Lash wrote:nimh wrote:Ehmm ...
I clicked your link.
All Dlowan said was, literally, "Lash's Brussels journal, a right wing publication, says Muslims are taking over Europe."
What part do you consider a "besmirchment": calling it a "right wing publication", or asserting that it had said that "Muslims are taking over Europe"?
I see she added a link re: the latter assertion, too. Its to an article originally published by Brussels Journal in which its said that "there is civil war brewing" in Europe, and that "Demographics are deciding the fate of Europe's democracy. Time is running out."
Looks like Dlowan's description was an apt enough paraphrasing, rather than a besmirchment.
I'm glad you posted this link, indirectly, though. A phrase at the top of the article struck out:
"certain areas of major European cities are no-go areas, especially at night and certainly if you are white"
So thats where you got that from. I remember when you asserted exactly that as The Truth about how it is, nowadays, in Europe, and you were laughed away by the Europeans on this board, who actually frequent those cities.
I was never satisfied with the end of that discussion. Are you asserting that there are no areas in Europe that are 1) predominantly inhabited by Muslims
There are areas that are "predominantly inhabited by Muslims" - which, I assume, means having over 50% of Muslim residents.
There are, however, no "homogenous Muslim neighbourhoods", which is what you kept on asserting in the French riots threads, bringing on my disagreement.
In fact, you spoke of "homogenous Muslim/Islamic neighborhoods, where Sharia is the law", and when I definitely disagreed on both those counts told me to then "remain rigidly ignorant of it" (though refraining from bringing any evidence of the existence of such neighbourhoods).
(
link).
Neighbourhoods with 90, 100% Muslims just dont exist in continental Europe, definitely not on any significant scale ... not even in France. (Perhaps in the UK, where neighbourhood patterns tend more toward the American?). See on all this also my answer re: point 2) below.
Of course, I guess it depends on your definition of "homogenous"... if you'd agree that America is a homogenous white country (it's some 80% white), then ... but you'll find even neighbourhoods in (continental) Europe that are 80% Muslim quite difficult to find.
Lash wrote:and [Are you asserting that there are no areas in Europe that] 2) are considered no-go areas for law enforcement and non-Muslims?
Yes, I am.
For one, because there's this simple fact: there are no neighbourhoods that are only inhabited by Muslims. We don't have the residential pattern of US cities where each ethnic group lives in its own neighbourhood (Little Italy, the Korean neighbourhood, the Hispanic neighbourhood, black neighbourhoods). We have deprived neighbourhoods where poor people live, which tend to be highly multicultural, with still a fair number of white working class folk, who, however, understandably are resentful of gradually becoming outnumbered by immigrants, whom are often Muslims but also include Africans, Antilleans etc.
Ergo, even in the worst neighbourhoods, there are still a fair number of whites, and plenty of other non-Muslims. That alone by definition means they can not be a "no-go area" for non-Muslims, since plenty of non-Muslims
live there.
Even in France (which is admittedly much more segregated than Holland or Germany), you'll have seen from the reports that, in Clichy-sous-Bois for example, where the riots were first ignited, immigrants made up half of the population, officially, unofficially probably more - but even so that would leave a third or more of non-immigrants.
To pick an example, the Brussels Journal article that Steve had quoted in the other thread rhetoricized about Rotterdam having no-go areas for "ethnic Europeans". That is patently untrue, and I've addressed that at that time:
nimh wrote:Regarding Rotterdam, I can only say: bull ****. Sorry, but it's simply bull. There's no part of Rotterdam I would not dare to go to.
There are no parts of Rotterdam that "ethnic Europeans" can not go to, simply even because even in the worst of the city's neighbourhoods, there are still many whites living as well. Ie, even in the district Feijenoord (known from the soccer club of the same name), over a third of the population is still "authochthonous"; in Delfshaven, the most multicultural of the city's districts, it's close to 30%.
So that might have to make one wonder about the credibility of Blankley's other assertions as well.
Blankley here, I suspect, was merely parroting Pim Fortuyn's claim that there were "no-go areas" in Rotterdam; but Fortuyn (the populist, anti-immigration politician) meant "no-go areas" for him, personally, saying that if he would show himself in some neighbourhoods he would get beaten up. He said so in response to Green Left's leader Paul Rosenmoller's invitation to go into those neighbourhoods that Fortuyn was always talking about together.
Lash wrote:Also, do I understand you correctly to say there are no riots or violence related to the Danish cartoons dotting Europe now? Do you just not like the characterization "sweeping"? Not quite sure what you are saying,
I am aware of protests at Danish embassies, and the protests that attracted most attention are the demonstrations in London, where marchers
called for violence. For something to be a riot, however, I'd say that you'd at least need the
actual occurrence of violence. Can you point me to some of the actual, violent riots taking place in Europe over the Danish cartoons now, that you are talking about?
And yes, there is the adjective "sweeping". Since you said that riots are "sweeping across Europe", I assume that you are talking about outbreaks of violence in Europe over these cartoons in at least, say, four countries?
Lash wrote:because you seem to attempt to ridicule my comments, and follow that up by posting articles that prove my point.
Huh? How did the articles I posted prove the occurrence of sweeping riots across Europe? Is a demonstration, even a demonstration calling for, but not involving, actual violence, the equivalent of a "riot" in your definition? I don't think they'd be impressed in LA South Central...
Finally, could you expound on how you argue that Dlowan saying that BrusselsJournal was a "right wing publication", and paraphrasing its argument that "Demographics are deciding the fate of Europe's democracy. Time is running out" as "Muslims are taking over Europe", amounted to the "besmirchment" of the journal?
