Islamic Propensity For Terrorism (Parisian Riots)

bm

Hmm...Lash's Brussels journal, a right wing publication, says Muslims are taking over Europe.


http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4709.html

Yeah, they said that in 1625 and 1686 when the Turks laid seige to Vienna, too . . .

yep, read all this by now.



Thing is, how is this really different from riots by other groups in immigrant countries through history?


You guys have to hold the record for a proud mass immigration history, surely?

Were there not huge riots by Irish immigrants about the same things?


I am trying to get what is speaking the nastiness here, apart from the par for the courseness of somedoes it differ from hysterias about other groups in the past?

heehee... I guess you COULD say the irish DID take over. There was the mutual religious prejudice, too...right up to Kennedy's day.

Is this paranoia as usual or something more sinister?

I googled "Europe riots" and found brusselsjournal. I'd never heard of it before--nor have I been to the intellectualconservative site-- for anyone else keeping score.

I don't feel that economic situation is not applicable to this event--but I will not allow people to pretend it's not happening--or that the Islamic faith plays heavily into the problem.

DAMN site!!!!!

It says posts did not get through, then doubles tham!!!

Oh my, then takes them away again, but leaves the typos.

The French have a long and strong tradition of secular education. The radical left in the Revolution shot themselves in the foot big time with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. One of their efforts was to remove primary education from the hands of the priests and to assure wide-spread literacy. Thanks to the uproar, which helped to fuel counterrevolutionary insurgency in la Vendee, and thanks to the Austro-Prussian atttempt to invade France, the Committee for Public Safety was never able effectively to implement their program. The Directory which succeeded them was less than enthused with the program and quietly allowed "non-juring" priests (those who would not swear allegiance to the state as opposed to the Pope) to move back into their parishes. Napoleon settled with the Pope in 1802 with his Concordat (which he shoved down the Pope's throat--it would be nine more years before they came to a lasting settlement), basically on the principles of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, but with some face-saving provisions for the Pope. Although very conservative socially, Napoleon was extremely realistic about social and economic mechanisms which worked effectively to support the empire. He understood the value of wide-spread literacy, and he did not intend to have primary education be a means for religious indoctrination, when his intent was imperial indoctrination. From that eventually grew an independent republican notion of the "civilizing mission" of educators to remove all vestiges of clerical inculturation. Maurice Pagnol wrote an interestin novel, La Gloire de mon pere (My Father's Glory), which celebrated the resolutely secular tradition of public educators in France. Despite the obvious sources of Muslim resistance to secularism, the long-term consequences of public education are likely to be an effective negation of fundamentalist attitudes among youths of Muslim heritage who are born, raised and educated in France--provided anything like economic parity can be acheived and maintained. When young men and women feel they have nothing to lose, rioting probably looks like fun, and is certainly preferrable to hanging out with no money and nothing to do. Once the "common man" acquires a stake in the economic order (such as a good, steady income or some property ownership), revolutions end of their own accord.

I think you negate the heavy, permeating influence of the Islamic communities in France and other countries across Europe, who are self-contained--and virulently anti-anything not Islamic.

There are huge swaths of Muslim populations, who can live life without speaking French in France. They are NOT immersed in the culture--they are separatists.

The only major Irish rioting in the U.S. were the anti-draft riots in New York in 1863--which also had strong racist elements, black men were beaten to death and lynched. Basically, yes, the Irish did take over in a lot of places--and they "paid their dues" big time in Mr. Lincoln's Army. Canada had far worse rioting in York/Toronto and Montreal with the almost annual street warfare between the Irish Catholics and the Orangemen. (Irish Catholics far outnumber the Orangemen, but the Orangemen immigrated to British North America in disproportionate numbers, and enjoyed entrees to the power structure not open to Irish Catholics.)

Bookmark, since actually I'd thought this was only discussed on the banlieu thread.

I do, totally.

Okay, not for all European countries but for Germany, France, The Netherlands, Austria and the UK - countries, I visiti regularily, read their national press and now about the 'ghetto'-situations there by own experience.

Walter, i started a thread about this a few days ago, with several links to English-language sources on the rioting. However, i guess my thread lacked the cachet of anti-Muslim racism, so it turned out to be a total yawner.

Yes, on the banlieu thread, which started much earlier, answers come mostly from peole who know where they speak about.


These days, German Evangelical Christians celebrate their annual synode (the Evangelical Church in Germany represents 25,8 million German = more than 90% of the Protestant/Evangelical population = nearly 1/2 of all Christians in Germany = nearly 1/3 of the popultion).

The motto of this synode is 'Being tolerant through faith'.

Such must something totally unknow to American Christians (and Muslim hardliners).

Deb, on page 4 you asked me a question. But then you answered it yourself -- quite correctly -- in the same post.

Walter, in the States the Protestants are so splintered they'd never agree on anything of substance, certainly not something as complex as 'tolerance.' The major bone of contention nowadays is the question of gays in the clergy.

Set, you're right, of course, about the only Irish riot of record being the New York draft riots during the US Civil War, which were more than about race than about any oppression the Irish had suffered. The Irish were a lot smarter than many other immigrant minorities. Instead of venting their anger in violence, they took advantage of the democratic process and ran for office. And, moreover, took over the political machinery in cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago.

Muslim youths commence mass riots, burglaries, arson, attempted murders, etc, now police find a bomb-making factory. Bomb-making factories? Hum? Ringing any bells? Perhaps some parallels with Islamic behavioral patterns springing up in numerous places all over the world. What other religion sponsors, encourages, empowers, incites, and sympathizes with bomb-makers, terrorists, and other murdering scum more than Islam? You may whine all you want about a "religion of peace", but if this religion's adherents (whether they are the minority or not) are actively driving the violence and holy wars against civilization there may come a time when a spade must be called a spade.

In the past thirty years Islamic terrorism has presented itself in innumerable forms. From state sponsored (Libya), to homegrown (British subway), to organized terrorism (Al-Qaida), radical local terrorism (Mahdi Army, Taliban), rabid "political" terrorism (Hamas, Islamic Jihad), and now anarchic terrorism (Paris riots), all of this has one common thread: THESE ARE MUSLIMS WAGING WAR ON THE CIVILIZED, DEVELOPED WORLD!

Dlowan, Setanta, Hinteler, and the rest of the interminably talking heads can posture in regards to the "root" causes all they want, but my capitalized statement is still true. Whine and "denounce" me as a xenophobe, "racist" (such an intellectually lazy liberal staple accusation), or whatever else you wish, and the capitalized statement is still true. Question our methods for combating the terrorism, question whether we are creating more terrorists, and still the statement holds true. So what exactly are you denying here? What exactly are you excusing here? And most importantly, what exactly do you (self-proclaimed "only sane ones") propose we do about this religion's offspring?

If you would read the news and not only interpretate it in your way hate, you would notice that these youth are not "religion's offsprings" but children of French citizens (whose parents/grandparents mostly were born in former French colonies).

Since I've worked voluntarily and professionally with similar immigrants (and know French suburbian areas personally), I deny you the right to call me "interminably talking head" on this subject.

They are French citizens who denounce French rule and call the neighborhood they live in "occupied territory."

They are religion's offspring.

Let's see, after 10,000 years of "civilization" we're still involved in tribal warfare (religious warfare)..? Ain't it great?

After 900 years we're still dealing with "The Crusades". When will it end..........?

By the way, my god is better than your god...........and I'm an atheist............?