, 04:43 AM

I realize people will use any ideology and/or religion to justify their hate and violence. However, I think Islam is particularly bad.

I agree. The best way I can summarize why is that none of the contradictory teachings of the Koran have any historical context that muslim scholars can use to justify them. This is in stark contrast to the Bible. The more you study the Bible, the more cohesive it becomes. The more one studies the Koran, the more obvious it becomes why there are such huge disagreements within the idealogy. Also, it doesn't help that there's no unifying authority. So Islam is either a 'peaceful' religion, or a 'vindictive' religion, depending on what passages you reference and what passages you ignore.

PenguinHunter

7 Nov 2005, 05:07 AM

I agree. The best way I can summarize why is that none of the contradictory teachings of the Koran have any historical context that muslim scholars can use to justify them. This is in stark contrast to the Bible. The more you study the Bible, the more cohesive it becomes. The more one studies the Koran, the more obvious it becomes why there are such huge disagreements within the idealogy. Also, it doesn't help that there's no unifying authority. So Islam is either a 'peaceful' religion, or a 'vindictive' religion, depending on what passages you reference and what passages you ignore.

How do you mean no unifying authority? How is Christianity any more unified? I still don't follow how this extends to Islam being particularly bad. Doesn't it make more sense to look at the historical context surrounding the region first? (see ptgatsby's stats) If you can establish economic or political reasons for Middle Eastern terrorists (which I think you can) the the fact that they use the most common ideology of the region as a surface support is completely irrelevent to any judgment you can pass on that ideology. You can say that there are more and deeper contradictions in the Koran than in the Bible, and even if it's true, (I don't necessarily believe it is) it doesn't really matter does it?

Claverhouse

7 Nov 2005, 05:31 AM

Well, I can't see any particular plot narrative in the Old Testament: mainly people doing extraordinarily nasty things to one another; but the same criticism could be made of the Bible: Calvinists found reasons to make life a misery and burn their enemies, as did the Popes; whereas Francis of Assisi found other tenets more vital to his beliefs.

In the buddhist page above I rather liked the suggestion that the present Pope was...

But we must always bear in mind that though Islam is the enemy, Muslims aren't. Love is superior to hatred and hopefully will overcome it even when hatred has been indoctrinated from earliest childhood. Remember, the Pope was once a Nazi! Er, he was a member of the Hitlerjugend, which was not optional and was conscripted before deserting... And the writer, who seems obsessed with nazis anyway, keeps talking of Cardinal Ratzinger as if they weren't the same person.

Hitler was defeated by allied supremacy in aircraft design, radar and cryptography .

No, Hitler was defeated by the Red Army, which wouldn't have succeeded without American war-material; and a number of other things. It's not as if the Germans weren't churning out brilliant technology themselves.

The Koran is a twisted, psychopathic hate-manual on a par with Mein Kampf.
Um, Mein Kampf, which is very dull mostly, is not a psychopathic hate-manual either.

As the prominent Nazi Hermann Rausching observed 'If the Jew did not exist, we should have to invent him'
Rausching's memoirs weren't very kosher, being made-up, but it's just a variation on Voltaire's 'If God didn't exist, we would have to invent Him'

The Muslim is a potentially normal human being who has been infected with a rabid meme that turns him into a killing machine - just as a happy, friendly dog might be infected by the rabies virus and in its madness attack all around it.

However, for the record, the following sick, sadistic fantasies are quoted in the original as authentic passages from the Koran:...
The Talmud, both types, have their sick sadistic fantasies too, some involving the Christ being boiled eternally in semen: doesn't really mean even devout jews take them seriously. For that matter, Revelations doesn't seem that realistic.

And anyone who takes General Boykin as a source has problems: he's the old fool who saw Satan in a vast oily cloud thingie writhing above Iraq. Literally.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

But anyway, I suppose that is what you mean by neo-colonialism. Yup. Not the old land-grab and subjugation: just keeping a body of troops there to protect the government you have installed. Still goes on, like in... Iraq.

panda

7 Nov 2005, 05:38 AM

Ok, ok. The article I linked to is full of bullshit. I was obviously suffering from severe delusions when I originally read it, and thought it interesting.

I'd blame my poor judgment on something more substantive... but I'm fresh out of excuses.

charred_heart

7 Nov 2005, 01:21 PM

And of course Israel was founded, but that wasn't a western plot: that was down to the founding fathers of Israel, including Hitler amongst them: had he not persecuted the jews it is doubtful that the zionists could guilt the UN into recognising their land-grab.

Which all is another derailment.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif
Hmmm... I found this to be interesting:

“There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”
-Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, British Prime Minister 1906-1908

that's almost a 100 years ago. We are definately living in "interesting times"

Purple-Silver Fox

7 Nov 2005, 01:33 PM

Any religion is a way of feeling better than non-believers. You don't have to be or do something special, just believe. After that, you can justify almost everything by the religion. So any religion is just a neutral factor in human behavior, except that it suppresses objectivity in favor of belief.

The riots in France are an expression of discontentment that has been present for a long time. It will die down after a while, because there are no persons or organisation that channeling that energy. If there was a Gandhi or a Mandela present it could defuse the situation within years, but now only the shadow of bin Laden serves as inspiration.

charred_heart

7 Nov 2005, 01:40 PM

For example, the way they're encouraged to lie to non-Muslims if it advances Islam. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually taken directly from the Quran. More generally, the way in which they view non-Muslims.
That article you read is pure propeganda, similiar to the anti-buddhist propeganda written by the muslim cleric mentioned in the article. This practice is referred to as TAQIYYA? The word TAQIYYA in arabic means devoutness and a devout muslim is described by the adjective TAQI. Hypocrasy is extremely frowned upon in islam, and the ends do not justify the means according to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. If for example what's happening in France was inticed by a cleric for personal reasons (maybe personal hatred towards the French) he would be a hypocrite in Islam or a MUNAFIQ, and he would be personally held responsible for any deaths in the riot if tried under sharia law. Ofcourse I don't know how the riots started but I'm just giving an example.

charred_heart

7 Nov 2005, 02:50 PM

I realised that reading my last post one might get the impression that starting a riot with a belief it's the right thing to do is the islamic way. That's not true. If a muslim commits a crime believing he is right in doing so, he/she will be sentenced according to the crime he/she commited and the sentence will accordingly be reduced if the criminal is remorseful (pleads guilty). A hypocrite in Islam is a different matter entirely. It's a person who plays on people's emotions/morals causing events which either only bring him/her personal gain (i.e a scam) or even worse a rift in society, in extreme cases civil war. A hypocrite's sentence is amplified above the actions he / she commited because of the underlying intention.

Islam considers people of influence who have questionable intentions the most dangerous members of society, more dangerous than murderers. The maximum sentence for a hypocrite who was instrumental in a major social crisis is death. Hypocrasy (of a certain level) is likened to treason.

The wisdom of that is obvious in this era.

Sue Denim

7 Nov 2005, 03:34 PM

Last night, I listened to an interview with Tony Blankley (Washington Times editor and author a book "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?"), who talked about several trends that he identified with regard to Islam, particularly "fundamentalist" Islam. For example, he talks about how Islamic populations are increasing, while European populations have slowed or had negative population growth. He also states that there are a growing number of funamentalist muslims as a precentage, and points to conflict in the near future. He also pointed to some attitude shifts, for example the idea of Sharia used to be for Islamic countries only, but more recently, it is being advocated wherever Muslims happen to be.

If you find this thread interesting, you might also like the interview:
http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2005/Blankley.html

I'm still trying to understand this whole issue. It seems to be rather complex and multidimensional when I look at it in the aggregate, although the reporting is often oversimplistic. What always strikes me as odd is that NONE of the Muslims I've ever met were "fundamentalists", nor were they anything like what I hear described in the media. They all do seem very sincere in their beliefs, however.

panda

7 Nov 2005, 03:43 PM

charred_heart: Thanks for the information. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya) is the wikipedia entry for Taqiyya, which I found interesting.

I admit that I'm not very knowledgeable on the actual teachings of Islam. I've been basing my impressions on my (negative) experiences with Muslims, in the past.

I rather regret instigating this discussion...

To get back on topic: Claverhouse, how do you think the French government should be handling the current situation?

charred_heart

7 Nov 2005, 07:07 PM

charred_heart: Thanks for the information. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya) is the wikipedia entry for Taqiyya, which I found interesting.

Intersting, I only know the arabic word for devoutness which is pronounced in the same way. The practice of hiding one's religion in a hostile environment might have a name but I don't know it - I only know the concept. I'll check with my father, he'll know more about this...

I only hope we have cleared some things up about islam for better or worse

chatoyer

7 Nov 2005, 08:01 PM

Claverhouse

7 Nov 2005, 09:56 PM

Weirdly --- one of those worrying coincidences that make things seem planned --- the night before this thread whilst looking up some video games I'd found this page of Jerry Pournelle's blog which disposes of the belief that the Prophet married a nine-yr-old or was a molester, despite the writer's unenthusiasm for Islam. Just to clear up part of the buddhist extremism...
MAIL 210 2002 (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail210.html) right down the page
( Mr. Pournelle is an SF writer, but I've never read him. Main Home here (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/index.html). )

Hmmm... I found this to be interesting:
“There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradle of human civilizations and religions.

These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.

No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another... if per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.

Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”
-Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, British Prime Minister 1906-1908
It is interesting, particularly since liberals like him cause most of the trouble in the world... [ See Geo. W. & Tony Blair imposing democracy wherever they see fit. ] But, --- and it seems to have come from a report commissioned by him, rather than he, so was probably offering additional reasons for such a lunatic action which was in reality driven by the insane type of christianity that saw only good from helping the zionists achieve their aims [ See, Geo. W. & Tony Blair declaring wars that help only Israel ] and helping along Armageddon and the Second Coming.

Note that Balfour, a conservative, joined with Lloyd George and the other liberals in imposing the nascent jewish state in Palestine: all driven through christian solidarity with the jewish cause. It is fairly impossible to imagine Lord Salisbury, Balfour's uncle and previous conservative prime minister, wishing to do anything so silly: but Salisbury wasn't a christian enthusiast.

Also, all this was driven by the collapse of the Ottoman Porte, which shows that had the Turks remained strong and strong-willed these events wouldn't have happened: a lesson for Europe to avoid collapse and surrender. Further the idea in the passage of a body of immigrants being imported to act against the cohesiveness of the area and to stultify it's will and expansion, can be precisely reversed to explain why having so many muslim --- or other --- immigrants in Europe will act against Europe as a Trojan Horse.

I rather regret instigating this discussion...
Na, why not ?

To get back on topic: Claverhouse, how do you think the French government should be handling the current situation?
With extreme will and decision: they should deport any immigrants who have no wish to recognise the French supremacy in France; shoot any rioters --- then knock down the quite hideous concrete slums, rehouse people in more traditional houses; institute a socialist economy that provides some work for all who want it, even if it means the managers and bourgeoisie get used to less reward; and not import any more migrants, concentrating on their own working-class --- fuck all that about needing more people to run the economy: modern economies are far too heavily bloated and we should make do with what we have, even if populations decline. Modern France, or any other country, hasn't any of the vigour and achievement that those countries had in the 17th century with only one tenth of the population.

And of course, abolish the Republic, and either:

a/ Restore the Bourbon monarchy with full powers ( Louis XX, now Duc D'Anjou )
or
b/ Merge irrevocably with Germany, as some French suggested before WWI, the new state, covering the Carolingian Empire and more to be ruled by the Hohenzollern Kaiser ( Georg I ).

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

Nemesis

7 Nov 2005, 11:55 PM

i didnt read many of the posts but ill just say this... dont condemn Arabs in general, condemn radicals of any religion who twist "gods will" to justify means with intentions...

IE- Bush and Bin Laden

panda

8 Nov 2005, 12:11 AM

With extreme will and decision: they should deport any immigrants who have no wish to recognise the French supremacy in France; shoot any rioters --- then knock down the quite hideous concrete slums, rehouse people in more traditional houses; institute a socialist economy that provides some work for all who want it, even if it means the managers and bourgeoisie get used to less reward; and not import any more migrants, concentrating on their own working-class --- fuck all that about needing more people to run the economy: modern economies are far too heavily bloated and we should make do with what we have, even if populations decline. Modern France, or any other country, hasn't any of the vigour and achievement that those countries had in the 17th century with only one tenth of the population.

And of course, abolish the Republic, and either:

a/ Restore the Bourbon monarchy with full powers ( Louis XX, now Duc D'Anjou )
or
b/ Merge irrevocably with Germany, as some French suggested before WWI, the new state, covering the Carolingian Empire and more to be ruled by the Hohenzollern Kaiser ( Georg I ).

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif
Very interesting. I enjoy reading your POV on these things. (The breadth of your knowledge of history is intimidating.)

The only potential downside I can see with the strong approach you suggest, is the potential backlash by the "international community". Although, if the US can get away with invading Iraq...

Nemesis

8 Nov 2005, 12:17 AM

or
b/ Merge irrevocably with Germany, as some French suggested before WWI, the new state, covering the Carolingian Empire and more to be ruled by the Hohenzollern Kaiser ( Georg I ).
Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

that would be pretty cool

kuranes

8 Nov 2005, 05:17 AM

It is interesting, particularly since liberals like him cause most of the trouble in the world... [ See Geo. W. & Tony Blair imposing democracy wherever they see fit. ]
Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

So Dubyah's a "liberal" now?

PenguinHunter

8 Nov 2005, 06:29 AM

So Dubyah's a "liberal" now?

Compared to the evil and highly oppressive Arabian penninsula? Of course! /sarcasm

Dunearhp

8 Nov 2005, 10:52 AM

So Dubyah's a "liberal" now?

Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative. The meanings change depending on where you are.

In Australia, the Liberal party is full of conservatives, although our preferential voting system pressures both sides of parliament to pretend they are moderates.

Every time I read a political discussion here, I have to look at the poster's location before I know which group they are talking about.

mgb

8 Nov 2005, 05:00 PM

So Dubyah's a "liberal" now?

Theorhetically, you could argue that while he holds quite neo-conservative values, he also likes to take advantage of liberalism whenever possible. In a way, like Claverhouse pointed out earlier, the Muslim extremists take advantage of all those "loosey goosey" liberal laws to publish their extremist and hateful literature (I'm all for anti-hate speech/crime laws). Bush does the same thing. He takes advantage of liberal laws, really any laws for that matter, to further his agenda.

It's really the paradox of any system, that you actually have to work within the framework of the system, no matter your political slant. So you find people doing things in the system they don't necessarily condone others to do. "Do as I say, not as I do." So to speak.

I also think it's why people get so easily frustrated with systems and eventually the systems change to a new system, which people get frustrated with, and the cycle continues on for humanity as it always has. One day people will hopefully realize the futility of it all.

mgb

8 Nov 2005, 05:06 PM

One thing I think is not being addressed here is the underlying cause of these riots and religion for that matter.

It's not Islam burning cars or shooting police, it's people. While I think there is certainly a sociology behind all these actions, there is definetly a psychology too. We should also be wondering what drove a normally law abiding citizen (as far as I know) into setting ablaze probably more than a few cars? I think it's something that goes past religion and ethnicity and is something more basic in human nature, something that's not so different from person to person, something we are all capable of.

Claverhouse

8 Nov 2005, 07:02 PM

So Dubyah's a "liberal" now?
Dubyah's historical legacy of ideas derive from Locke ( freedom under representative government = aristocracy ), Adam Smith ( capitalism under the hidden, sorry, invisible hand ), Jefferson ( democratic slave-owning ), John Stuart Mill ( The greatest good of the greatest number of dollars in your pocket ) and FDR ( free-spending state socialism ). So he's a liberal anywhere.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

ShadyShady

9 Nov 2005, 12:24 AM

check the bolded part, family breakdown caused by feminism, same thing thats destroying the ghettos of america.
__________________________________________________________

Angry Paris suburbs simmered a long time
'Death of love has destroyed a whole generation'

SAINT DENIS, Paris (AP) -- They move in packs at night, burning and wrecking. Their anger is both blind and targeted. They torch their own neighborhoods as well as symbols of the French state that some feel oppresses them.

Whatever their motivation, youths leading the violence that in 10 nights has spread across France sow fear, anger and frustration among their fellow residents of "Les Cites" -- grim, public housing estates on the outskirts of French cities heavily populated by poor Arab and black Africans.

Some officials suspect the unrest that reached into Paris proper early Sunday has in part been instigated by gangs hoping to turn their neighborhoods into no-go zones for police so drug trafficking and racketeering can thrive.

But the roots are broader than that. Racism and widespread joblessness among minorities have left young people of the slums languishing in hopelessness and despair, creating the tinderbox of anger that has exploded. (Watch French teens explain the anger -- 2:08)

It is not just the riots, though. Many in the gritty inner suburbs live in fear of young thugs who roam the streets at night, robbing, selling drugs and intimidating residents, particularly women.

'I want to go somewhere calm'
"People here are bad. I don't want to live here anymore," Rebab Khalil, an 11-year-old whose divorced parents came from Tunisia, said when asked about the gangs.

She lives in Saint-Denis, northeast of Paris, but she dreams of life "in a big house, on a quiet street. I want to live in the country, where it is calm."

Mounir, a 14-year-old who would not give his name fearing his father's wrath, also wants to leave, saying he does not like that other boys burn cars and steal.

"I want to go somewhere calm," said Mounir, who suffered burns on his left hand -- apparently from a projectile thrown during clashes between youths and police in nearby Clichy-Sous-Bois on October 27, the first night of rioting that erupted after two teenage boys were electrocuted while hiding from police in the suburb.

The violence is forcing France to confront the long-simmering anger in its suburbs. They arefertile terrain for crime of all sorts as well as Muslim extremists who recruit frustrated youths. France has some 5 million Muslims, the biggest Islamic population in western Europe.

Sonia Imloul, who works with troubled teens in Seine-Saint-Denis, the northeastern Paris suburb hit hardest by the unrest, said youths often feel trapped.

"It is very, very difficult to leave this place," she said. "There is a stigma attached to being a resident of this place."

Absence of fathers

Families break down in the pressure-cooker of crime, poverty and unemployment. Many single mothers are left to fend alone, said Imloul, a single mother herself whose Algerian parents divorced before her father's death.

"Fathers do not play any role in their children's lives. The father doesn't exist at all. French justice gives full rights to mothers," Imloul said.

Coming to France has given some Muslim North African women new freedoms.

"They want to lead a similar life as their French counterparts," Imloul said. "But it is very difficult to leave a patriarchal culture all of a sudden. Women take on the responsibility of both mother and father while they are not at all suited for it. In the end, it is their children who suffer."

She estimated 40 percent of families in the suburbs where she works are dysfunctional, causing a high rate of school dropouts, drug use, petty crimes and aggressive behavior. Police records for petty crimes burden youths, making it harder to build a productive life, she said.

"Those who set fire to cars and buildings are not criminals. They are young kids. What are 12-year-olds doing in the streets at midnight? Parents have no control over them," Imloul said.

She said the absence of fathers causes some boys to become apathetic, while girls often rush into unsuitable marriages that often lead to divorce and some turn to drugs and prostitution.

"There's so much of this in this community," Imloul said. "Death of love has destroyed a whole generation."

'I'm never going to get a job'

Suburban youths often show little will to improve their lot.

Rawa Khalil, 15, has no interest in education. "No motivation," she said simply. It is easier to become a hair stylist and marry and have children, she said.

Mounir, the 14-year-old with the burned arm, claims no desire to go to college, though in a perfect world he sees himself as a banker.

"But with the way things are now, the future is not certain. There's no point in studying. I'm never going to get a job," he said.

Defeatism hits parents, too, and some are accomplices to their children's crimes. Some mothers hide the drugs their sons peddle in their homes, Imloul said.

Most parents, however, are law-abiding and fear for their children, she said.

Mounir said his parents forbid him from going to dangerous zones of his neighborhood, where thugs lurk in the dark to rob residents. "My parents tell me to say indoors when dark, and steer clear of drugs," he said.

Seven-year-old Talal Khalil jumps to the window at every sound from the outside.

"It is very scary," he said. "Every night they set fire to cars."

Talal wants to be a firefighter when he grows up, "so I can put out the fires of the burning cars."

kendoiwan

9 Nov 2005, 12:29 AM

Oh shyt Shady's back!?!? :worthy: where you been hiding?

Nemesis

9 Nov 2005, 12:40 AM

Dubyah's historical legacy of ideas derive from Locke ( freedom under representative government = aristocracy ), Adam Smith ( capitalism under the hidden, sorry, invisible hand ), Jefferson ( democratic slave-owning ), John Stuart Mill ( The greatest good of the greatest number of dollars in your pocket ) and FDR ( free-spending state socialism ). So he's a liberal anywhere.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

thats true except for that everytime an election comes around bush's attack adds talk about how "liberals are destroying american family life"

ShadyShady

9 Nov 2005, 12:46 AM

"They are revolting against a consumer, self-absorbed, emasculated, metrosexual, feminist culture that just doesn't give a damn about them. The French are a screwed up people, and are actually quite frightened right now, not so much by rioting youth, but more so by the fact that their culture is dying. French women simply are not having children. They've just plain stopped having them. That's a remarkable social phenomenon. Now they just want to smoke Gitanes, go to discos, speak English with a crappy accent, and look "post-modern." That's it. Their culture is toast, and they're petrified."

ShadyShady

9 Nov 2005, 02:14 AM

Oh shyt Shady's back!?!? :worthy: where you been hiding?

After defeating the wretched beast known as deepsky, I moved on to another battlefield. I just got my Male Privileges card renewed and it says I am entitled to having my way with atleast one woman per week so I figured I'd look around here for a bit.

kuranes

9 Nov 2005, 02:29 AM

Dubyah's historical legacy of ideas derive from Locke ( freedom under representative government = aristocracy ), Adam Smith ( capitalism under the hidden, sorry, invisible hand ), Jefferson ( democratic slave-owning ), John Stuart Mill ( The greatest good of the greatest number of dollars in your pocket ) and FDR ( free-spending state socialism ). So he's a liberal anywhere.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

LOL I never thought of him as being that complex of a guy. As far as the American perception of a "Liberal", his druthers are contrary to that. It may be true that ultimately the Democrats and the Republicans are not really that different when the rubber finally hits the road, but the way they market themselves sure is.

Claverhouse

9 Nov 2005, 02:50 AM

LOL I never thought of him as being that complex of a guy.
He's a very complicated man, tortured by his existential crisis as an ordinary joe who happens to be the most powerful man on earth. Dostoevskyan in his tragic pity for all mankind. Plus a mega-father-complex and his self-understanding as most miserable of sinners. But at least he's got moral certitude that he is doing the right thing thanks to the grace of Satan.

It's only too easy to laugh and sneer at him.

Thank God.

Claverhouse http://intpcentral.com/forums/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[ It does seem strange: I mean I know he's the son of the ex-head of the security service who happened to be pressie himself; but really, you have 300 million people... Even if only .001% were suitable... ]