I don't think the murderers in the Charlie Hebdo case came from Chile, though.


But nice try.

They'll come for you anyway - but hey, you were asking for it.

You're not making a lot of sense, Pashosh. I am not a high profile pisstaker of Islam. I don't make it my business to insult people for the sake of "freee speeeech".


It is possible - but extremely unlikely - that I might be murdered by some random jihadi type as I go about my business nevertheless. So what? I might be hit by a bus next time I cross the road.


Islamist terrorist attacks are few and far between in Europe. Pardon me for not being scared. I wasn't scared of the IRA either, and they were actually quite good at what they did.

A more basic principle here is whether or not to succumb to threats, violence and terrorism. It is a brutal approach to civilization and humanity. This is not the direction civilization should go, and should be truncated by all means. It is not proportionate to the offence. Succumbing to it tacitly validates it. If someone wants something, they need to learn how to reason. If they use brutality and terror, they can't be allowed to win, and it can't be rewarded. I wonder how much of this terrorism can be averted if they only had enough skillful and intelligent articulators to make their points.

I don't personally feel threatened by terrorist attacks. But when it happens, I feel deeply shamed by the state of humanity. Most terrorist attacks claim dozens of victims. Some kill hundreds. WTC killed thousands. Maybe some people can brush off the periodic small scale attacks, because the IRA did it in the 70s, or some twisted reasoning like that. It would be a fatal mistake to do nothing, or not try hard enough to avert even small scale attacks.

At the moment, they attack with light arms and explosives. But I don't see them hesitating to apply more massive destruction, should they develop the capability to do so. They've already stated their intention to do so whenever possible. These need to controlled like a virus or a pest while at its current rate. It would be foolish to wait for them to develop more advance capability for massive destruction before acknowledging we have a serious problem. If there are systemic issues that accommodate it, it needs to be closed off. We can't really afford to let this go.

Insulting radical Islam (Or Islamo-Fascism, as Castro recently discovered) is one of the basic tenents of civilization.

Your chances of being involved in terrorist attack are very small, but if you live where Islamofascists have real power your life is miserable.

So, with risk low and benefits high you should do the right thing and challenge the Islamofascists now. it will be harder if they are allowed to grow.

Somewhere on the thread regarding the denialism agenda. The "No Go Zone" areas have reported on for the past 10 years in mainstream media. It is heavily documented in many different forms and mediums. The problem with denying its existence is that it doesn't really cause them to stop existing.
Those 'Mythical' No-Go Zones in Paris: NBC and NY Times Recognized Them a Decade Ago; TNR Writer Says They're Still There - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/01/22/those-mythical-no-go-zones-paris-nbc-and-ny-times-recognized-them-decade#sthash.zp8q4NBT.dpuf


The term "No Go Zone" is an exaggeration. Of course you can go there. We had a "No Go Zone" in my city we referred to as "The Jungle". An average of 4 people per day was getting killed in drive-by shootings. But a friend of mine lived there, and we started training together. So we would run through those neighborhoods, and I never got shot. But perhaps the thought of it made me run a little faster.

Were those 'no-go areas' so due to Muslims?

No-one has denied there ars semi 'no-go areas' in parts of France- but this is not the case in the UK.

In 2008, the Bishop of Rochester was starting to warn that parts of Britain have become no go zones for non-Muslims. He was harangued by the Muslim Council of Britain for "frantic scaremongering". They were joined by Nick Clegg and the rest of the leftist Islamist apologists. None of them really bothered to investigate what the Bishop was referring to, and chose to bury their heads under the sand, with the attempt to do so with British public opinion as well. The only problem is there is some reality to what he was saying.

Here's a video example of what a homosexual might encounter from self-appointed Muslim vigilantes when walking through a "Muslim area":
http://cdn.theguardian.tv/brightcove...atrol-16x9.mp4

When it becomes public, such as that video, the police might investigate and arrest. When it does not, it continues on.

Again, I do wonder whether you have ever visited or been to the UK.
There are areas where gays, or Muslims, or anyone may well be harrassed and harangued in the UK- that is true. Most are white estates inhabited by followers of the National Front and the EDL. As said above, I personally feel a lot more threatened in those, and any areas with a large Muslim population. What is the Police supposed to do about them?

Again, my question above. Were/are the 'no-go' areas you mentioned in the USA, due to a large Muslim population??? Would be grateful for your reply. Thanks.

The world is full of idiots, including those with your stripes.

Ladies and gentlemen. Never mind that we've lived and worked in predominantly Muslim areas. Never mind that we have personally known more Muslims than he's had bratwurst with zwiebelsauce. Phos knows more about it than we do because he read it on the internet.

Phos: you're talking shite. Utter, utter shite.

Smoking is indeed evil and kills millions every year. Are the owners of Tobacco firms Muslims?

Please, I am waiting patiently here- but it shouldn't take that long.

These are socio-economic dark zones that exist in just about any major metropolitan area, and has nothing to do with being Muslim dominated. In the case of this topic at hand, the point is that Muslim areas today are susceptible to extremist influence, and can be a breeding ground for Jihadists. So you have areas like Towers Hamlet in London where you see the black ISIS flag displayed. Jihadi John and hundreds of others from such neighborhoods in the UK are in Iraq and Syria fighting for ISIS. Oh but since the topic is somewhat related to Muslims and Islam, shall we then ignore and deny this reality? I think that sentiment lacks objectivity, and is not being honest about the matter.

These socio-economic zones are often white in the uk, and in the USA too. And they are present in all sorts of communities... as you well know. Some of these zones in the UK are Catholic too. Have you ever visited or lived near Brick Lane? Ever? And encountered any kind of threats and felt threatened?

But could you reply to my specific question re no-go areas you mentioned in the USA.

Quote: These are socio-economic dark zones that exist in just about any major metropolitan area, and has nothing to do with being Muslim dominated.

Indeed, glad we agree, for once.

I think you're more interested in perception than in reality. But does changing perception, or trying to change perception actually alter the underlying reality? You can try to convince yourself of whatever you want, but if a spade keeps coming up a spade, trying to convince yourself and everybody that it is actually a heart is kind of a fruitless exercise. I don't think we would agree. You really ought to try to address the underlying cause of the perception, instead of the perception itself.

Indeed- you should be asking how your perceptions have come about.

Again, have you ever lived in the UK? And why should no go areas in the USA have nothing to do with Islam?


YOU brought up the USA in an earlier post:

quote: We have similar situations in the US in the Bronx, South Side Chicago, Oakland, East L.A., and such. They are referred to as ghettos

Its not a personal perception per se. Quite a lot have been written about it, by journalists exercising free speech, and the Guardian is not your sole bastion of truth in the UK. Statistics, polls, events and facts clearly support it.

I don't know what you are on to about US, and think it is irrelevant here, so I will pass on that.

From a French point of view, you are not either. You don't have to care but your argumentation based on calling a hairy biker's mother a whore would kill your social life for ever in a French environment. You might blame French school for it, but not one educated person I know of with French background would consider pragmatism a serious philosophical school. No Anglo-american you know of might perhaps take anything French seriously, but French people don't care and some even prefer to take the risk to be killed. The US have a hero culture, so one would expect them to relate. If they don't, well, too bad. france is secular, the religious pragmatic Besserwisser are not, so we don't even listen. Calling it arrogant will not help the antifrench usual bashing to be smarter.
One might notice that the international comments about France get on my nerves, it is not aimed primarily at you, your sentence above is just a trigger.

__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.

Didn't Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas join the world leaders in a march for free speech in Paris just a few weeks ago ?


Seems he has changed his mind. Now he has ordered an immediate investigation into why this http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CcxEZfpQ-w...o%2Bhayat2.jpg
cartoon appeared in an arab newspaper.