SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES
I am channeling Glenn Reynolds today @ Instapundit, and will simply give you some interesting links in the escalating riots saga in France, on the twelfth day of intensifying violence, spreading like bushfire through the country, and promoting the Jihad Muslim cry. My great friend Patrick Belton from Oxlog is live blogging from Paris, don't miss it: 'Just Because I'm Not Posting Doesn't Mean I'm Dead Dept'
An interesting article in Newsweek :
"Like a Middle Eastern intifada, the violence is stripping away whatever comfortable assumptions existed about the authorities' ability to cope. Decades of French policies intended to force the integration of immigrants and their children into French society are seen to have failed, and in the age of terror, the fear is that rage like this will swell the ranks of radical Islamists in the heart of Europe. For years, itinerant preachers have moved through these same communities recruiting for holy wars in Bosnia, Chechnya and now Iraq, where a few young French Muslims have gone to die as suicide bombers. Madrid and London have shown what happens when that sort of fury is turned inward."
More from The U.K. Telegraph.
Jay @ Wizbang has the smart assesment:
"What's going on in France is a warning to the rest of the world: this is what can happen when you combine unrestrained immigration, un-enforced assimilation, and unfettered nationalism, all embodied in a single group. France has a large body of unassimilated North African Muslims, who have established their own enclaves entirely separate from the larger French culture (and no, that's not quite an oxymoron) surrounding them. They've been allowed to build their own culture and society and rules, and now are looking to establish that as a legally-recognized fact."
President Chiraq's outrageously late intervention came an astonishing ten days after the riots had started, giving an appeasing word of comfort, reminiscent of his stance on the war on Iraq at the U.N:
"France "has not done everything possible for these youths, supported them so they feel understood, heard and respected", noting that unemployment runs at 40% in some suburbs, namely four times the national rate.
Well President Chiraq, you will now have a dose of your own medicine, and lets see how Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy works in France, and whether you end up having to call the army in after all. One cannot help but think of France standing against us when it counted, and watching how inadequate their government's reaction is in dealing with their own Muslim problem. Doug @ Below The Beltway:
"The interesting thing about this is the difference it points out between politics in France and politics in the United States. If something similar were happening here and President Bush had waited eleven days to make a public statement, the calls for impeachment would be coming from all quarters. Despite this tough rhetoric, its unclear whether the authorities will be able to act in accordance with Chirac's rhetoric...
[...]
"Meanwhile, the American media continues to largely ignore the events in France and to refer to the rioters as "youths" while ignoring the fact that they are predominantly, if not exclusively Muslim. As I said several days ago, France is reaping the whirlwind for its lax immigration policies of the past 40 years or so and for the fact that it has largely ignored its immigrant population. They are, it seems, dealing with an angry, most likely radicalized population in their midst. And, as events in Denmark and elsewhere demonstrate, it is a problem that all of Europe will eventually have to deal with."
Corbis Images 'The May 1968 student riots in Paris'
Craig Smith @ The New York Times carries on in a dream world of his own, very indicative of the overall position the newspaper has taken on this matter:
"Though a majority of the youths committing the acts are Muslim, and of African or North African origin, the mayhem has yet to take on any ideological or religious overtones. Youths in the neighborhoods say second-generation Portuguese immigrants and even some children of native French have taken part.
In an effort to stop the attacks and distance them from Islam, France's most influential Islamic group issued a religious edict, or fatwa, condemning the violence. "It is formally forbidden for any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone's life," the fatwa said, citing the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad."
As Ed Morrissey @ Captain's Quarters quite rightly points out, dream on:
"Craig Smith never explains why an "influential Islamic group" finds it necessary to issue a fatwa against the violence if it has not taken a "religious overtone", or even what kind of Islamic group this is, an omission the AP makes as well. In fact, this is the first time the NYT has even associated the riots with Muslims at all, a remarkable run considering the official suggestions coming from France that alleges a connection between the two, as the AP reports -- and as anyone with half a brain and knowledge of the Parisian slums knew from the first night of the riots."
UPDATE : Washinton Post joins The NYT in lala land: "Islamic ideology and leaders play no role in the disturbances, and many of those participating are not Muslim." Really.
The New York Post: "France has cancer and insists it's just a rash".
Dominique de Villepin, the beleaguered Prime Minister, announced that officials in riot-hit areas would be authorized to impose late-night curfews "wherever it is necessary" in a bid to halt the disturbances.
He refused to call in the troops, but said he had 1,500 reservists who are supposedly standing by. Perhaps he has in mind that they start dropping leaflets on the rioters telling them how The President will improve their living conditions. Anyone who thinks this is not a systematically organized attack, needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Sigmund Carl & Alfred tells us about things left unsaid bringing out a few truths no one wants to address. In fact Siggy has blogged extensively the entire weekend about the very topic of the French riots here here here and finally quoting Mark Steyn, who tells Europe to wake up, they have a war on their hands:
"For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc. The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that battle."
More on that from Hugh Hewitt's interview on Radioblogger, with Victor Davis Hanson, the famous military historian writing weekly on National Review Online.
Lets look at the student riots in Paris in 1968 via Hugh Hewitt:
"The May 1968 Paris student riots had a fundamental impact on French and Wider European society. A part of the impact was on fashion. Just as the War in Viet Nam was having a major impact on American society. The Paris Student Riots are now seen as a major watershed event in France. As Charles Dickens put it about an earlier French Revolution, "They were the best of times, they were the worst of times. Surely the virtual open warfare in the streets of Paris during those May days shattered the old order in France more surely than any popular uprising since the Great revolution of 1789. Students and police clashed around burning cars and barricades. Half the French work force struck in solidarity-freezing the gears of a society which at the time was enjoying record prosperity. As a result, the mighty Charles de Gaulle fell from what had seemed a presidency for life. Other popular movements were underway that Spring. The U.S. anti-War movement, the Prague Spring, and violence on campuses from Japan to Italy to Mexico. A new world order seemed at hand. The events are relatively unrecognized in America as we were in the grips of our own national upheaval."
And for those of you who are gluttons for punishment Hugh gives a much longer review of the events of May, 1968, and their impact on French culture.
Check out Clive Davis' blog, some good European updates, and a word of caution.
And this from The New Yorker:
"If mediocrity is the curse of the American political class, the curse of French politics has always been an excess of cleverness, producing a politics dominated by men and (lately) women immensely smart and immensely irresponsible, all tactics and no strategy."
LA Shawn weighs in on the historical aspect, and recommends a great read by Buchanan 'Death of the West', after which we can all start slashing our wrists.
Another proof that The NYT has totaly lost the plot ......their travel section is promoting trips to Paris: "For a city under siege, Paris, in its center, is oddly pleasant these days" Really.
NOVEMBER 9TH UPDATE: Check out my friend Patric Bolton from Oxblog who is still live blogging from France, and has the latest from the ground.
The Anchoress has kind words about this article:
"Alexandra’s graphic is chilling and her links are terrific. What a unique and valuable eye and voice she brings to every issue!"
Then goes into a succinct Islamic 'cherrypicked round up', and as usual her wise words cut through the hundreds of pages of print like a hot knife slicing through butter:
"Apparently having not read the email from Marianne, the WaPo says these riots have nothing to do with Islam! Nothing!. Okay. Allah Akbar to you, too."
LATEST FROM APJUST 30 MINUTES AGO:
"During late Tuesday through early Wednesday, youths torched 617 vehicles, down from 1,173 a night earlier, national police spokesman Patrick Hamon said. Incidents were reported in 116 towns, down from 226."
Police made 280 arrests, raising the total to 1,830 since the violence erupted 13 nights ago.
[...]
National Police Chief Michel Gaudin said an additional 1,000 officers were deployed overnight, bringing the total to 11,500. He attributed the drop in attacks to police sweeps and cooperation from community groups.
[...]
Police say rioters have been using mobile phone text messages and the Internet to organize arson attacks.
[...]
The recent unrest started as a localized riot in a northeast Paris suburb angry over the accidental deaths of two teenagers of Mauritanian and Tunisian descent who were electrocuted while hiding from police in a power substation."
And guess who jumps onto that little bandwagon immediately, in a mass of extraordinarily organized hits. Just check the map in my photo above, and tell me this is random rioting.
Ed Morrissey, has a not to be missed article in the Daily Standard today:
"In September, the Algerian Islamist terror group GSPC issued a communiqué describing France as "enemy number one" and called for Muslims to conduct attacks on France. Agence France Presse reported this threat without great fanfare, but the French authorities took it seriously enough to round up over a dozen suspected terrorist cell members throughout the country. The Post took a different look at the Algerian threat, noting that the training for terrorists had focused on younger French citizens, with a greater ability to move unrestricted through the streets of Paris and other target-rich environments. Among the training areas that intrigued the Post was the urban-warfare areas of Iraq:
“ French police investigating plans by a group of Islamic extremists to attack targets in Paris discovered last month that the group was recruiting French citizens to train in the Middle East and return home to carry out terrorist attacks, sources familiar with the investigation said.
One French official said the extremists were using a virtual "underground railroad" through Syria to spirit European and Middle Eastern citizens into and out of Iraq. A senior French law enforcement official, who declined to be quoted by name because he was speaking about classified information, said French citizens had undergone terrorist training at camps in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
"There's always been an enormous jihad zone to train people to fight in their country of origin," the official said. "We saw it Afghanistan, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and now we're seeing it in Iraq."
And Ed back @ his own Captain's Quarters:
"The media has gone so far as to ignore its own reporting in assuring us
that Islamists have nothing to do with the French uprising.
[...]
I predict that even a negotiation with French imams for autonomy in the sink estates will fail to budge the media from their lockstep analysis of the French uprising."
Check out The Right Nation for the Italian point of view!
DO NOT TOUCH OUR PORK SOUP !
You may have heard about the Identity Soups. These traditional pork soups are distributed in several towns in France and Belgium by Identity associations that are wishing to help their compatriots living in poverty.
These de Identity soups have been accused of racism because, since they contain pork, they would exclude Jews and Muslims. Still, pork meat is key to the traditional Gallic art of cooking (Read again the Asterix’ adventures !). It is also the cheapest meat and this is an important factor of choice for non-subsidised associations. And, last but not least, when Jewish or Muslim associations are helping their fellows from the same religion they choose to serve kosher or hallal soups and this does not shock us nor does it shock anybody else… Now, when Europeans are trying to help their fellow compatriots with pork, why should it then be considered as racism ?
January 14th 2006, following a request from the Mayor of Strasbourg (North East of France), the Prefect (representing the French State) has prohibited the distribution of the Identity Soup with the support of the police and has arrested the head of the association organising the soup, named Solidarité Alsacienne (Alsatian Solidarity).
IN FRANCE THE STATE PREVENTS
FRENCH PEOPLE TO HELP FRENCH AND EUROPEAN PEOPLE !
All European nations are concerned by this measure : if we do not react today, tomorrow they might prohibit the croissant as the racist symbol of the European victory against the Turkish Muslim army that was at the door of Vienna in 1683. Or, like a director of a British school did, they may prohibit to tell stories such as “The three little pigs” under the excuse that it could heart the sensitivity of Muslim kids. It is now that we shall react !
OUR ARMS ARE THE PHONE AND THE EMAILS !
If you want to protect French and European culinary traditions and especially the freedom of Europeans to live on their own soil according to their ancestral customs, phone, send a email and ask your friends to do the same to :
- the Prefect of Bas-Rhin, Jean-Paul FAUGERE : chantal.jaouen@bas-rhin.pref.gouv.fr - tel. (33) 03 88 21 67 68),
- the Mayor of Strasbourg, Fabienne KELLER : fkeller@cus-strasbourg.net - (tel. (33) 03.88.43.65.08)
- the Mayor’s « Premier Adjoint » Robert GROSSMANN: rgrossmann@cus-strasbourg.net - (tel. (33) 03.88.43.65.03),
- the local newspaper: redaction@dna.fr (tel. (33) 03.88.21.55.00),
- please copy us using the following address (this will be used to count the emails sent) : contact@les-identitaires.com
This call is sent in more than fifteen European countries as well as in North and South America, Canada and Quebec. Our objective: that the Prefect, the Mayor and the local newspaper receive each 100.000 emails asking for freedom for Identity Soups. No insult, no threat, no attachment, just these few words as a title :
FREEDOM FOR OUR PORK SOUP !
LIBERTÉ POUR NOTRE SOUPE AU COCHON !
For any information on Identity Soups :
http://solidarite-alsacienne.hautetfort.com
http://www.association-sdf.com
http://www.soulidarieta.org
http://www.renaissancesociale.be
Posted by: identitaire | Thursday, February 02, 2006 at 08:51 AM
Eduardo,
This is one of the most lucid and informative comments I have had on the subject. I almost feel I don't want it to remain buried in the comments section, but would like it to be more widely heard.
I will of course have to find a photograph as usual, which always takes time.
How do you in principal feel about your comment being brought out from the comments section into the main body of new text.
In order not to infringe upon your thoughts, I would simply post it as it is, and quite frankly not change a thing.
Posted by: Alexandra | Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 10:00 AM
I partly agree with Semanticleo, partly not. The debate seems to polarize sometimes into cliche extremes.
Semanticleo seems to want to downplay, perhaps correctly, any religious aspect of the (mostly) Muslim rioting in France. It may be that some on the right are exaggerating the religious significance of the rioting. But as I'll explain, the issue is bigger than Semanticleo seems to think.
Also, the comparison Semanticleo made with the Jews of Russia was way off base. Jews were not immigrating to Russia so quickly and reproducing so rapidly that serious people started asserting that Jews would become a majority of the Russia population within a century. But that is precisely what many social scientists are predicting about the Muslims of France and Europe. Nor does any serious person claim that Jews proselytized in Russia, much less sought to convert everyone there to Judaism and, with the attainment of a Jewish majority, force some kind of Jewish Bibilical Law down everyone's throat. Yet there is reason for concern that the attainment of an Islamic majority in France and Europe before the end of the century could lead to the introduction of Sharia and theocratic dictatorship. Already the liberal climate of European countries is changing dramatically. In famously tolerant Holland, where there had been no political assasinations for centuries, a politician and movie maker are murdered, and other politicians must live in prison in order to have sufficient security against Islamist threats. In Denmark a newspaper dares to publish caricatures of Muhammed, and the editors are forced to hire bodyguards, while the newpaper is put up on an Al Queada website as a target for jihad.
One of Semanticleo's sentences makes clear that s/he makes the mistake of assuming that religions are basically all the same with regard to the use of violence and force, and that they all can produce extremists in equal proportions. But doesn't that seem a suspiciously abstract, non-empirical, universalizing statement? I can't see why it should be assumed without close inquiry into the particulars of the religions characterized.
But I'll give Semanticleo this: Even though only 1 in 48 Muslim majority nations is rated as 'free' by the non-partisan organization Freedom House (which rates all nations according to two scales, a political rights scale and a civil liberties scale), while 60-something percent of Muslim-majority nations are rated 'unfree' and 30-something percent are 'partly free', despite those dreary numbers, there is some reason to hope that Islam is not deeply incompatible with liberal democracy, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and women's rights. At any rate some social scientists connected with the World Values Survey claim that extensive empirical studies of Muslim attitudes toward democracy, for example, give reason for optimism on this question.
But that optimism is disputed, and not just by ideologues with some ulterior agenda. Both the left and the right need to grow up and realize that it is possible for intelligent, well-informed persons to hold opposed opinions about the threat, or lack of it, posed by the rapid growth of Muslim populations in France and Europe. Meanwhile, since so much is at stake if the optimists are wrong, they should spend more effort perusing the views, not of primitive xenophobes, but of the most intelligent pessimists they can find.
On the one hand, perhaps Muslims and Islam in the West will have whatever it takes to accept religious pluralism and other forms of pluralism and upon becoming a majority perhaps Muslims will maintain liberal values much better than those values are maintained today in Muslim-majority countries. There is some evidence to back that up. Mali, I gather, is 'free.'
But there is certainly evidence on the other, dark side of the equation. Beyond the fact that only 1 out of 48 majority-Muslim states is 'free' (of course 'free' as we in Europe or the United States generally understand that word), there is the fact that the lack of pluralism, the gender-apartheid, the second-class status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands, the authoritarianism, all this unfortunately dovetails well with central elements of the Koran. As everyone should know by now, but does not, the prime exemplar of Islam, Mohammed, the chief human template for Muslim life and social order, did not advocate, nor practice, a separation of religion and the state. He was a theocratic dictator. That is quite a template, to me scary cultural DNA, to base a civilization on. And one need not believe in Christianity or Christ in order to see that the story of Christ in many ways over centuries acted as a powerful seed in Europe for the separation of religion from the State power, and thus for the opening up of a social space for freedom, despite things like the Inquisition. The latter was based not in anything that can be found in the New Testament, but rather in the reincarnation of Roman law in the Catholic church (recall Dostoyevski's Grand Inquisitor, who tortures a returned Christ). Suppose Christ is a fairy tale. Still, that tale had a central effect on how Europe was organized, and according to the tale, Christ refused the 'kingdom of this world' repeatedly, and said "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar, and to God the things that are God's", and so on. Religion was not to be a matter of force, or state power, but of love from one soul to another. Muhammed had a very different approach. Where Christ is reputed to have distinguished himself so carefully from Caesar, one could say that Muhammed became Caesar, he became the earthly ruler in Mecca and Medina, and according to the Koran and the reports of Muhammed's life considered most reliable by Muslims, i.e., Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, Muhammed was not terribly averse to the use of force, indeed was a soldier and war leader involved in killing people, sometimes executing numbers of them. The Koran even contains a chapter called "Booty", commenting on booty the Muslims took in raids on caravans and in wars. Muslims familiar with the Koran and Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari do not dispute that the Koran permitted turning women -- whose husbands the Muslims had just killed in war -- into slave concubines -- some of whom Muhammed himself used. The point of adducing all this -- and I am leaving out many other less than pleasant facts about Muhammed and Islam -- is not to say that Islam is all bad, or that other religions do not also have bad elements. The point here is that Islam may well be dangerously incompatible (not totally incompatible) with liberal values and freedoms, and that its dark side may be significantly darker than the dark side of Buddhism, Christianity or Hinduism -- unless you think that gender apartheid and theocratic dictatorship are not darker than what the West calls liberal democracy. But then I part company with you.
People sometimes speak as if Muslim Spain were a multicultural utopia because a few Jews or Christians reached high (though certainly subservient) positions. But the average Jew or Christian was required to wear distinguishing clothes, had to show demeaning forms of subservience to Muslims, could not build new temples or churches, or repair old ones, and was subject to many other kinds of legally established discrimination against non-Muslims, reducing them to second-class citizens at the mercy of the Muslims around them. Such discrimination is based in Islamic law, thankfully not always enforced, which states that non-Muslims in Muslim lands basically have three choices:
1) convert to Islam or
2) be a 'dhimmi', i.e., 'protected', i.e., pay protection money, a special tax levied on non-Muslims and agree to be fully subservient to Muslims in a variety of ways stipulated by law, or
3) forfeit protection, i.e., your life.
Those are the three basic choices stipulated in Sharia law. Thankfully secularization has watered it down in many cases, and it is not always enforced, but it still is powerfully influential in most Muslim-majority countries as an ethos with signifcant discriminatory ramifications. The result is that non-Muslims slowly dissapear from Muslim-majority lands. They leave or convert, and occasionally are killed in pogroms or genocides (for example the genocide in Sudan recently, and the genocide committed by the Turks against Armenians decades ago).
Further, fundamentalism is more universal and profound among Muslims than among other major religious groups. That is a result of the fact that Muslims literally deify the words of the Koran. Daniel Boorstin, author of The Creators puts it that Muslims believe in an "Inlibration" of God, God entering a book, whereas Christians place more emphasis on "Incarnation" of God in Christ. I emphasize that my point in comparing Christianity with Islam is not to advocate Christianity as a religion. My point is to try to delineate the differing effects of different beliefs on social organization. While Christians to varying degrees see the New Testament as inspired by God, the perceived distance between God and the New Testament is greater among Christians than the distance Muslims place between the Koran and God (often zero in the latter case). But even if someone wants to shut his eyes and insist that both religions are exactly the same on this point, the New Testament does not seek or advocate the use of force to spread Christianity. The Koran has many verses that do so. And unfortunately, many Muslim scholars believe that the violent Koranic verses abrogate or cancel the more tolerant Koranic verses. Why? Because Allah's violent Koranic verses came later in Muhammed's career, (though not always later in the chapter order of the Koran) and therefore cancel the ones from earlier in Muhammed's career. God can cancel out his own statements. Sura 9, verse 123 is an example of a violent statement in the Koran, straight from the mouth of Allah's angel Gabriel, according to Muslims: "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you." Check this verse's context, the meaning of the verse doesn't alter thereby.
We can hope that those who are greatly anxious about the rapid increase of the Muslim population in France and Europe are mistaken to be so anxious, and that Islam, despite so many signs, is not going to crush European freedom in the end. But it is ignorant to treat as primitive xenophobes all those who are deeply disturbed by the rapid growth of Islam in France, and who look with fear upon the appearance in recent decades of large ghettos of unassimilated Muslims, where anti-liberal Sharia law and gender-apartheid are beginning to make inroads and where the secular government is prevented from exercising any authority, and where non-Muslims cannot safely go.
To think that Islam must destroy liberty and democracy might be mistaken, but is not always a sign of xenophobia or stupidity.
Posted by: eduardo odraude | Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 09:45 AM
I just posted it. Secular Democracy Held To Ransom
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 04:21 PM
I have to divert again, once again. Before I inherit Chirac's stroke ...
This is a very relevant sidenote to the heat of the moment:
From a weblog:
[...]"Spoke to a relative in Paris and he says that 'it's not such a big deal'. Apparently, the same way we claimed during the intifada (between 87-91) that the Arab violence was restricted to areas far away from Jewish areas, the average frenchie is not affected by this violence. If s/he would not be informed by the media, they would not know that anything out of the ordinary is happening."
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2005/11/whats-really-going-on-in-france.html#113148314276330473
Posted by: tomdickandharryspiritofecstasy | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Mike,
I just received your email, and was googling you to figure out who this was sending me the email! Now I know - the cool Mr.SOE.
I am just finishing up my new post on the whole subject, there is so much more to say....
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 01:02 PM
Vive la Trance
Let me say something up front; France, this is about France as a country and Muslims as a group. It is not about China or Ecuador or Cuba or America. These predictable and ceaseless attempts to put perspective on Islamic violence are contrived and peculiarly repetitive bearing the unavoidable unconcious gestures of collusion or mass denial on a global scale.
Check littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ there should be a link2article addressing the selectivity of the attackers. In other words they are not burning the cars of Muslims, they are burning the cars/property of non-Muslims. But if I can be so impulsive my guess is that "something" will soon appear to discount that obvious fact. "Something" such as evidence to the contrary presented by some affectation of officialdom. (Recognize the pattern? It is there right in front of you but an "authority" argument always appears to tell you it is not there. Who knew?)
This is the new world order.
A different mass pychological perspective on the same primordia. The cold war order is over, rhetorically over, unless you perceive AK-47s, Soviet/Russian advisers in the territory and other manyfold whispers of artifice to reveal something ... It is fascinating that the weapons used by opposing sides reveal so much lineage as the physical manifestation of ideas.
Let me say something up front; France, this is about France as a country and Muslims as a group.
This is mythology that France could not, cannot, control these events. They are not stopping them for other reasons which may be unconcious or contrived or both. It is as if they do not want to offend their benefactors.
I'll go further with allusion. If tomorrow there was indisputable evidence that salt water could generate heat and therefore fuel any machine, tomorrow would be the day that the cars stopped burning in France and everywhere else ...
BUT it would all quickly become another newer world order, with new rhetoric. You cannot wash away the broader pattern.
It is also "possible" that conciousness is dictated unconciously by social rank. Hierarchies. Overlapping fractals. This would mean that one cannot conceive the concious disposition and perceived reality of a rank that one has not acquired. This would mean that you cannot wash away the broader pattern. (addendum: I am pointing to motives and realities the escape the standard rhetoric.)
Let me say something up front; France, this is about France as a country and Muslims as a group.
~
addendum:
We have Islamic Guerilla warfare against civilians in; Beslan, London, Madrid, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Israel, the Phillipines, Iraq, the Netherlands, Thailand, Indonesia, Bali, possibly China, et al, etc.
Ideological guerilla warfare.
Does that ideology come from the poverty of hydro carbons? Or from the carefully masked failure, or unconcern, of the leaders of such ideological nations. Exporting ideology and influence along with their sole commodity?
Make sure you read the comments of French officials in this link:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8742758/
Posted by: spiritofecstasy | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 12:50 PM
Semanticleo,
Cool. Nice to be on the same page.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 10:32 AM
Oh dear, Semanticleo, so many excuses for such bad behavior. It is unbelievable to me that ANYONE would say , "...they are blowing off steam." Also, I must have forgotten that period in history when Jews set Mother Russia on fire ? Will you refresh my memory? By the way, perhaps the rage doesn't spring from Islam as a primary source (although I suspect that it does), but the soul of Radical Islam is present in the heart of each and every rioter in France today. The soul of Radical Islam is force - force the desired results through terror and violence if necessary. Since when did it cease being the responsibility of the individual ( OR individual ethnic group ) to earn their way into a place in the culture of their adopted country.
Posted by: jess1dering | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 07:34 AM
Dave,
Do you have any links to the assertions in your first paragraph? I would be interested to know if there is any more information on that.
Thanks.
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 06:07 AM
The rioters themselves claim to be making another Fallujah. They couch their statements in specifically religous terms: intifada, jihad. They are selectively burning cars belonging to nonMuslims and ignoring cars with Islamic paraphenalia displayed. There are videos available online of French Muslim arsonists chanting 'Allahu Ackbar'.
...of course, Semanticlaro knows the mind of the rioters better than they themselves do. He understands that it's really the right-wing bloggers who are burning cars in France. Clever little man.
Posted by: DaveP. | Wednesday, November 09, 2005 at 05:39 AM
Kenny;
There is nothing in what you say that I would disagree with.
I am not disputing the nefarious elements which seek to exploit a given social circumstance to advance some rationalized agenda.
Religious leaders of every stripe have often played key roles in the instigation of mob violence. "The end justifies the means" is rarely admitted as the conduit for quick and easy results. And it is generally anathema to spiritual organizations to incite violence of any kind. But it does happen.
I initially commented on the subject because many of the conservative bloggers have latched onto this story and attempt to make the case that muslims are conspiring to control their environment (some would call that the definition of politics)
by creating another Gaza strip or Fallujah uprising.
Amazingly, they use your example of the Imam fatwas condemning the riots as proof of the religious origin of the riot itself.
It is vaguely reminisent of the Soviet Pogroms which sought to
create cover storys amongst the general population about Jewish conspriacies against Mother Russia. Disinformation has been the greatest setback to the war on terorism. Unfortunately, there are those desperate to rationalize the rightness of our Iraq venture. My view is that they need to make the entire population of Islam and impute evil motives to the entire lot.
That does not ring true for me and I hope it is not the viewpoint of those posting here. I do not think Alexandra meant to give this impression. However the bloggers she links to have seemed to go over the edge on this point.
Posted by: Semanticleo | Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 11:53 PM
Semanticleo,
While I think there is much truth in what you say, it seems to me that you deny a lot of truth in the process. I think in this case you're (a) committing the fallacy of bifurcation and (b) overlooking some salient points about the history of Black radicalism in America.
These riots are multifaceted, driven by a number of different mutually reinforcing causes. The social alienation, the "poverty" (which is much more a matter of subconsiously perceived dependence and social immobility than it is a matter of deprivation of the physical necessities of life), the racism, and the religious otherness are all factors that come into play. Youths such as this, with their deep-burning rage and their incipient sociopathy and their simple masculine pleasure in violence and destruction (we guys are hard-wired that way, after all) become ready tools for whatever evil forces need somebody else to do their violence (and then suffer the violence of society's response). They'll be recruited by drug dealers, for example; but then they will be, and are, also recruited by Islamofascism. You should remember that the only people who appear to have been successful at showing up and ordering the young beasts to heel in the past couple of weeks, have been local imams.
Islam feeds into the radicalism by giving the nominally Muslim young criminals a handy rationalisation for their demand that they be left alone to own and terrorize le Zone without the interference of the police, as if le Zone were its own country -- it ought to be under their control because, after all, the whole damn world really ought to be under the Muslims' control. It's merely a contributing factor along with numerous others, but it's still a significant contributing factor, especially because it helps the young sociopaths of le Zone feel a sense of solidarity with the young sociopaths of Denmark's immigrant ghettoes.
As far as your underestimating the role of religion even in the race riots of the '60's and '70's: notorious indigenous American Black homegrown cults such as Father Divine's have always exploited the Black sense of social alienation and injustice, much to the earthly advantage of such cults' leaders. It's particularly odd, however, to note how few Americans seem to realize that the '60's saw a bitter internal struggle in the Black community itself between the genuinely Christian, peaceful, non-violent, love-centered ethic of Martin Luther King, and the hate-centered alternatives -- of which the most successful and notorious is precisely Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. I know perfectly well that the Nation of Islam has about as much to do with real Islam as Pat Boone's insipid white-bread covers had to do with the rhythm and blues he was plagiariazing. But the ideology of the Nation of Islam gave the despicable Farrakhan the tool he needed to seize the reigns of the kids' mindless destructiveness and hatred and to harness it totally to the thoroughly calculating agenda of Farrakhan himself. The Black Panthers had their day, but when it comes to real influence or the real ability to nurture long-term, continuous mass hatred and sociopathy passed down from generation to generation in tragically large numbers, the Panthers have never been able to compete with the Nation. (I refer, of course, to Raider Nation...oh, sorry. Ahem. Resuming my hoity-toity lecturing tone in 3...2...1...) And it is precisely the religious wrapping Farrakhan puts around his fetid blend of self-pity and anti-Semitism and festering hatred of The Other, that has held his movement together for decades while so many other similar movements have disintegrated and faded away.
The people to fear, or rather to resolutely resist and ultimately defeat, are not the mindless teenagers doing the destruction. It's the modern-day Farrakhans, cold-bloodedly and far-sightedly laying the groundwork to wield those teenagers as tools for their own purposes, with a perverted religious ideology adapted for those purposes in defiance of the true commands of the Deity. Islamofascism is perfect for the purpose and these young sociopaths -- predominantly, but merely nominally, Muslim -- are the perfect tools.
These pitiable young persons' rage and their destructiveness does not spring from Islam, at least not as a primary source. But only a very naive person indeed would doubt that the older and calculating Islamofascists have every intention of exploiting that rage and destructiveness -- or that such mindless rage and destructiveness is very easily thus exploited.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 11:11 PM
NXNW
Most immigrants seek to maintain ties with the country of their origin. They want to retain some of their cultural and racial heritage and not become just another spoonful of the soup that arises from cultural homogenization. I did not refer to the race riots of the 60's, but it is similar to the LA riots I did reference. It was lawless, criminal behavior, but that does not mean it was without political and cultural commentary.
Just as in Paris, the perpetrators of the looting and killing was done by minorities, in LA, Hispanic-Black, in France-Muslims.
There is no overriding desire to propel the violent wing of Islam. They are blowing off steam.
Just as the acquittal of the police who beat up Rodney King was the excuse to tear loose, so the accidental electrocution of the two muslim teenagers lit the fires of Paris. You are right about the 'control' issue. These kids feel they have no power to do anything, except destroy. That is what is propelling them
Posted by: Semanticleo | Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 05:57 PM
Semanticleo,
Not quite true.
The riots typify French reaction to Islamism and spring from a European approach to the Islamic wave of migration into Europe. After WWII, the French built so-called 'sink estates' for the workers they encouraged to emigrate to help rebuild the nation, as did Germany.
Most of these workers came from Turkey and colonies in North Africa.
Instead of planning for their integration into society, however, the French allowed these communities to grow and fester in economic and social isolation. After two generations, the sink estates have proven to be nothing more than preplanned ghettoes, and the workers have no future except as second-class citizens of the nations they helped rebuild from devastation.
I believe many Muslims don't want to become "European. French and Danish riots are part of a larger militant Islamic movement perpetually at odds with the West.
And the French really don't want to integrate and assimilate, I think, the Muslims into French society, but I also think the Muslims are not interested in doing that themselves. This division, this rampaging nature manifesting itself in these riots and everything else, is an example of the clash of civilizations.
The rioters are part of a population that has never considered itself French. Kids burning cars and buildings aren't specifically doing that in an attempt to 'take control.' But I do think that, ultimately, is the significance of what they're doing.
This isn't comparable to the 1960s race riots in the US. This does have, deep down, an Islamic agenda of control, even if the kids doing the rioting aren't cognizant of that at the moment.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 03:25 PM
- Even if the motivations are economic and not religious, the rioters are united by their religion more so than any other factor.
- Motives do not matter. The ground in France is extremely fertile for professional terrorists to go in there and arm the rampaging youths to the teeth.
- All it takes is one radical muslim with a brain and some money for France to have a serious war on their hands.
- Anyway, what would your solution be for France's economic woes? The further socialization of industry? Give me a break.
Posted by: penxv | Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 11:22 AM
The riots in France have as much to do with Islam as the LA riots in '92.
This is an economic issue. France has failed to integrate it's immigrant population into the culture. The youth (predominently
muslim) are ticked off at 40% unemployment and at the lack of hope for rising above their circumstances.
The right-wing continues to hope against hope that Iraq was the right decision and they are quantum-leaping the France riots into the broader war on terrorism and the evils of Islam. It is the same wishful thinking that caused the fabrication of evidence, and strong-armed the nation into this wrong-headed adventure. Please don't encourage them.
Posted by: Semanticleo | Tuesday, November 08, 2005 at 09:39 AM