" No Go Zones" in Europe

[GregfromGa]

Say what you want about Putin but I didn't don't think he would tolerate it. The news reports that these Sharia Law communities are forming all over Europe. I would like to believe that we are fighting terrorist but it's looking more and more like Islam that we will end up fighting. Now before you go and call me racist keep in mind that I have hosted 8 Muslim students in my hope over the years. I am welcome in the homes of families in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Palestine, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Egypt. Not Tajikistan as both my Russian speaking students were complete assholes with  elite entitlement issues. There is only one solution to radicals Muslims that expects everyone to submit to Islam. It involves a bullet.

[Chicagoguy]

But I read that French police do not carry guns.

[GregfromGa]

But I read that French police do not carry guns.

Maybe true I don't know but today seems like as good of a day as any to start.

[SANDRO43]

But I read that French police do not carry guns.

Seems it depends on the specific corps - Pat could shed some light on this:

most cities and medium-size towns have a municipal police ( police municipale/corps urbain), which deals mainly with petty crime, traffic offences and road accidents, and there’s a general movement in favour of ‘neighbourhood policing’ ( îlotage) throughout France. Municipal policemen traditionally wore a képi (like gendarmes), although this has been replaced by a flat, peaked cap. While officers of the gendarmerie nationale, the police nationale and the CRS are armed, police municipale aren’t, unless the local préfet and maire decide that they should be.

http://www.justlanded.com/english/France/Articles/Culture/The-French-police

[Shadow]

But I read that French police do not carry guns.

They do, and currently might use them rather quickly.

As for no-go zones, they are a problem in Paris, London (and other UK cities) and Brussels.
In the Netherlands there is some commotion, but knowing those areas personally I can say they are still pretty normal, their large content of immigrants has been there since the 70's.

Bullets or driving the moderate muslims in to the arms of the expremists is not the solution.
A much better way would be to educate Muslims on the events in Christianity where society learned that science and social behaviour were present in other wolrd views as well, leading to a much less violent society.

Considering the amount of Muslims on this planet, we can choose to create a global war in which there will be no winner, or to help and educate those who are seeing religion as a spiritual thing to distantiate themselves from those who wish to wage physical battles in name of their imaginary friend.

Those who wish to wage the physical war should be invited to find out if they are eligible for their destiny of 28 clean boys.

My personal view of the concept of religion becoming outdated is not yet strong enough to be conveyed to all those needing the framework religion offers. There for eductaion on religion needing to be spiritual instead of physical is for now the best solution.

[Patagonie]

Hi Everybody.

You have two forces :

Gouvernmental with Police and Gendarmerie, large part of them have weapons, pistolet Sig Sauer.
Police 145000 (122000 can wear a weapon), Gendarmerie 99000 (77000 can wear a weapon)

Private :
19479 municipal Police (depend of a city only). They can wear some weapons all depend of the mayor.
143000 private guards.

[AC]

As for no-go zones, they are a problem in Paris, London (and other UK cities) and Brussels.
In the Netherlands there is some commotion, but knowing those areas personally I can say they are still pretty normal, their large content of immigrants has been there since the 70's.

Bullets or driving the moderate muslims in to the arms of the expremists is not the solution.
A much better way would be to educate Muslims on the events in Christianity where society learned that science and social behaviour were present in other wolrd views as well, leading to a much less violent society.

First of all when dealing with Islam it really doesn't matter that the West has tried to be respectful of them and encouraged them to assimilate, they are not interested in assimilation into the West.  There are over 700 pockets of Muslims in France alone where the police and other French officials cannot go.  Those are essentially small little Muslim countries within France which are under Sharia law.

It is Islam which has chosen to be at war with the West, not the West who chose to be at war with Islam.

Throw out you ideals and attempts to educate Muslims with science.  There is a radical group within Islam which can be compared to the Nazi's.  Early on when Nazi's were taking over Germany and Austria there were professors who tried to show them that their racial theories did not match up with science.  What resulted was that the Professors were rounded up and put into prison and all books which disputed Nazi racial theory were burned.

Now just compare the Nazi action of burning books with the radical Islamic action of murdering cartoonists and journalists.  They don't care about freedom of speech and never have.  They don't care about real science if it disputes with their stone age concept of a "civilization".

Now you need to closely study a core element and belief of all Muslims.  This is the concept of emigrating to a foreign country and setting up Muslim communities which are separate from the country which they have invaded, and eventually overcoming and ruling those countries with a higher birth rate.

While it is likely too late for France, it is not too late for the USA and a few other countries to wake up and take aggressive actions to stem the tide of separate neighborhoods with sharia law.  France, a formerly sovereign country, has already waved the white flag of surrender by allowing these 700 separate areas without any French rule of law at all.  Jewish people are leaving France in droves because of the aggressive anti-Semitism there.


excerpt
Muslims learned and remembered this lesson, and since then the concept of Hijrah- Immigration- as a means of supplanting the native population and reaching the position of power became a well-developed doctrine in Islam. Immigration in Islam is not a Western liberal romance about how the newcomers gratefully search for opportunities for a better life in liberty and offer their talents and loyalty to the benefit of their new homeland. Immigration as Islam sees it is an instrument of Islamic expansionism that employs religious and ethnic separatism in order to gain special status and privilege, then subvert, subdue, and subjugate non-Muslim societies and pave the way for their total Islamization and implementation of Shari’ah law.

The main principle for a Muslim community in a non-Muslim country is that it must be separate and distinct. Already in the Charter of Medina, Muhammad outlined the basic rule for Muslims who emigrate to non-Muslim land, i.e., they must form a separate body, keeping their own laws and making the host country comply with them:

http://chersonandmolschky.com/2013/10/02/goalofmuslimimmigration/

[lordtiberius]

Shadow, your comparison of Islam with Christianity is part of the problem.

[Muzh]

Shadow, your comparison of Islam with Christianity is part of the problem.

Actually, he's not.




Quiet or the clown gets it



In the two days between the attack on the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo and this writing, I've read stirring declarations of support for the freedom of speech and provocative commentary on what the outrage presages for France's pluralistic society. I have also read something so surpassingly stupid that I'm about to devote an entire column to it.


The object in question, this nearly perfect artifact, is a statement released by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a florid blowhard who has made a profession out of responding to what he views as insults to the church, just hours after the killings.


Instead of his usual white-hot fury, this time Donohue's tone more closely resembles that of your archetypal white Southerner sitting in front of a small-town general store circa 1955, who pauses in his enjoyment of a frosty sarsaparilla to offer the opinion that the murder of Emmett Till was surely a tragedy — but one that could have been prevented if the boy had been savvy enough not to whistle at a white woman.


"Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned," Donohue begins. "That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated."


He does not return to this theme, but instead devotes the rest of the statement to the grossness of the insult, and an explanation of why we should try hard to sympathize with the killers' motivations.


Reaching for common cause, Donohue assails Charlie Hebdo's "long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures," including religious icons both generic (nuns, rabbis, mullahs) and specific (Muhammad, Jesus).


He singles out Stephane Charbonnier, a veteran cartoonist and the paper's editorial director who was one of the eight staff members killed. "It is too bad that he didn't understand the role he played in his tragic death. ... Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," writes Donohue.


Yes, it's always "too bad" when the victims of mass slaughter die before fully comprehending how the legal expression of free-speech rights contributed to their deaths — and their families would probably agree. But I fear Donohue might be wrong about Charbonnier, who keenly understood that his work infuriated violent fundamentalists. Does he think that Charbonnier hadn't figured out why he had been provided with a police escort?


"Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence," Donohue writes, as if he deserves extra credit. (I think Donohue is a fool, but I wouldn't want to watch him get torn apart by wolves — somebody give me a cupcake!)


Donohue concludes by arguing that the real problem is, well, freedom: "Madison was right when he said, 'Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.'"


On a list of those endangering liberty, I would put the abusive powerful near the top — though it's too bad we'll never know where James Madison's slaves would have put him.


Also in the top five: fundamentalist goons who twist the tenets of the world's most enduring faiths into a code of conduct for a death cult, whether that perversion results in the Spanish Inquisition or modern jihad.


Offensive cartoonists and satirists would be ranked slightly lower, right behind Chuck Norris and people who fail to switch off their turn signal on the highway. But maybe I'm being narcissistic.


On Friday, Donohue sent out a new statement under the headline "Muslims and Artists Must Change" that suggested a solution to the whole mess.


"In an ideal world, Muslims who interpret the Koran to justify violence would convert to Catholicism, and artists who think they have an absolute right to insult people of faith would follow suit," he said. "If both did, we would have peace and civility."


It's tough to choose what's more offensive — the moral comparison of controversial artists and mass murderers, or Donohue's inability to recognize that fundamentalists have always found a way to overcome religious admonitions against the use of violence.


As another faith tradition might put it: Oy vey.


http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Casey-Seiler-Quiet-or-the-clown-gets-it-6006559.php

[lordtiberius]

Gets what exactly?  Are you threatening me Carlos?

[Muzh]

Gets what exactly?  Are you threatening me Carlos?

Dude!!!


Read the article then click on the link. That is the title of the article.


Oy vey

[lordtiberius]

Well, I read it and I agree with you Carlos.  Anyone and everyone should get criticized or mocked.  We all have feet of clay.

[stilllooking]

I have not experienced 'no go zones' myself, and suspect quite a lot of it is political rhetoric. I do remember being told not to visit Harlem in the 80's when I lived near NY, and not to go to certain areas in LA when visiting there several times over the years.

Having been an 'immigrant' in 4 different countries, I have always felt that when you move somewhere you have to respect the local customs and culture, just as if you go somewhere on holiday. What strikes me is that certain people (and it is not only groups of Muslims/Islamic people) seem to want the places they visit / move to to respect their own customs and culture. In an attempt to be able to keep their own customs and culture they move into areas close to each other (and that goes as much for christians / americans / europeans / japanese / australians / jews etc as it does for those from the middle east).

In the west we have become so politically correct, that we fully accept people not learning our language (and help them by translating official government documents into lots of different languages), we allow them to openly flaunt our own laws / rules / customs etc for fear of upsetting them (look at the uproar when france banned the Bhurka, look at the protest held in london recently where even police were helping keep men and women separated as the leaders of the protest had requested this) etc. Don't expect some conservative country in the middle east to allow your wife to walk along the street in a bikini top because in your own country that is acceptable. sure, there are some 'tourist' areas where blind eyes are turned to this behavior to keep the dollars flowing in, but go off the beaten path and you are in trouble.

In the west we need to put much more emphasis on integration. On making immigrants and visitors aware of what is expected of them and what we think is 'normal' behavior, and need to be more ruthless when it comes to denying people residency / citizenship based on whether they are integrating in local society or not. Many immigrants are economic immigrants, the migrate by choice, not through necessity, and those migrating by choice need to accept that such a choice has advantages, but also disadvantages, and need to weigh those against each other before making the choice. That does not mean they have to convert to christianity, and have to start saying the pledge of allegiance every day, join in singing the local anthem etc, however, it does mean that they have to show respect when those traditions take place (I used to stand up with the rest of the class in the morning but kept silent when they had to recite the pledge whilst living in the US as teenager and going to high school), they can not expect employers have to give them all their own religious holidays that are not official holidays in the country they move to, in public at least they have to acknowledge that all being are created equal (yes, i know some europeans and americans still struggle with that themselves) etc.

[msmobyone]

As for no-go zones, they are a problem in Paris, London (and other UK cities) and Brussels.

Please could you tell me where  shouldn't go in London ..I know a Russian lady that rented a flat in Tower Hamlet's - with a very high percentage of followers of Islam.

I know many followers of Islam .. most of the leads the UK Police get about terrorists are from the community.

[nic80b]

Seems it depends on the specific corps - Pat could shed some light on this:
http://www.justlanded.com/english/France/Articles/Culture/The-French-police

all police and military cops carry a gun in france.
only the municipality police don't, but nowadays a new law allow them to carry guns as well, it is the mayor's will or not to do so, depending on the "sensitive level" of the area (some small towns in the suburbs of paris or marseilles had to get guns, see some related news about this, like this young cop lady who died after being shot in the back by an extremist).
In any case, our 9mm guns are toys when facing real thieves holding kalash and grenades...
So from now, number of cartridges has increased in the sig (lol), every unit has tasers, mp5 is mandatory when on the ground (finally!), as well as pump shotgun...
As in any country, crime in france does exist, and there are surely some places one should never go without prior notice, or at least without some local as a backup, but there should not be much fear for foreigners to visit the big cities, if they pay attention like anywhere else (mainly pickpockets).
If you plan to visit paris or france, feel free to send me a pm, i will be glad to answer any related question if applicable.