Actually, they cooked this up based on an official French designation of some areas as “sensitive urban zones” based on their socioeconomic status, not religion. Even the Conservative Prime Minister of the UK called Emerson, the Fox news commentator who’s been running around making these claims, “a complete idiot.”
But hey, maybe you have some solid evidence you’d like to share that proves these no-go zones actually exist?
Also, I suppose David Cameron is one of those foolish liberals? He of the Tories, and a successor to the guy you proclaim was right? (See my first post for reference.)
Let’s see: you’re referring to an article hosted by rabidly neoconservative and Islamophobic Gatestone Institute, written by Soeren Kern, a fellow who himself has a long record of writing breathlessly Islamophobic (and often highly inaccurate) pieces. The “reports” Kern links to are, by and large, other opinion pieces, i.e., not news reporting. And he misrepresents even many of those. If that’s what you trot out as “evidence,” I’m afraid you’re going to have to try harder.
I’ll take Steve Emerson’s word for what going on before I’ll trust the Califate News Network.
The fact you’d call CNN that is a good indicator of how far gone you already are. (Not like CNN is great news—it was All Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, All the Time for a while, which still ain’t exactly “Caliphate” material.) In fact, that whole “Caliphate” language is just more Islamophobia. Real nice coming from someone who complains about anti-Semitism. Some hate’s okay and some isn’t, is that it?) And when Fox News comes out and apologizes for Emerson’s baloney—really, all of Birmingham is a no-go zone?—well, you know you’ve got a winner.
I also find it interesting that nobody denied that there was growing anti-Semitism in Europe
Maybe because it actually is on the rise. But what it sounds like to me is that you want to use that fact as a reason to demonize a whole other religion. So again, you’re saying it’s okay to hate and fear some folks but not others. Which is, frankly, horrible.
When you go all breathless about “Muslim No-Go Zones,” you are painting whole neighborhoods (and cities!) full of all sorts of “non-radical” Muslims as participating in something that doesn’t exist. So no, actually it’s you who are engaging in the bigotry. Unless you’ve somehow gotten the idea that French Muslims, arguably one of the most secular Muslim populations in the world, are actually crypto-“radical-Muslims.” Oh, wait, that’s bigoted too. Yeah, don’t try to smear me with your Islamophobia. Just own it.
Why don’t you, or one of your “trusted news sources”, dress as a Priest with a Bible in hand walk around in one of these so-called “no-go zones”
The fact you think someone couldn’t do that is both hilarious and utterly terrifying. It’s like you’re sweating hysteria. Heck, you’d probably be more likely to be assaulted by an atheist than a Muslim.
(translation: Sensitive Urban Zones)
Apparently you don’t bother to read, but those zones are purely socioeconomic designations with no basis in anyone’s stated religion. How about you watch a video of the very people who live and work there:
These articles aren’t saying that these places were supposedly thought by police to be Muslim “no-go zones,” which is what is in question. And with the exception of the New Republic piece, they come from 2005 or earlier, which undermines any evidence for current no-go zones at all. In fact, the articles line up quite nicely with my first comment in this thread that these areas have been given their designations based on their socioeconomic status and not based on the fiction of some small-scale theocratic rule going on in them. In fact, the first NY Times article you mention even talks about Muslim leaders trying to keep their youth from engaging in the widespread violence, and points out that there were plenty of Catholic and animist rioters involved. But it seems that you’ve zoomed right in on the few mentions of the word “Muslim” in each of these articles and decided this means the areas in question are some sort of religious strongholds. Which, again, speaks to your hysteria aimed at an entire religion. It’s similar to the way a certain set of commentators in the U.S. murmur fearfully, “those are black neighborhoods.”
Again, the articles aren’t about being Muslim no-go zones. They do mention (a couple times in each article) that there are Muslims there. But the main thrust of each of these articles is that the socioeconomic conditions in these places are bad, which has led to things like riots, and potentially to extremist recruitment, including by extremist Muslims. They do not say that non-Muslims can’t operate in these areas. In fact, one of the articles is clear about the point that Catholics and animists are operative in these so-called “no-go zones.”
None of these articles says anything about Muslims “ruling” these areas, which is the whole tenet of recent claims about the “no-go zones.” In a court of law, your charges would still be tossed for a lack of evidence, just as they should be in the court of public opinion.
In other words, you’ve completely missed the point of what these articles are saying. This is especially evident regarding that NY Times 4/27/02 article. The condemnation there is that non-Muslim French society has been systematically excluding its Muslim residents from opportunity. The “no-go zones,” in other words, operate in the opposite direction—"no Muslims need apply."
And let’s see that other NY Times quote: it says, “many of them Muslim.” Not all of the people there are Muslim. And yet they manage to survive! Even the Newsweek article that claims the areas are “populated by mostly Muslim Arab and African immigrants” makes clear in its very structure that there are also non-Muslims living there. Why isn’t it “no-go” for these non-Muslims?
But once again, you’ve gone hysterical at just the mention of Muslim residents attached to some area or another. It’s the sort of rhetoric that was leveled against Jewish neighborhoods in propaganda campaigns before and during WWII. And while no one is suggesting any imminent pogroms in France yet—thankfully folks there seem to be more level-headed than the likes of you—your interpretation is still one of hate towards a single religious group. You especially, as a Jewish person who presumably knows the history of hate, should be utterly ashamed at propagating such hate and fear based on religion. Just as anyone should be condemned for religious-based, race-based, and pretty much any other similar hate toward any group.
Just because you lump self-described Islamic militants in with the general Muslim population doesn’t mean I do.
You, my friend, are the one talking about “Muslim no-go zones.” Unless you think those places are filled to the brim with what you describe as militants (I’ve never heard of a Muslim, even in IS, describing themselves as a “militant,” though if you have evidence to the contrary, I’m happy to look at it), then you are, in fact, lumping “non-militants” in with “militants.”
As far as progressive media outlets like the NYTimes and Time parsing their words with adjectives like"many" or most", well, these ARE progressive media outlets, after all.
Aaaand you’ve just reconfirmed that: 1) you lump all Muslims together; 2) you have no idea of the areas you’re talking about; 3) you have a severe and chronic case of confirmation-bias-itis. Bonus: calling Time and the NY Times “progressive” shows just how far down the right-wing rabbit hole you’ve fallen. The NY Times you can at best call “liberal,” and even then, they’ve been good friends to neocons when it comes to foreign policy. Time is even less liberal than the NY Times. Really, you’ve got to cut back on the Hannity and Breitbart.
As far as “court of law” goes, don’t quit your day job.
I dare you to take the “evidence” as you’ve presented to a lawyer. Any self-respecting one will laugh you right out of the room.
Here’s what I don’t get. According to churchie, liberals don’t make a distinction between the general Muslim population and Muslim radicals. But over and over I see liberals responding to conservative posters who say things such as “Kill them all and let Allah sort ’em out.” Something is wrong with this picture.
But personal insults are acceptable to the Monitor on these pages if you’re a conservative.
My guess (though correct me if I’m wrong) is that any page monitors only show up when things get flagged. So if you’re seeing more liberal posts get removed and less conservative ones, I’d conjecture it might be that 1) right-wingers have thinner skins than other folks and are thus more likely to flag stuff, and/or 2) liberals are more likely to err on the side of allowing for freer speech and are thus less likely to flag stuff.
Who’s complaining you’re not censored? The complaint is that more liberal views that have been akin to yours in tone have been taken down, not that yours haven’t. But, as I said, you right-wingers seem to have pretty thin skins when it comes to criticism, so it’s not surprising you’d read the comments as a censorship campaign. I suspect some of it has to do with your own deep-down wishes for what you could do to folks who disagree with you.
First, How did politics get so personal? There are some provisional answers in this comment.
Yeah, I read that article. While it has some interesting broad-brush analysis, I worry that, as with much poll-based social science, it is missing pretty large parts of the picture. But it’s an interesting conversation-starter nonetheless.
the question is “What are the criteria?”
That, as is the case with most online forums, seems to be the big question. The T&C leave those criteria pretty vague. I like the policy of Ars Technica, which actually doesn’t completely remove posts, but “hides” them, along with a publicly visible reason for the moderation. In fact, that site has just about the best discussion board I’ve seen anywhere. Lots of smart, vigorous disagreements that aren’t allowed to devolve into flame wars.
Jason Allen over 9 years ago
“Lalo the racist.”What exactly is racist about this cartoon? Where does race or racial stereotype come into play? Hint: It doesn’t.
JDave over 9 years ago
Bobby Jindal: GOP Should ‘Stop Being The Stupid Party’-The man shows evidence of at least some brainpower.
kaffekup over 9 years ago
Anybody can say it; but then he violates it himself.Pretty typical. Jumping into the car as it goes over the cliff. Even Faux realizes it’s not true.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Actually, they cooked this up based on an official French designation of some areas as “sensitive urban zones” based on their socioeconomic status, not religion. Even the Conservative Prime Minister of the UK called Emerson, the Fox news commentator who’s been running around making these claims, “a complete idiot.”
But hey, maybe you have some solid evidence you’d like to share that proves these no-go zones actually exist?
braindead Premium Member over 9 years ago
Now, come on! This is a serious Republican candidate for President of the United States.
Who is more representative of the Republicans?
WoodenIndian over 9 years ago
Once its out there. It never goes away.
agrestic over 9 years ago
More like had. It got disgusted with him and left to go live out its life in Aruba.
agrestic over 9 years ago
No Go Zones, which absolutely DO exist
Evidence, please. Put up or shut up.
Also, I suppose David Cameron is one of those foolish liberals? He of the Tories, and a successor to the guy you proclaim was right? (See my first post for reference.)
agrestic over 9 years ago
Let’s see: you’re referring to an article hosted by rabidly neoconservative and Islamophobic Gatestone Institute, written by Soeren Kern, a fellow who himself has a long record of writing breathlessly Islamophobic (and often highly inaccurate) pieces. The “reports” Kern links to are, by and large, other opinion pieces, i.e., not news reporting. And he misrepresents even many of those. If that’s what you trot out as “evidence,” I’m afraid you’re going to have to try harder.
I’ll take Steve Emerson’s word for what going on before I’ll trust the Califate News Network.
The fact you’d call CNN that is a good indicator of how far gone you already are. (Not like CNN is great news—it was All Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, All the Time for a while, which still ain’t exactly “Caliphate” material.) In fact, that whole “Caliphate” language is just more Islamophobia. Real nice coming from someone who complains about anti-Semitism. Some hate’s okay and some isn’t, is that it?) And when Fox News comes out and apologizes for Emerson’s baloney—really, all of Birmingham is a no-go zone?—well, you know you’ve got a winner.
I also find it interesting that nobody denied that there was growing anti-Semitism in Europe
Maybe because it actually is on the rise. But what it sounds like to me is that you want to use that fact as a reason to demonize a whole other religion. So again, you’re saying it’s okay to hate and fear some folks but not others. Which is, frankly, horrible.
agrestic over 9 years ago
When you go all breathless about “Muslim No-Go Zones,” you are painting whole neighborhoods (and cities!) full of all sorts of “non-radical” Muslims as participating in something that doesn’t exist. So no, actually it’s you who are engaging in the bigotry. Unless you’ve somehow gotten the idea that French Muslims, arguably one of the most secular Muslim populations in the world, are actually crypto-“radical-Muslims.” Oh, wait, that’s bigoted too. Yeah, don’t try to smear me with your Islamophobia. Just own it.
eugene57 over 9 years ago
When you run out of facts and ideas, fall back on rhetoric and strawman scenarios.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Why don’t you, or one of your “trusted news sources”, dress as a Priest with a Bible in hand walk around in one of these so-called “no-go zones”
The fact you think someone couldn’t do that is both hilarious and utterly terrifying. It’s like you’re sweating hysteria. Heck, you’d probably be more likely to be assaulted by an atheist than a Muslim.
(translation: Sensitive Urban Zones)
Apparently you don’t bother to read, but those zones are purely socioeconomic designations with no basis in anyone’s stated religion. How about you watch a video of the very people who live and work there:
agrestic over 9 years ago
These articles aren’t saying that these places were supposedly thought by police to be Muslim “no-go zones,” which is what is in question. And with the exception of the New Republic piece, they come from 2005 or earlier, which undermines any evidence for current no-go zones at all. In fact, the articles line up quite nicely with my first comment in this thread that these areas have been given their designations based on their socioeconomic status and not based on the fiction of some small-scale theocratic rule going on in them. In fact, the first NY Times article you mention even talks about Muslim leaders trying to keep their youth from engaging in the widespread violence, and points out that there were plenty of Catholic and animist rioters involved. But it seems that you’ve zoomed right in on the few mentions of the word “Muslim” in each of these articles and decided this means the areas in question are some sort of religious strongholds. Which, again, speaks to your hysteria aimed at an entire religion. It’s similar to the way a certain set of commentators in the U.S. murmur fearfully, “those are black neighborhoods.”
agrestic over 9 years ago
Again, the articles aren’t about being Muslim no-go zones. They do mention (a couple times in each article) that there are Muslims there. But the main thrust of each of these articles is that the socioeconomic conditions in these places are bad, which has led to things like riots, and potentially to extremist recruitment, including by extremist Muslims. They do not say that non-Muslims can’t operate in these areas. In fact, one of the articles is clear about the point that Catholics and animists are operative in these so-called “no-go zones.”
None of these articles says anything about Muslims “ruling” these areas, which is the whole tenet of recent claims about the “no-go zones.” In a court of law, your charges would still be tossed for a lack of evidence, just as they should be in the court of public opinion.
In other words, you’ve completely missed the point of what these articles are saying. This is especially evident regarding that NY Times 4/27/02 article. The condemnation there is that non-Muslim French society has been systematically excluding its Muslim residents from opportunity. The “no-go zones,” in other words, operate in the opposite direction—"no Muslims need apply."
And let’s see that other NY Times quote: it says, “many of them Muslim.” Not all of the people there are Muslim. And yet they manage to survive! Even the Newsweek article that claims the areas are “populated by mostly Muslim Arab and African immigrants” makes clear in its very structure that there are also non-Muslims living there. Why isn’t it “no-go” for these non-Muslims?
But once again, you’ve gone hysterical at just the mention of Muslim residents attached to some area or another. It’s the sort of rhetoric that was leveled against Jewish neighborhoods in propaganda campaigns before and during WWII. And while no one is suggesting any imminent pogroms in France yet—thankfully folks there seem to be more level-headed than the likes of you—your interpretation is still one of hate towards a single religious group. You especially, as a Jewish person who presumably knows the history of hate, should be utterly ashamed at propagating such hate and fear based on religion. Just as anyone should be condemned for religious-based, race-based, and pretty much any other similar hate toward any group.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Just because you lump self-described Islamic militants in with the general Muslim population doesn’t mean I do.
You, my friend, are the one talking about “Muslim no-go zones.” Unless you think those places are filled to the brim with what you describe as militants (I’ve never heard of a Muslim, even in IS, describing themselves as a “militant,” though if you have evidence to the contrary, I’m happy to look at it), then you are, in fact, lumping “non-militants” in with “militants.”
As far as progressive media outlets like the NYTimes and Time parsing their words with adjectives like"many" or most", well, these ARE progressive media outlets, after all.
Aaaand you’ve just reconfirmed that: 1) you lump all Muslims together; 2) you have no idea of the areas you’re talking about; 3) you have a severe and chronic case of confirmation-bias-itis. Bonus: calling Time and the NY Times “progressive” shows just how far down the right-wing rabbit hole you’ve fallen. The NY Times you can at best call “liberal,” and even then, they’ve been good friends to neocons when it comes to foreign policy. Time is even less liberal than the NY Times. Really, you’ve got to cut back on the Hannity and Breitbart.
As far as “court of law” goes, don’t quit your day job.
I dare you to take the “evidence” as you’ve presented to a lawyer. Any self-respecting one will laugh you right out of the room.
lonecat over 9 years ago
Here’s what I don’t get. According to churchie, liberals don’t make a distinction between the general Muslim population and Muslim radicals. But over and over I see liberals responding to conservative posters who say things such as “Kill them all and let Allah sort ’em out.” Something is wrong with this picture.
agrestic over 9 years ago
But personal insults are acceptable to the Monitor on these pages if you’re a conservative.
My guess (though correct me if I’m wrong) is that any page monitors only show up when things get flagged. So if you’re seeing more liberal posts get removed and less conservative ones, I’d conjecture it might be that 1) right-wingers have thinner skins than other folks and are thus more likely to flag stuff, and/or 2) liberals are more likely to err on the side of allowing for freer speech and are thus less likely to flag stuff.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Who’s complaining you’re not censored? The complaint is that more liberal views that have been akin to yours in tone have been taken down, not that yours haven’t. But, as I said, you right-wingers seem to have pretty thin skins when it comes to criticism, so it’s not surprising you’d read the comments as a censorship campaign. I suspect some of it has to do with your own deep-down wishes for what you could do to folks who disagree with you.
agrestic over 9 years ago
First, How did politics get so personal? There are some provisional answers in this comment.
Yeah, I read that article. While it has some interesting broad-brush analysis, I worry that, as with much poll-based social science, it is missing pretty large parts of the picture. But it’s an interesting conversation-starter nonetheless.
the question is “What are the criteria?”
That, as is the case with most online forums, seems to be the big question. The T&C leave those criteria pretty vague. I like the policy of Ars Technica, which actually doesn’t completely remove posts, but “hides” them, along with a publicly visible reason for the moderation. In fact, that site has just about the best discussion board I’ve seen anywhere. Lots of smart, vigorous disagreements that aren’t allowed to devolve into flame wars.