Why Paris is burning

Quote from Burtakus:

I can just about gaurantee that if the police go in there with orders to shoot to kill any attacker things might calm down enough to at least stop the lawlessness enough to have a discussion. .

Either way the muslims there are going to have to learn that they are subject to French law, not Islamic law.

Fully agree with you on this.
 
Quote from Babak:

I'll leave the discussion of why Paris is burning to others (is it the fault of rampaging Muslim/Arab youth or grannies protesting against the lack of metamucil laced red wine?).

Turn over the police to me and I'll have the riots ended in 24 hours. Here's my plan:

First, drop paper leaflets by plane and announce on TV and radio: a 11 pm curfew on the city for the next 5 days. Also include part two in the annoucement...

Second, order the police to shoot to kill anyone outside their house, building, etc. (I don't care if they are walking, driving, biking, riding a camel, etc.) after the curfew, if they so much as sneeze towards them. If the person offending the curfew isn't a threat they are arrested and booked.

Third, get in there with fortified bulldozers (rent some from Israel) and fire trucks to clean up the burnt cars and other crap in the streets. Aesthetics matter because they affect people's psychology.

Fourth, call up the army to do foot patrols in the rest of the city (where rioting hasn't spread).

But that makes too much sense. Might as well let them keep going night after night while they debate in parliament and wring their hands.

As you say it makes to much sense for a politician to do this.. :(
 
Quote from Burtakus:

I can just about gaurantee that if the police go in there with orders to shoot to kill any attacker things might calm down enough to at least stop the lawlessness enough to have a discussion. The only problem is, does France have enough balls to take that step and follow it to the end. This should be a last resort but how long are you going to allow this crap to continue before you decide to take a radical action such as clearing the streeets with deadly force.

Either way the muslims there are going to have to learn that they are subject to French law, not Islamic law.

The violence is caused by gangs, most of which are linked to drug dealing, which represents the major part of the economy in these areas. The islam-factor may be an element to it, but only as a catalyst not the main cause. So let me rephrase that last sentence into : "Either way the hudlums there are going to have to learn that they are subject to French law." Enough anti-islamic intellectual masturbation.
 
Quote from kalashnicac:

I wonder if Robert Spencer has actually ever been to France. What does he know about the values of these people? I think these people have the classic values of people who are fed up with a system in which they feel (rightly or not, it is not the question) they are left aside. I'm sure that had these people been buddhists, Robert Spencer would find some way to explain that buddhist values are not compatible with the French ones.
No, and no.

The difference is that the Buddhists wouldn’t try to influence French politics. The difference is that there is no other religion on this planet that fuses an insidious and aggressive political mandate with its faith. The Koran is very concise about this, and it does not come from some fanatical interpretation of Islam by a group of bin Laden cooks.

Political-Islam today spreads by riding the coat tails of naïve Western Socialist idle bureaucrats, naïve Leftist intellectuals, and misguided self-proclaimed “liberals,” who all mistakenly believe this is just another example of a class struggle, or systemic racism, or a government which never seems to reach out to ethnic minorities and the poor.

This negligence only causes a critical mass of non-assimilation by immigrants. Young Muslims get wooed into an emerging infrastructure of political-Islam, which encourages them to “follow the faith” and voluntarily isolate themselves from non-Muslims, in a non-Muslim country.

What Socialist thinkers consistently miss is the fact that poor people get angry when they are told that they have been screwed, rather than being encouraged to prosper. Today’s generation of poor Muslims who live in these “Islamic cysts” within non-Muslim countries tend to be angry, because they have a political-religious infrastructure that tells them they should be angry.

Nobody forced the immigrants to flock to France. It’s a privilege, and not a right. They should rise up to French secular society, instead. And when you have this political-religious infrastructure in place that can grow from the inside out and organize mass riots and protests against the society within hours of some incident, you realize France has a serious problem.

Quote from kalashnicac:

I fail to see the link between the Paris riots+failure of the French "system" and the war in Irak, what's this stuff about buying insurance by not helping the US in the Irak conflict...? I agree about the French system failing however, but a lot of French intellectual have pointed that out a long time ago.

France does not hate the US, France hates the current US policy in the world. So does the rest of Europe (to the exception of Poland, for some reason...) and most countries all around the world-I'm talking about public opinions, not government policy.

Bottom line, I think that these journalists were just too happy to find something wrong about France and draw conclusions as to the reasons-and just threw in the French position concerning Irak. Not very serious journalism. But hey, you get the same type of stupid articles in France about the US; not in mainstream newspapers though, rather in trotskyite or communist newspapers (only in some, not all hard left wing journalists are idiots).
You’re right about the opinion journalism coming from all sides, including the first two I posted. But the French and the Americans have always thrown pot shots at each other while maintaining a level of mutual respect for each of our Western cultures.

As for U.S. policy, of course the anti-Capitalists hate it, and I don’t know if the French ever liked our policies for the most part.
 
Quote from Sam123:

No, and no.

The difference is that the Buddhists wouldn’t try to influence French politics. The difference is that there is no other religion on this planet that fuses an insidious and aggressive political mandate with its faith. The Koran is very concise about this, and it does not come from some fanatical interpretation of Islam by a group of bin Laden cooks.

Political-Islam today spreads by riding the coat tails of naïve Western Socialist idle bureaucrats, naïve Leftist intellectuals, and misguided self-proclaimed “liberals,” who all mistakenly believe this is just another example of a class struggle, or systemic racism, or a government which never seems to reach out to ethnic minorities and the poor.

This negligence only causes a critical mass of non-assimilation by immigrants. Young Muslims get wooed into an emerging infrastructure of political-Islam, which encourages them to “follow the faith” and voluntarily isolate themselves from non-Muslims, in a non-Muslim country.

What Socialist thinkers consistently miss is the fact that poor people get angry when they are told that they have been screwed, rather than being encouraged to prosper. Today’s generation of poor Muslims who live in these “Islamic cysts” within non-Muslim countries tend to be angry, because they have a political-religious infrastructure that tells them they should be angry.

Nobody forced the immigrants to flock to France. It’s a privilege, and not a right. They should rise up to French secular society, instead. And when you have this political-religious infrastructure in place that can grow from the inside out and organize mass riots and protests against the society within hours of some incident, you realize France has a serious problem.

You’re right about the opinion journalism coming from all sides, including the first two I posted. But the French and the Americans have always thrown pot shots at each other while maintaining a level of mutual respect for each of our Western cultures.

As for U.S. policy, of course the anti-Capitalists hate it, and I don’t know if the French ever liked our policies for the most part.

Well, you sound exactly like the National Front, the French neo-fascist party ! I could translate some of the stuff they write and be pretty close to what you are posting : French secular society, naive western socialist bureaucrats and intellectual, it's a privilege to be French etc. The vocabulary is very similar. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you are a fascist, you just sound like one...

A few things you have left out though : the "free-mason and zionist conspiracy against France", gaz chambers were a detail of history-in fact there is no proof they actually existed, communism is satan, North African countries should never have been granted independence, Saddam Hussein is a real nice guy (leaders of the National Front used to meet him on a regular basis), we are the real patriots and the zionist/free mason/naive intellectual/elistist/socialist/communist media refuses to let us express our opinion, etc.
 
Sigh… You know what I said has nothing to do with fascism, and you choose to completely ignore my points about political Islam. So I’m not going to waste my breath and instead leave you with another snippet –not particular about France-- but something more general:

“…Islamists constantly accuse the West, especially America, of aggression; in private they consider it weak, soft, and decadent. The Islamist view of "the Westerner" resembles that of the Mexican image of the gringo as simple, gullible, and easily deceived. Bluntly put: large numbers of Middle Easterners consider "the Westerner" to be more honest than "the Muslim," and Western governments easier to handle than Muslim governments. Westerners being considered capable of contrition and prone to self-criticism, much anti-Western rhetoric aims to inculcate self-doubt. Besides, Islamists have taken to heart the Leninist notion that the West will sell the rope by which to hang itself. The Iran/contra scandal did much to reinforce this belief but Desert Storm counteracted it by showing an unexpected determination on the part of Westerners…”

--“Muslims in the West: Can Conflict Be Averted?”
by Daniel Pipes and Khalid Durán
United States Institute of Peace
August 1993
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/232


Quote from kalashnicac:

Well, you sound exactly like the National Front, the French neo-fascist party ! I could translate some of the stuff they write and be pretty close to what you are posting : French secular society, naive western socialist bureaucrats and intellectual, it's a privilege to be French etc. The vocabulary is very similar. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying you are a fascist, you just sound like one...

A few things you have left out though : the "free-mason and zionist conspiracy against France", gaz chambers were a detail of history-in fact there is no proof they actually existed, communism is satan, North African countries should never have been granted independence, Saddam Hussein is a real nice guy (leaders of the National Front used to meet him on a regular basis), we are the real patriots and the zionist/free mason/naive intellectual/elistist/socialist/communist media refuses to let us express our opinion, etc.
 
Quote from Sam123:

Sigh… You know what I said has nothing to do with fascism, and you choose to completely ignore my points about political Islam. So I’m not going to waste my breath and instead leave you with another snippet –not particular about France-- but something more general:

“…Islamists constantly accuse the West, especially America, of aggression; in private they consider it weak, soft, and decadent. The Islamist view of "the Westerner" resembles that of the Mexican image of the gringo as simple, gullible, and easily deceived. Bluntly put: large numbers of Middle Easterners consider "the Westerner" to be more honest than "the Muslim," and Western governments easier to handle than Muslim governments. Westerners being considered capable of contrition and prone to self-criticism, much anti-Western rhetoric aims to inculcate self-doubt. Besides, Islamists have taken to heart the Leninist notion that the West will sell the rope by which to hang itself. The Iran/contra scandal did much to reinforce this belief but Desert Storm counteracted it by showing an unexpected determination on the part of Westerners…”

--“Muslims in the West: Can Conflict Be Averted?”
by Daniel Pipes and Khalid Durán
United States Institute of Peace
August 1993
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/232

kalashnicac;

You asked earlier what Zionist had to do with it!

You see, that Daniel Pipes Osama123 is talking about is the same one who an outspoken supporter of positions taken by the governing Likud Party in Israel, to the extent even of opposing the US-backed "road map" designed to lead to an independent Palestinian state.

To encourage "moderation" among Palestinians, he has written, "the Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them".

Pipes' personal views on the conflict can be traced back to the early days of the struggle. In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an ideological father to the Israeli right wing, wrote that there would be no peace until the Arabs in Israel were psychologically crushed. "As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish that hope," he declared. More than a decade later, David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel's first prime minister, echoed those sentiments. "For only after total despair on the part of the Arabs, a despair that will come not only from the failure of the disturbances and the attempt at rebellion, but also as a consequence of our growth as a country, may the Arabs possibly acquiesce in a Jewish state of Israel," he wrote in 1936.

Today, such views are most strongly held in Israel by right-wing political parties, and in America by Jewish supporters of the Israeli settlement movement and evangelical Christians, who have found common cause with the hard-line aspects of the pro-Israel lobby. Those groups were well represented at the Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit, which began May 17 at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington D.C. Pipes was greeted there as a celebrity, receiving standing ovations before and after his speech.

He is also the man who created what is known as "Campus watch", an orginization who first harasses then spies,threatenes, bullies and try to intimidate university professors, including Jewish ones who support the Palestinian cause. And if that fails and some of these professors show some spine, they simply make frudelent claimes against them.

Some of the orginizations that he chairs or is a member of accused some Jews of being antisematic.

He caused the expousion of some of the most permenant Jewish figures from their university posts like Mr. Joel Beinin who was a libral and a very strong critic of the Likud party.

Pipes frequently issues warnings, declaring that militant American Muslims intend to mount a second American Revolution, and impose Islamic law. In this context, he has criticized Bush for suggesting in public that Islam is a peaceful religion. "All Muslims, unfortunately, are suspect," he wrote in a recent book, though he added that only "10 to 15 percent" of Muslims are militant. If Muslims have jobs in the military, law enforcement or diplomacy, Pipes states in another column, "they need to be watched for connections to terrorism." He also finds Muslim immigration problematic: "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

I hope you see where my point is stemming from.
 
Bla bla bla. Who gives a Wael’s ass about Pipes’ stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? His analysis on political Islam (Islamism) is correct and you know it. You are using the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a smoke-screen to front-run the Paris threads because the Paris riots rears political Islam’s ugly head for all to see and discuss. You can’t blame it on America; can’t hide it behind Iraq, can’t point to fasism, and it has nothing to do with Zionism. Of all places, how could Muslims turn on poor little dear France?

Quote from WAEL012000:

kalashnicac;

You asked earlier what Zionist had to do with it!

You see, that Daniel Pipes Osama123 is talking about is the same one who an outspoken supporter of positions taken by the governing Likud Party in Israel, to the extent even of opposing the US-backed "road map" designed to lead to an independent Palestinian state.

To encourage "moderation" among Palestinians, he has written, "the Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them".

Pipes' personal views on the conflict can be traced back to the early days of the struggle. In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, an ideological father to the Israeli right wing, wrote that there would be no peace until the Arabs in Israel were psychologically crushed. "As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish that hope," he declared. More than a decade later, David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel's first prime minister, echoed those sentiments. "For only after total despair on the part of the Arabs, a despair that will come not only from the failure of the disturbances and the attempt at rebellion, but also as a consequence of our growth as a country, may the Arabs possibly acquiesce in a Jewish state of Israel," he wrote in 1936.

Today, such views are most strongly held in Israel by right-wing political parties, and in America by Jewish supporters of the Israeli settlement movement and evangelical Christians, who have found common cause with the hard-line aspects of the pro-Israel lobby. Those groups were well represented at the Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit, which began May 17 at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington D.C. Pipes was greeted there as a celebrity, receiving standing ovations before and after his speech.

He is also the man who created what is known as "Campus watch", an orginization who first harasses then spies,threatenes, bullies and try to intimidate university professors, including Jewish ones who support the Palestinian cause. And if that fails and some of these professors show some spine, they simply make frudelent claimes against them.

Some of the orginizations that he chairs or is a member of accused some Jews of being antisematic.

He caused the expousion of some of the most permenant Jewish figures from their university posts like Mr. Joel Beinin who was a libral and a very strong critic of the Likud party.

Pipes frequently issues warnings, declaring that militant American Muslims intend to mount a second American Revolution, and impose Islamic law. In this context, he has criticized Bush for suggesting in public that Islam is a peaceful religion. "All Muslims, unfortunately, are suspect," he wrote in a recent book, though he added that only "10 to 15 percent" of Muslims are militant. If Muslims have jobs in the military, law enforcement or diplomacy, Pipes states in another column, "they need to be watched for connections to terrorism." He also finds Muslim immigration problematic: "All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

I hope you see where my point is stemming from.
 
Quote from Sam123:

Bla bla bla. Who gives a Wael’s ass about Pipes’ stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? His analysis on political Islam (Islamism) is correct and you know it. You are using the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a smoke-screen to front-run the Paris threads because the Paris riots rears political Islam’s ugly head for all to see and discuss. You can’t blame it on America; can’t hide it behind Iraq, can’t point to fasism, and it has nothing to do with Zionism. Of all places, how could Muslims turn on poor little dear France?

Blah blah blah, the American Zionist lobby from Faith to Gafney to Pipes are spearheading this campaign to dehumanize the Muslim world and they are always jumping on the first opportunity that appears to help them to do so.

A valid example is the French situation which has nothing to do with political Islam but more with socioeconomic factors.

They are trying, with the help of the neocons, to re-draw the map of the Middle East for the advantage of Israel; they are doing that by mounting a campaign to prove to the whole world that the problem is not limited to Israel (Who is trying to fight its own war with them damn Muslims) but with the world as a whole.

The Zionists thought that they do not have to address the injustice issue brought upon the Palestinians; instead, they could seek the world's assistant, in a fraudulent way, to fight the war with the Arab world on their behalf.

Oh and by the way, our French friend is polite...You are a Fascist!!
 
Back
Top