There was a time when being French meant assimilating into French culture and abandoning the culture of where you immigrated from. Today this is no longer a requirement. Under the pretext of freedom of religion France has allowed political Islam to walk in and start making demands that France change to accommodate them. Being the good liberals that so many of them are, they choose to accommodate this new class of political/religious citizen.
Today there are Muslim neighborhoods that are marked on maps as NO-GO zones for police and fire rescue. Why? Because Muslims don’t want them in there! Their very presence would create violence, so they stay out and leave them alone, so much for assimilation.
In some of the NO-GO zones they have Sharia law substituted for French law! Now a number of traditional French citizens think they may have gone too far and their very culture may be at risk.
Despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary, many liberals choose to believe that Islam is only a religion! It isn’t – its also a political force. The political side and the religious side doesn’t tolerate competition very well either.
The same liberals choose to believe Islam is a religion of peace, it isn’t. History is a great teacher. And these same liberals like to believe that the controversial passages in the Quran about killing infidels are misinterpreted by outsiders. However, the meanings are made quite clear by the actions of the devout followers we call terrorists.
Islam is divided into two parts when it comes to recruiting. First is to conquer by force and next is the benign approach, or vice versa. The end result is still the same. But, if either of those two conversion methods don’t work, extermination is often the result via radical Islam while peaceful Islam stands by and does nothing.
Islam exists in free countries like France under local protection, but they do not practice the same tolerance and often exploit their host nation’s freedom to advantage themselves politically.
When it comes to religion and coexistence, more often the competing religions are destroyed or shoved so far into the background under a barrage of repressive laws that they barely survive and become extreme minorities within the Muslim controlled country.
The spread of radical Islam depends on many things, but the spreading of disinformation is a big part of it. The protections afforded by free nations like America, France and England have been used against us and caused us great harm. That much is a historical fact. But, radicalized Islam still depends disinformation because of the useful fools (liberals) that help carry their false message.
Every targeted culture in history was fed lies about their peaceful Islamic intentions, their love for coexistence, and slowly they were drawn in until it was too late. The conclusion of Islamafication is a loss of freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and our so-called inalienable equal rights which Islam can and does alienate without a second thought!
We’re headed for trouble as radical Islam spreads across America. Why? Because too large a percentage of our population are deniers of Islamic history and todays reality in Islamic countries. Although I grant that their intentions might be good. They just want to go along to get along. They want to embrace all cultures, and sometimes this is not possible. Their naivety is fatally flawed. No matter how hard we try to accommodate Islam, it will never be enough, eventually they want it all, either through force or by selling it to us.
Liberals simply can’t accept this and so they cling to their good intentions and offer up a loving spirit with bumper stickers saying COEXIST while condemning the rest of us as Islamophobic!
Re: “We’re headed for trouble as radical Islam spreads across America. Why? Because too large a percentage of our population are deniers of Islamic history and todays reality in Islamic countries.”
While a significant portion of the left continues to launch attacks on Christianity and it’s often bloody history, they also continue to fawn over Islam. This is why I consider the left to be jam packed with bizarre lunatics.
Tell me, Jack, when was the last time you saw a Christian organization strap a suicide bomb on a child, fly planes into buildings, bomb crowded city centers, or cut the heads off people in a grisly display?
How many Christian organizations are considered terrorist by many nations?
(Yeah, I know, that should have been “its” in the above.)
There is no evidence to substantiate the “no go zone” rumors. This is an Islamophobic myth.
Re:”We’re headed for trouble as radical Islam spreads across America. Why? Because too large a percentage of our population are deniers of Islamic history and todays reality in Islamic countries.”
“Time’s up for denial and hypocrisy,” Le Pen, who has railed against immigration, said in a video posted on her party’s website today. “The absolute rejection of Islamic fundamentalism must be proclaimed loudly and clearly.”
Chris you are one of those useful fools we hear about that defend terrorists. I am going to impose my own censorship on you and stop reading what you write here.
Jack! Why do you and Tina keep debating with him? You know you are wasting your time don’t you? I am sick of reading his S * * *.
Oh and one more thing. I agree with everything you said Jack!
Yesterday there was a peaceful protest in Germany denouncing the Islamization of Germany as well as Europe. The protest was about Muslims not assimilating to the country and their laws. They want to limit immigrants and the benefits they receive. Does this seem familiar to you?
The protest predicted there will be more violence because Europeans don’t adopt the beliefs, laws, rules of the immigrants. They want Europeans to change.
PAL, that’s my concern alright. We’ve got a serious problem brewing and if we don’t have some decisive leadership coming from the White House we could lose the initiative and face a major uphill battle. Hmmm…what was Obama’s last appointment, oh yeah, he appointed Fatima Noor, Muslim, as assistant in the Office of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security. No problem there I’m sure…oh, brother.
Charles42: “Chris you are one of those useful fools we hear about that defend terrorists.”
And you’re a liar. Unless you can show me exactly where I have ever “defended terrorists.”
Lies are all you people have.
Re #3 Chris: “There is no evidence to substantiate the “no go zone” rumors. This is an Islamophobic myth.”
That is a bald faced lie and despicable slur. The usual vomitous fare from Chris.
Here is but one story —
Murders and rapes going unreported in no-go zones for police as minority communities launch own justice systems —
Re #7 pal: “Yesterday there was a peaceful protest in Germany denouncing the Islamization of Germany as well as Europe. The protest was about Muslims not assimilating to the country and their laws. They want to limit immigrants and the benefits they receive. Does this seem familiar to you?
The protest predicted there will be more violence because Europeans don’t adopt the beliefs, laws, rules of the immigrants. They want Europeans to change.”
Precisely. This is Islam’s contribution to Europe.
Jack: “PAL, that’s my concern alright. We’ve got a serious problem brewing and if we don’t have some decisive leadership coming from the White House we could lose the initiative and face a major uphill battle. Hmmm…what was Obama’s last appointment, oh yeah, he appointed Fatima Noor, Muslim, as assistant in the Office of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security. No problem there I’m sure…oh, brother.”
Are you arguing that Noor should not have been appointed for that position simply because she is a Muslim?
If so, I take back what I said earlier. You are a bigot.
Re # 9 and #11:
I slid by that comment post about Fatima Noor and had to backwind. Perhaps a Muslim filling the position of a special assistant in the Office of the Director for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security is a good idea. Who better to help identify Muslim terrorists than a non-terrorist Muslim? (Actually, somehow I do not think her duties will involve identifying Islamic terrorists, but no matter.)
University of Memphis graduate Fatima Noor is, ostensibly, an exceptional student who has made a significant difference in the world, although I don’t know what that is.
(Source http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fatimanoor.asp )
Perhaps in her own way Fatima Noor will follow in the footsteps of fellow Muslim Malala Yousafzay.
Rather than an example of true bigotry, as the harpy asserts, I think Jack’s statement is more of an example of jumping the gun given the recent events in France and the history of the strife, disruption, hate, intolerance, sexism, medieval Sharia, violence and terrorism that Islam brings with it all over the globe. Of course Chris jumps to his own conclusion about Jack because it is his sole intent and purpose here to attack and harass Post Scripts in any way possible and discredit the authors. Jack handed him an opportunity and of course Chris lunges at that opportunity to speciously draw blood, as is his habit.
Why specious? Well, because Jack actually has a long history of trying not to lump all Muslims together in these pages. In fact, he has time and time again sought to be fair and open-minded. At least from my perspective he has. I would say that from any reasonable person’s perspective he has. That is not undone by his earlier post in this thread.
Chris has a very long history of accusing Post Scripts of bigotry and racism and that is not going to change. Those are the twin swords the left always falls back on in order to discredit anyone who disagrees with their policies and politics. For instance, it wasn’t long ago that the left tried to insulate Obama from any criticism by claiming critics must be racist bigots. Heck, they still try to float that nonsense.
Jack, if it is any consolation, you just got the Mau-Mau treatment from Chris using the classic Alinsky attack, rule # 4 –
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
Jack, your own personal rule is to be fair. (Damn, if Post Scripts has not been fair by allowing vicious left wing harpies like Chris to post here, then what are they? Unfair?) Chris well knows his chosen enemy’s rule is to be fair and saw this as an opportunity to thump Jack with it. So I guess score one for the blood thirsty Chris?
Perhaps you should take a break, Jack and take a deep breath. Being called a bigot by anyone – especially this ass — is, to say the least, unpleasant. If you do, please consider this: Give the rest of us a break from the noise of this self-appointed harpy by banning Chris from these pages while taking your break.
Why Post Scripts keeps allowing this chihuahua to continue biting at their heels is beyond me. You should pull a Joe Shaw on him and pull the plug. At least for a while.
Oops, my long post above should have referenced posts #10 and #12, not #9 and #11.
Pie, you cited a tabloid rag that specializes in promoting myths and rumors in order to prove that Muslim no-go zones are more than myths and rumors.
You are so, so bad at this. But your friends are just as bad, so you have no incentive to notice.
Chris dismisses a legitimate story because it, in his estimation, comes from a “tabloid rag”.
Addendum to the above on #15 Chris —
Further amusement ensues. This from the person who quotes Media Matters and takes his marching orders from the The Daily Kos.
Sorry Chris, the mud is on your face, not mine. That story quotes the principles involved and is wholly factual and legitimate. Try reading it you laughable chump.
Pie, be sure to check out my last comments…kinda clears up things, I hope!
Back with a quick question for Chris in #15 and then I am out again.
I would like to know how Chris judges legitimate reportage and news value appearing in other standard paper sizes as compared to tabloid size.
For instance, if a newspaper were printed on ISO A-series, size 0, would the newspaper have more or less value and the reportage contained therein be more or less legitimate than news printed on tabloid size? How does ISO C-Series, size 2 fit into the picture? Or even good old ANSI D versus ANSI E?
Chris, if you can come up with some statistical data correlating news quality and story legitimacy by paper size and a simple chart of your findings, I would be more than happy to do my best to try and get it published on the highly respected statistical analysis internet site http://tylervigen.com/
Re #18 Post Scripts: I do not understand what you mean. Does something need to be cleared up? There wasn’t anything that needed to be cleared up as far as I am concerned.
Once again Pie pretends to be stupider than he really is. He ignores the more common definition of tabloid as “sensational in a lurid or vulgar way” in favor of the much less common definition having to do with paper size. Typical; Pie never argues with anything approaching intellectual honesty, because he knows he would lose.
C’mon Chris! I really think you are onto something here! Paper size versus news validity is a fantastic idea! Very creative! Be adventurous, I know you can do it! It wouldn’t be that hard to do the research.
Look Chris, if a person with absolutely no mathematical background or knowledge of statistics can cobble together an analysis, it ought to be a snap for an English Major!
Re #21: What is this argument we are having that I am losing? I forget. Is it about you being such a bigoted idiot that you dismiss out of hand that a story appearing in, ummm, what did you call it … oh yeah “tabloid rag that specializes in promoting myths and rumors in order to prove that Muslim no-go zones are more than myths and rumors”?
You know Chris, I’ll accept your censure. You got me there. You win with the —
“Pie, you cited a tabloid rag that specializes in promoting myths and rumors in order to prove that Muslim no-go zones are more than myths and rumors.
You are so, so bad at this. But your friends are just as bad, so you have no incentive to notice.”
Chris, I am humbled by the truly awesome power of your intellectually honest rebuke in post #15. I realize now, that your cogent arguments and command of classical rhetorical debate principles are so much more adept than my own that I am simply out classed by the magnificence of you.
Re #21 Footnote: For anyone else reading this who may be a bit confused (I certainly am.)
Chris is under the delusion that I am trying to win some sort of debate with him. (I am not.) He is also under the delusion that I am trying to prove that no-go zones exist. (Chris hotly denies they do for some dang reason.)
1) I am not in a debate with Chris, nor am I trying to win an argument with him.
2) I posted a legitimate newspaper article about Islamic self imposed no-go zones in Britain that contains statements from the police and other principles involved.
3) Chris dismissed the article because it comes from a “tabloid rag that specializes in promoting myths and rumors in order to prove that Muslim no-go zones are more than myths and rumors.”
4) I suggested he do a statistical analysis on the validity of news versus paper size.
That pretty much sums it up.
oops, I forgot to cover this…
Hey Chris! I agree! In Great Britain (and elsewhere) “tabloid” can mean a paper that is “sensational in a lurid or vulgar way”.
But Chris, I am going to need some help here and I hope you can benefit me with your keen eye and shed some light on this important subject about lurid sensationalism in the news.
1) Take a look at the article I posted —
I must be too dim or jaded to recognize it. Can you please tell me in detail how the article is sensational in a lurid and or vulgar way?
2) Please be so kind and examine the rest of the paper outside of that article. Can you please give me some examples of how it is sensational in a lurid and or vulgar way?
3) Lastly,can you explain exactly for me, with examples, how this paper is, as you say it is, “a rag that specializes in promoting myths and rumors?”
Thanks so much in advance. I truly could use your help and expertise on these concerns.
Pie, the Daily Mail’s Wikipedia page may shed some light on its reputation.
There is also this Slate article, but it comes from a left-wing and thus biased source, so you may take it with a grain of salt, or just choose not to read it.
At this point I think I’ll pull a Chris here. This is one of Chris’ most juvenile struts, but it is still hilarious no matter how many times he pulls it.
What Chris does is to declare victory when he does not get a timely answer to some challenge he has issued. Chris did this to Tina just recently, declaring victory in some argument they were having. When Tina did not answer Chris in what he thought was a timely manner, he declared victory because she was silent and thus — obviously — could not formulate a response to his superior intellectual debate point. (By the way, I am not debating Chris here, I never bother debating this clown because it is completely pointless to do so. But to Chris *everything* is a debate.)
Chris, your silence speaks volumes. Obviously you cannot answer my questions in #24 to about how the Daily Mail article I cited is “sensational in a lurid and or vulgar way” or the Daily Mail itself is a “sensational in a lurid and or vulgar way” or “rag that specializes in promoting myths and rumors”, BECAUSE THEY AREN’T.
I accept your defeat.
The article is legitimate news, the paper is a legitimate news organ, and you are, as usual, full of it up to your ears. Nice try, loser.
Hah! Thanks Chris for pulling up a Wikipedia article I have already read and pointing me to some crap on a left-wing propaganda rag (which I will not bother to waste my time reading).
You refuse to answer my specific questions in #24 because you can’t.
You can’t because the article I cited is neither “sensational in a lurid and or vulgar way” or is “promoting myths and rumors”.
You can’t because you can’t find any evidence and cite any of myth and rumor promotion or lurid and vulgar sensationalism in the rest paper that appears online
Instead of showing me any direct evidence of your asinine claims, you try to beg off with some irrelevant links.
Strike three, loser, inning over. You are nothing but a pathetic crap slinger who fancies himself a bs artist. It’s over, you lose.
Pie, I gave you two different links that I believe show that the Daily Mail is a sensational tabloid rag specializing in rumors. I understand if you don’t read the second, since I am sure you don’t trust Slate, but I can’t understand your dismissal of Wikipedia, which always at the very least contains helpful citations. (When I was younger I was always told this was an unreliable source, but the Internet has changed since then and so has Wikipedia; I have my students use this as a jumping off point for further research, though they’re not allowed to cite it as a source in itself.)
I haven’t claimed any “victory;” I just pointed out that you haven’t yet provided reliable evidence of your claims. You may do so in the future, but of course no one is forcing you to. Why do you care so much? You always end up leaving at least three or four comments to each one I write, all responding to me with name-calling, which is a violation of this site’s rules. (I did call Jack a bigot, which I have now apologized for.) I just want you to know that whatever hatred you feel for me, which is palpable in your comments, is not mutual. In that way I do think I achieve a moral victory over you each time you press “submit” on another one of your hateful and abusive comments.
Re #28: Same BS, different post, more FAIL. I am moving on. Chris, you can keep jerking yourself on this all you want about this. You did not show me any specific examples from the article cited or the web site to support your idiotic and specious claims because you can’t. End of discussion. Drop dead.
Pie: “Drop dead.”