Admin, I accept what you are saying about France's attitudes and welfare but simply do not accept that the rioting is an acceptable course of action under the circumstances, and I account for the evidence that al Qaeda has fanned the flames. I have consistently discounted that there is any racist thinking in this, and I feel those who argue thus are excusing heinous behaviour simply on the basis they are offended that any Muslims are implicated. It is a misplaced sense of pride and towing a party line. Given the behaviour under discussion that is unacceptable. Again I remind you that you misrepresented Sarkozy. Perhaps that is another of my posts you didn't read. I am happy with my paragraphs, and the fact you don't see the need to give them close reading before you respond that you disagree serves only to demerit your 'reply'.

seraph, your post also doesn't address my points. I am far from suggesting 'Muslims bad'.

hey, muslims are too disorganised to tow any party line!

As i stated, I started my position BEFORE I realised that the majority of rioters were muslim.

Once again they are not excused.

Their actions are not justified.

At the same time their concerns are real.

I did read your post.
He called the clean up the violent ghetto's of scum. not exactly a good way to calm everyone down.

oh, for a good analysis of what he said:

Quote:

But Sarkozy only poured verbal kerosene on the flames, dismissing the ghetto youth in the most insulting and racist terms and calling for a policy of repression. "Sarko" made headlines with his declarations that he would "karcherise" the ghettos of "la racaille"-- words the U.S. press has utterly inadequately translated to mean "clean" the ghettos of "scum." But these two words have an infinitely harsher and insulting flavor in French. "Karcher" is the well-known brand name of a system of cleaning surfaces by super-high-pressure sand-blasting or water-blasting that very violently peals away the outer skin of encrusted dirt -- like pigeon-shit -- even at the risk of damaging what's underneath. To apply this term to young human beings and proffer it as a strategy is a verbally fascist insult and, as a policy proposed by an Interior Minister, is about as close as one can get to hollering "ethnic cleansing" without actually saying so. It implies raw police power and force used very aggressively, with little regard for human rights. I wonder how many Anglo-American correspondents get the inflammatory, terribly vicious flavor of the word in French? The translation of "karcherise" by "clean" just misses completely the inflammatory violence of what Sarko was really saying. And "racaille" is infinitely more pejorative than "scum" to French-speakers -- it has the flavor of characterizing an entire group of people as subhuman, inherently evil and criminal, worthless, and is, in other words, one of the most serious insults one could launch at the rebellious ghetto youth.

[url=http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_19897.shtml]Axisoflogi...

I have read into Sarkozy's background. he does not seem too bad a fella, but he has fuelled these riots...

Its Ironic that Sarkozy is a criminologist.

He out of all people ought to get the problem of his words.

And not only that he has previously taken steps to get out of this nightmare. he had realised the environment, and done a few small things to try and work towards a fix.

However here he has ruined it, and can no longer be trusted to fix what is broken.

Can no longer be trusted? Wotch'on about?

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/20051104/cm_nypost/whyparisisburning;_ylt... this is about welfare[/url]. Then again:

Quote:

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

Amir Taheri is a ****.

Anything he says can be discounted.

"irfghan" wrote:

Amir Taheri is a ****.

Anything he says can be discounted.

Yeah. I believe he was the one who said that muslims who wear black do so because they support al-qaeda and that before the Iranian revolution muslim women never covered their hair.

He's another of the Straussians (I find the term neo-con to be inaccurate and intentionally misleading) pet muslims like Manji.

Yer!

"100" wrote:

Yer!

You're gonna ridicule us?

Look why don't you go bother MPACK or someone else who'll respond better to you're mind games.

So give a substantive comment. So far, it is an inappropriate, and strange, reaction that accepts these riots are any kind of answer, and considers that the state is to blame. These guys come from families who get a package of education, housing and welfare. They want opportunities? They should stop rioting. Chirac has made it his business for some time to accomodate poor communities and make jobs available. You think these teenagers are rioting because they tried, and found it tough? Awwww. I don't know what they might need, like Business Link or something, but that is already pretty obscure. Their parents disapprove, this is a bunch of stupid tough kids and I don't see why they should be excused. Their inspiration for these riots is a combination of cultural factors including jihadi incitement. If I get denial of this point without an adequate explanation what can your point possibly be? Rioting is an acceptable norm? Let's be frank, they don't have a message, and life can be tough.

"100" wrote:

So give a substantive comment. So far, it is an inappropriate, and strange, reaction that accepts these riots are any kind of answer, and considers that the state is to blame. These guys come from families who get a package of education, housing and welfare. They want opportunities? They should stop rioting. Chirac has made it his business for some time to accomodate poor communities and make jobs available. You think these teenagers are rioting because they tried, and found it tough? Awwww. I don't know what they might need, like Business Link or something, but that is already pretty obscure. Their parents disapprove, this is a bunch of stupid tough kids and I don't see why they should be excused. Their inspiration for these riots is a combination of cultural factors including jihadi incitement. If I get denial of this point without an adequate explanation what can your point possibly be? Rioting is an acceptable norm? Let's be frank, they don't have a message, and life can be tough.

I thought I made it clear your mind games won't work with me. Have I infact said anything about whether the rioters or the French state are right or wrong? Personally as I understand it classical islamic jurisprudence looks down on public disturbances of any kind.

However in classical Straussian fashion you've implied that I'm supporting the rioters when in fact I've said nothing in that direction at all.

Similarly Christopher Hitchens another Straussian commented today,

"If you think that the intifada in France is about housing, go and try covering the story wearing a yarmulka."

In other words he is saying that the rioters are motivated by anti-semitism hence they are islamists. It may well be that many of the rioters do harbour anti-semitic views. Even if it is true of some of them it is also completely irrelevant. Many Ukranians also harbour anti-semitic views. Does this mean that the overthrow of the former president a while ago was motivated by anti-semitism.

All I said was that only Straussian jews like Phillips and Hitchens and Horowitz are blaming these riots on Islam (even jewish leftists like Aranovitch aren't) and I'm not gonna let you play your mind games unchallenged.

salaf,

This business of 'mind games' is a ridiculous retort. I am making straightforward remarks, and if you play victim to my 'mind games' it is obvious you don't intend a meaningful discussion on the subject.

I do, however, see that your comments are in earnest. At least extend the same basic politeness. Everything you have written is basically suggesting that my outlook is entirely because I am Jewish. Whereas I am responding to what you say.

Irshad Manji is furious with Islam today for accomodating brutality, intolerance and extremism. It is no surprise that those most concerned with Islamist barbarism think highly of the stand she takes. But she was not relevant to this discussion. Neither was your resort to Christopher Hitchens, who I don't follow and haven't referred to. ftr what he is saying there is not that the rioters are antisemitic crusaders, but that they have the same attitudes as the antagonistic, propaganda-spewing jihadis, and that their anger is no different from the righteous anger that drives suicide bombers.

I don't know why you just brought him up as if I had made that point myself, except to show off and villify me by association. You have moved from saying that only 'right-wing Jews' think these people have anything to do with Islam (which even I am not saying), to slamming Taheri, Manji and Hitchens, all in the guise of combatting my 'mind games'. The implication is that I am pushing some extreme agenda. Maybe you are.

I have said nothing extreme or racist. I have pointed out, there are cultural influences at play, including jihadi influences.

If you feel I unfairly associated you personally, or all Muslims, with the rioters in France, I do apologise, and you can rest assured I make no such assumption.

Read the message, get over your 'mind games' game.

It isn't personal except where you address me.

This business of 'mind games' is a ridiculous retort. I am making straightforward remarks, and if you play victim to my 'mind games' it is obvious you don't intend a meaningful discussion on the subject.

Quote:

I do, however, see that your comments are in earnest. At least extend the same basic politeness. Everything you have written is basically suggesting that my outlook is entirely because I am Jewish.

And this is different to you labelling the rioters as muslim how? If people make a political issue of their jewishness then thats their fault. I only know Phillips is jewish because she's made an issue out of it and linked it to her political opinions. Much like "islamists" link their political opinions to Islam.

Quote:

Irshad Manji is furious with Islam today for accomodating brutality, intolerance and extremism. It is no surprise that those most concerned with Islamist barbarism think highly of the stand she takes.

There are lots of other "progressive muslims" who've been around much longer than Manji. I may not agree with them but I accept that most of them are genuine. She on the other hand is an extreme philosemite who has no real education. She's basically cut and paste from Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong and added a chapter on anti-semitism. Yet she is still received widely by western media.

Quote:

But she was not relevant to this discussion. Neither was your resort to Christopher Hitchens, who I don't follow and haven't referred to.

Firstly I never said you referred to Hitchens. I held him up as an example of Straussian logic. You on the other hand claimed directly that I was supporting the rioters.

Quote:

ftr what he is saying there is not that the rioters are antisemitic crusaders, but that they have the same attitudes as the antagonistic, propaganda-spewing jihadis, and that their anger is no different from the righteous anger that drives suicide bombers.

I don't really see a difference between the two propositions. Most likely because there isn't one.

Quote:

I don't know why you just brought him up as if I had made that point myself, except to show off and villify me by association. You have moved from saying that only 'right-wing Jews' think these people have anything to do with Islam (which even I am not saying), to slamming Taheri, Manji and Hitchens, all in the guise of combatting my 'mind games'. The implication is that I am pushing some extreme agenda. Maybe you are.

You brought in Taheri. I used Manji as an example of another muslim Straussian.

Quote:

I have said nothing extreme or racist.

I think comparing the rioters to suicide bombers is pretty racist. Much like comparing jewish members of the conservative party to Fagan.

Quote:

I have pointed out, there are cultural influences at play, including jihadi influences.

Well you seem to know more than the French about it.

salaf, the rioting is objectionable. And they are Muslim. And they run around yelling Allahu Akhbar. Please don't take it as a slur. Phillips is Jewish, a bit more conservative than I am but I admire her. She doesn't riot. Hitchens, Manji and Taheri are not Jewish. None of these are people we were talking about. I provided a quote from Taheri's article that basically supports my point that there are antangonistic Muslim elements to this rioting.

I know there's a lot of you and you don't all agree. So the difference is you are accusing Jews of some smear campaign, and I am pointing out that the rioters are Muslims. Don't read racism into it, I'm aware of what other Muslims might represent that isn't the least bit objectionable.

What you think about Manji is irrelevant to me in this discussion, I didn't cite her.

Please accept my apology for suggesting you support the rioters. Also, this business of Straussian logic, could you please give me some background to what you're on about or a link. With regard to your closing remark, you can go back and read my posts. And you have misread my invocation of suicide bombers, consistent with all your attempts to misrepresent me.

Quote:

And they run around yelling Allahu Akhbar.

Proof please

Quote:

Please don't take it as a slur. Phillips is Jewish, a bit more conservative than I am but I admire her. She doesn't riot.

And Azzam Tamimi doesn't blow people up.

Quote:

Hitchens, Manji and Taheri are not Jewish. None of these are people we were talking about. I provided a quote from Taheri's article that basically supports my point that there are antangonistic Muslim elements to this rioting.

Hitchens says he is jewish and Manji clearly has some kind of obsession with jews and jewish connected things.

Quote:

I know there's a lot of you and you don't all agree. So the difference is you are accusing Jews of some smear campaign, and I am pointing out that the rioters are Muslims.

I haven't said anything of the sort. I clearly stated that Aranovitch believes the riots are not religion orientated.

Quote:

Don't read racism into it, I'm aware of what other Muslims might represent that isn't the least bit objectionable.

Some jews read racism into much smaller things such as being accussed of being concentration camp guards or hearing people complain about American foreign policy (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml)

Quote:

Please accept my apology for suggesting you support the rioters. Also, this business of Straussian logic, could you please give me some background to what you're on about or a link. With regard to your closing remark, you can go back and read my posts.

Leo Strauss is the "god-father" of so called neo-conservatism. His basic premise was that jews in America should use deception/propaganda in order to harness nationalism/conservatism in their favour. The term neo-conservatism of their own making is a good example of ths pretending to be the real or revived conservatives when they are nothing of the sort.

Let's clear something up, you are bringing up a lot of names pointlessly out of the blue. It seems when I say something about any of them in response, you bring up more names, pointlessly, out of the blue. We are not talking about any of those people. I have nothing to say about Azzam Tamimi, elaborate if you like, I am not aware of Manji's 'obsession', although she may well admire Jews, elaborate if you like, and vis a vis your own evident obsession, I was not aware Christopher Hitchens is Jewish, but then I am not very interested in him, turns out he technically could be Jewish, since his mother was, but he had a Catholic upbringing. I take your point about Aronovitch, again I am not very interested but it is nice to know how you divvie everyone up, and that you are judging rather than accusing per se.

I couldn't care less that 'some Jews read racism into...', again that is not under discussion, perhaps start a thread on accusations of racism - although in this case it is Gen. Zinni complaining that he was once called a racist, which is incredibly irrelevant.

Thank you for elaborating on Strauss, something else you introduced quite at random. Please provide some sources on Strauss so I can see what he said, it seems fairly plausible but you are evidently given to wide interpretation.

Most of your arguments are incredibly irrelevant.

And to the point, you asked 'Proof please.' Evidence is not proof, I can only say it is corroborated in the mesh of Islamist activity across Europe. [url=http://media.putfile.com/French-riots]Here is some video evidence[/url]. [url=http://www.nysun.com/article/22671?access=759097]Here[/url] is an article containing a shaky, prejudicial view but that does cite witnesses saying cars belonging to Muslims are not being torched. Again, it is uncomfortable that you have challenged me here, because I am well aware that in repeating my point concerning the Muslim involvement in these riots, I may play into your accusations of racism. I am simply responding to your apparent disbelief, and again, I point the finger at leary youths and a jihadi mindset, not at Islam.

They were also saying Sarkozy is a fascist. Why would they say that? I thought "islamists" were supposed to like fascism. Why don't they call him a Jew or a kaffir. Plus if they're so jihadist why didn't they beat up the journalist.

Quote:

I couldn't care less that 'some Jews read racism into...', again that is not under discussion, perhaps start a thread on accusations of racism - although in this case it is Gen. Zinni complaining that he was once called a racist, which is incredibly irrelevant.

I'd say its relevant. You're making an issue out of the rioters being muslim. Okay a couple of them yelled out Allah Akbar. Most of the leading "neo-cons" (cough, cough) are members of an organisation called the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs(http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html). I assume then that you'd find it acceptable for someone to make a connection between the neo-cons jewishness and their behaviour?

Again, again, again, I am not suggesting the riots are Islamic in nature.

It is fair to ask Jews if they are making themselves clear. You'll certainly find Jews taking on a wide range of views, not all in agreement with each other. There is a big difference in the nature of these organisations. You are referring to NGOs and pressure groups, and there's plenty of Muslim NGOs and pressure groups.

I have pointed out that the riots are by Muslims, and consistent with Islamism, coming at the same time as threats against France. You seem to have a problem with my saying this, but it will not link up for you. I am used to a few Muslim people preferring to sweep the possibility of Muslim civil unrest under the carpet rather than discuss the issues frankly, taking a firm stand, and you have not surprised me here. It is not as if there is a rush for Muslims to volunteer tapes of the kind police are discovering in the mosques and homes of terrorists, so I understand there is a loyalty issue. I have seen it many times, albeit not in the new forum, this 'hush, we do not discuss xyz in front of the kufr'. Am I to assume that was just a temporary attitude problem? I believe you are uncomfortable discussing the facts, and that this is tough.

There is muslim unrest in france.

But that is a separate issue from the 'threats france has recieved'.

These issues should not be united. After all threats from abroad lost muslims their voice in france previously.

French muslims campaigned for the Hijab not to be banned. Some Iraqi groups threatened France saying hijab shoiuld not be banned.

The French muslims had their voice stolen, and if they stuc to their position, they would be called terrorist sympatisers.... alqaeda in france etc. Their voice was taen away.

So please do not confuse the two.

PS the issue 'hush! do not discuss this infront of the kuffar' is IMO wrong.

I have nothing to hide. As a community we have nothing to hide. Some individuals may have... but that is a diferent issue.

I hate it when people try to show a united front where there is no unity at all. I would rather the people saw the disunity. Then muslims may be shamed into actually carrying out some positive action.

"Admin" wrote:

There is muslim unrest in france.

But that is a separate issue from the 'threats france has recieved'.

These issues should not be united. After all threats from abroad lost muslims their voice in france previously.

French muslims campaigned for the Hijab not to be banned. Some Iraqi groups threatened France saying hijab shoiuld not be banned.

The French muslims had their voice stolen, and if they stuc to their position, they would be called terrorist sympatisers.... alqaeda in france etc. Their voice was taen away.

So please do not confuse the two.

Finally a reply that didn't set out to offend me. Respect, Admin, I will take that on board. I think you have a point, and I always have thought , that banning the hijab was possibly unfair and antagonistic. So the thing is to be loud, clear and a fair contribution, distinct from the 'scum'.

"100" wrote:

Again, again, again, I am not suggesting the riots are Islamic in nature.

It is fair to ask Jews if they are making themselves clear. You'll certainly find Jews taking on a wide range of views, not all in agreement with each other. There is a big difference in the nature of these organisations. You are referring to NGOs and pressure groups, and there's plenty of Muslim NGOs and pressure groups.

Thats not what I asked. I said;

Quote:

I'd say its relevant. You're making an issue out of the rioters being muslim. Okay a couple of them yelled out Allah Akbar. Most of the leading "neo-cons" (cough, cough) are members of an organisation called the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs(http://www.jinsa.org/home/home.html). I assume then that you'd find it acceptable for someone to make a connection between the neo-cons jewishness and their behaviour?

salaf, my answer was comprehensive, I think. If you are asking, is it OK to slur Jewish people on the basis you dislike some of them? The answer is no. I did answer your question, and I provided some evidence that you asked for. If you would like to say something straightforward don't let me stop you. Writing 'cough, cough' mid-sentence rather implies you have something disgusting in your throat that won't go away.

Not sure what to make of all this. The mob has sustained itself for over 2 weeks, appears to have its own system of communication through email which suggests coordination, and they are now choosing leaders "emirs" from amongst themselves to represent their positions to the public. I think it's a bit of a jump to point the finger at outside sources like Al Qaeda without a definite link, but the organization of all this is troubling.

There is some sort of organisation... criminals do have criminal networks.

Apart from that if there is mroe of a link...we will have to wait for it to be exposed.

With the 'emirs', do we know wether they are self appointed, or gang appointed?

If they are self appointed, they may not really have any power and could be a distraction. if gang appointed, can they be reasoned with?

Its a right old mess. Alot of work is needed to sort it out.

"Admin" wrote:

There is some sort of organisation... criminals do have criminal networks.

Apart from that if there is mroe of a link...we will have to wait for it to be exposed.

With the 'emirs', do we know wether they are self appointed, or gang appointed?

If they are self appointed, they may not really have any power and could be a distraction. if gang appointed, can they be reasoned with?

Its a right old mess. Alot of work is needed to sort it out.

I have only read one report that mentions the "emirs" it wasn't mentioned if they are self appointed or gang appointed but it does appear they have the authority to negotiate since they have requested negotiation with several non government islamic groups.

"Constantine" wrote:

"Admin" wrote:

There is some sort of organisation... criminals do have criminal networks.

Apart from that if there is mroe of a link...we will have to wait for it to be exposed.

With the 'emirs', do we know wether they are self appointed, or gang appointed?

If they are self appointed, they may not really have any power and could be a distraction. if gang appointed, can they be reasoned with?

Its a right old mess. Alot of work is needed to sort it out.

I have only read one report that mentions the "emirs" it wasn't mentioned if they are self appointed or gang appointed but it does appear they have the authority to negotiate since they have requested negotiation with several non government islamic groups.

Islamic organisations are trying to stem the chaos. Ironically though this has lead to accussations that they're trying to take advantage of the situation in order to gain administrative control over the communities. Of course if they didn't do anything they'd also be blamed for that.

"100" wrote:

salaf, my answer was comprehensive, I think. If you are asking, is it OK to slur Jewish people on the basis you dislike some of them?

Well I don't particularly like Aranovitch although he does at least try to be balanced. However I don't think he's a Straussian. This isn't about slurring. Its about connecting culture to behaviour. Now its either okay to do this with all groups or it isn't okay to do it at all.

"salaf" wrote:

Islamic organisations are trying to stem the chaos. Ironically though this has lead to accussations that they're trying to take advantage of the situation in order to gain administrative control over the communities. Of course if they didn't do anything they'd also be blamed for that.

Naturally - and the Republic is greatful for their efforts, perhaps a little embarassed since it's abnormal for religious groups to play prominent roles in French society (reason 582 I am not a fan of the French). What concerns me is that these groups are [i]requesting[/i] to negotiate [i]only[/i] with these [i]Islamic[/i] organizations.

Here is the article I was reading - strangely not from the original webpage... dunno what that's about:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=72731&d=5&m=11&y=2005

Now i've always been a fond of the idea of a strong presence of religious groups in civic (not necessarily political) affairs, they provide a nice "second avenue" to reign in abuses of power in government.

However this is slightly different - the Islamic groups themselves are all well and good, but the fact that the rioters want only to talk to muslim groups is disconcerting. If immigrants in these poor neighborhoods are rioting because they are anry with french immigration and integration policies, and they are willing to organize their anger - and further are looking toward religion for leadership rather than government (and still remain violent) that's a recipe for chaos.

I am perfectly willing to accept that the rioters are disadvantaged youth - akin to the Rodney King riots. Europe in all her arrogance loves to talk through their noses at the United States for our integration issues but we all know Europes dirty little secret, and this could be the price for pushing it off for so long. France especially is facing some real problems integrating such a large number of "different people." The French are concerned La France could be Al France in 20 years. I think that fear and resentment has played a large role in all this.

However I think - like 100 - that accepting the failure of integration in further enflaming the situation is still no excuse to the rioters themselves. They have torched close to 10,000 cars, thousands have been arrested, they are tearing the country to shreds - they've killed a man - and they are calling into serious question the issue of integration in old Europe.

*Total sidenote: does anybody know what effect this has had on German Turks?

The reason they only want to go through religious groups may be because the other avenue is through Sarkozy.

After all they have already ignored the fatwa of the muslim groups condemning the rioting.

We need a few french members, so we can have some semi facts on french society. I do not know how people operate there... I can only guess.

That articel seems a bit dodgy to me.

Particularly the bit where is says something along the lines that in areas of high muslim population women effectively are forced to wear hijab and men walk around with beards of the length prescribed by the sheikhs.

Lol, Im sorry but I find that VERY hard to believe. I seen the news and I have seen some people interviewed and groups of arab/african youths in france and I didnt see men with big beards looking fierce, nor did I see any beards on the religious leaders, unless u call a lil stubble beard.

That article made out that those muslim ghettos are mini islamic states with hijab and beard everywhere, I dnt buy it.