’)Public Eye notes the opining and whining about the riots in France among the rightysphere and notes that liberal bloggers haven’t jumped all over it. I think I know why. Unlike the con blogs who are quick to jump all over something like this to point out one of their hobby horses (Socialism sucks! Islam sucks! Etc.), I can honestly say I don’t know nearly enough about French society to make any sort of conclusions about the event. Yet, all of a sudden the righties are experts in the subtleties of French life.
Now, if you want to talk about what looks like a lackluster response to the disaster by the Chirac government… “let he who is without sin” and all of that.
One thing I do know about France and French culture is that it isn’t the multicultural haven that the righties make it out to be. France is extremely nationalist when it comes to culture — they have a government ministry solely devoted to keeping foreign words and phrases (mostly English) from entering and “corrupting” the French language. The French response to multiculturalism is, indeed, a right wingers wet dream, that is an official policy of cultural/economic isolation that emphasizes total assimilation over the acceptance of cultural differance. Official France abhors anything that might dilute the Frenchness of French culture. Needless to say, this sort of complicates the right’s reading of these riots as the fruits of multicultural “appeasement.”
Well, heck Oliver. Understanding the significance of events in other countries is easy if you just assume that your own biases and cultural experiences are, you know, completely relevant.
I love when rightwingers talk about France. Few subjects can elicit such frothing derangement, so the fewer facts introduced here, the better, Frameone. Also, under no circumstances should you mention that their socialist healthcare system costs less and works better than ours.
It might be helpful to point out to our right-wing friends that the current French government is neither socialist or liberal, it is in fact conservative, and has been for the last decade, and that it is not even slightly multicultural, either by policy or by tradition.
Me, I have no idea why they think that they are either.
Hey, it didn’t stop non-Louisiania-based Lefty bloggers from pretending they were experts when it came to hurricane assistance.
Laissez le bon temps Roulez!!!
Hey- I have an idea. Perhaps you can go an read what some on the right are saying about it and then post something when you have an opinion instead of admitting that you’re too lazy to look into it.
Of course, no matter which way you look at it, it doesn’t bode well for those who see France as the great enlightened one in the world.
Here’s a hint- Frameone’s reading of French culture is on the right track, and the French government’s deal with the immigrant communities to leave them alone and let them set up their own separate ‘enclaves’ (for lack of a better term) so as not to get too close to enjoining French culture is indeed a big part of the problem that is showing up now. Rather than integrating the immigrants into French society and allowing them to prosper as is done in the United States, the French has historically allowed them to isolate themselves. Unfortunatly that includes fewer economic opportunities and becomining mired in the French welfare system, while rejecting French traditions and laws.
Although the French haven’t helped themselves in the “resentment” department passing stupid laws like banning head scarves in French schools, etc.
I should clarify, because I imagine a comment like the above will open up the Ten Commandments monument discussion all over again.
Where I stand: if Roy Moore wanted a monument to the Ten Commandments in his office or on his front yard, more power to him. The second he decreed that it belonged on public land was when I disagreed.
I’ll clarify my position on the Pledge of Allegiance, while I’m at it: forcing kids to pledge allegiance to anything is just an attempt at mind control. Any allegiance I feel towards America is based on my experience living here, not because of any words I was told to recite.
France is the same country that has been trying to ban Muslim headscarves as an attempt to create secularity. As far as I’m concerned, forcing somebody to drop their personal religious beliefs is just as bad as forcing somebody to adopt them.
How is post-disaster aid something that involves cultural biases?
Is there some special way that Louisianans would have liked to receive their disaster relief that no other part of the country would have preferred?
One needed no expertise to recognize that the folks at the Superdome and the convention center needed a drink of water.
The riots in France have as much to do with Islam as the 92′ LA riots.
People who live in squalor with few options for getting out tend to start saying; “Screw them all”. France seems to have sequestered the poor into districts like american ghettos and have not incorporated the minority immigrant population into the mainstream. It’s the same in Brazil, the Philllipines; in other words ‘you always have the poor with you.” The big question is; what does a christian, civilized nation do with the poor? All this talk about the “French” gettting their comeuppance via right-wing blogs is the usual nonsense that occurs when they use their keen analytical skills.
Damn you O’rielly and your boycott! Look what you have done. For shame! Your right wing ban on fine wines, cheese, and croissants have brought those “liberals” into anarchy.Twenty bucks O’Reilly either takes some glee in these events or ties himself into thier demise. The right wing commenting on France is much like most of them commenting on war: They usually have not been there and thier perceptions are totally based in smug hatred and have little factual or pragmatic purpose.
We’re not looking for “root causes” this time, eh?
I wonder why…
It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact about 95% of the rioters are Muslim, now would it?
“We re not looking for root causes this time, eh? I wonder why& ”
You wonder because you are, again, an idiot. Root causes? I believe I was speaking directly to root causes: French immigration and cultural policies. These policies happened to be directed at large Muslim and North African immigrant communities. For Frank, of course, all we need to know is the religion and race of the rioters to know why they’re rioting because, you know, they aren’t human beings who respond negatively to cultural, social, political and economic isolation and privation. No, of course not. They’re Muslims who we all know act violently just because … Frank, you a true moron.
Care to provide a link for this “fact”?
Does this support some anti-Muslim theory of yours? Please do not bring down the debate any lower than the right wing has already accomplished.
Oh, Please!
French immigration by whom? People from Arizona?
Cultural policies? Which ones?
“My sister can’t wear a burka to school, so I’m torching your Citröen”?
Here’s an Editorial that says it well.
It’s from the (boo! hiss!) New York Sun, which of course, makes it all f*c*i*g b*l*s*i* (as frameone might say), but at least it indicates the connection between the rioting and Islam, you’re all trying to deny.
I don’t get it. I just read the piece OW links to. The guy cites numerous right wing bloggers on the issue of the riots and then concludes: “Liberal bloggers, for their part, have mostly ignored what seems a pretty significant story.”
Of course this guy fails to acknowledge on any level that the wing nuts he quotes are completely ignorant of French policy and colonial history. Robert Spencer, in Front Page Magazine writes: “The French are paying the price today for blithely assuming that France could absorb a population holding values vastly different from that of the host population.” What? The problem is that the French government hasn’t made any effort to absorb this population. None. He quotes La Shanw Barber saying: ‘Lax immigration policies, prostration to the god of multiculturalism, and the refusal to fight fire with fire are three reasons why Muslim youths in Paris are rioting in the streets.’
Lax immigration policies?:
“Three years after the 1998 law on immigration and residency, France’s political left and right appear to have agreed not to disagree on immigration, at least at the national level. The new consensus still privileges the restrictive function of immigration policy. And the emerging EU regime on immigration and asylum, negotiated by national interior and justice ministry bureaucrats, is also characterized by a general policy of restrictiveness. Yet, as the East Sea episode has shown, policy instruments such as visas and carrier sanctions that seek to prevent “unwanted” migrants from reaching Europe?s border have not stopped their arrival. They have instead criminalized the migration process itself, and raised the demand for smuggling networks and their lucre. France and the European Union today are witnessing the same perverse effects that the US experienced along its Mexican border, where new restrictions in some states only redirected flows to others, and raised the price of illegal passage.”
http://www.brook.edu/printme.wbs?page=/fp/cuse/analysis/immigration.htm
Once again the right has no idea what it’s talking about, it simply spews vile bullshit to people who don’t care to think or learn.
From the Sun piece:
“A number of observers of the French scene have looked at population trends and suggested that France is on its way to becoming a Muslim country (one that would, let it be noted, be armed with hydrogen bombs). Some react to this by suggesting a halt to immigration and even expulsion. The better approach is to impose law and order, more speedily to reform the burdensome welfare state, and start integrating the Muslim community.”
5 million Muslims out of a population of 60 million and the Sun starts the drum beat for a preemptive invasion of France: “They’ll be armed with hyrdogen bombs.” It’s nice to see that before the Sun gets to any actual solutions to the problem it feels the need to stoke the fear level into the paranoid stratosphere. But what pray tell are it’s solutions? Well obviously the free market is a magical cure all for societal ills. That and more aggressive law enforcement. Only then should France integrate it’s Muslim population. Integration? I thought that’s what La Shawn Barber said was causing the problem: “As I see it, the religion of Islam is inherently incompatible with the concept of individual liberty, a crucial component of western countries.” Fucking morons.
One more thing Frank. Just what is the crucial connection between rioting and Islam that the Sun pieces makes, I mean aside from the fact that the rioters are Muslim? Really that’s it. The piece says this: “It turns out that France’s Muslim community lives in areas rampant with crime, poverty, and unemployment, much the fault of France’s prized welfare system.” Hmm do you think the guys is blaming Islam or France’s welfare system?
He also notes that “the fact that such an incident would spark a riot is a sign of something deeper at work – no doubt France’s failure to integrate its immigrant Muslim community.” This again does not make a link between rioting and Islam, but between the failure integrate the Muslim population.
The author cites poverty and segregation as root causes of the rioting but still magically, like you, concludes that it must Islam at fault, anyway: “All this is compounded by the image France projects of itself to its Muslims, which one can surmise is the reason why Muslims see rioting as the solution to any grievance.” You see, they’re Muslims, they riot because they are Muslim, not because of poverty, segretaion, discrimination or racism. It’s because they’re Muslim — and they want hydrogen bombs. Again, morons one and all.
For a minute, I thought you left out a very important sentence of the article, but you didn’t:
You should read what you quote.
By the way, frameone, do you know anything about Robert Spencer? He knows more about Islam than you, that’s for sure.
Frank –
France has a restrictive immigration policy. It does not embrace multiculuralism. It officially, explicitly rejects multculturalism. Muslims and North Africans are excluded from French society. It’s a form of apartheid, asshole (your squeamishness is amusing to no end, BTW). Let me spell it out for you: They are not rioting because they are Muslim. They are rioting because they being treated differently because they are Muslim. Do you see the difference? Can you see the difference? I don’t support violence, don;t agree with it, don’t think any social factor mitigates it. But we’re talking causes. The right’s take on this whole thing is, in itself, racist: They riot because that’s what Muslims do. You don’t bother to look at French society as it is, you don’t care to understand what histories and policies play into this, you don’t really want to know what may be behind it all because it’s easier to be a racist fuck. Read the following from the CBS article:
“These public housing developments have seethed with resentment and tension for years, mostly among young men of African or Arab descent. In some areas, as many as two out of three are unemployed and say they’re frozen out of mainstream French society by persistent racism and discrimination … According to Taheri, “in some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture. The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.”
The right reads this and concludes: It must be multiculturalism’s fault. Well there’s nothing multicultural about segregation. But that’s what the French, a former colonial power, BTW, have been practicing for generations. You know this country had a little trouble awhile back over institutionalized segregation awhile ago. During the Civil Rights era, Frank, we’re you one of the assholes who argued that blacks were rioting because that’s whatr blacks do?
Frank the editorial to which you link makes no mention of your “fact”. It only generalizes that the riots are being caused by Muslims.
So I’ll ask once again: where do you get the 95% number from?
Here they all, O foul mouthed one (BTW, I spent four years in the Army, and I’ve heard plenty of profanity, and I’m not in the least squeamish. (The fact that your thinking I might be ’squeamish’ “amuses you,” just proves what an angry, sadistic, bully you are.) It’s just that after four years of college, I’ve learned other words. Apparently, you haven’t
You know what, frameone? I’m not going to respond… I was prepared to, but you’re an obnoxious bully. Peppering your observations with obscenities and insults makes them less valuable, not moreso.
Answering you might encourage you. That I will no longer do. If that leads you to believe that I am wrong, and you are right, I don’t give a shit (Ooooh, I cursed, too!)
So, take your verbose posts, print ‘em up, roll ‘em up, and shove them up your ass! (Oooops! I did it again! That was fun!)
I’ll ask you, Mouse, what number would make you happy? What is your point? That the rioters are not Muslim?
Tell me why it’s important for you to know this, and I’ll tell you why it’s important to me. I am sick of your crap. So put up or shut up. Make a point. Take a chance. Risk a little. Quit acting like a little grl.
Frameone: will you ever stop being a bully?
Will you ever file a short comment, and give people a chance to breathe?
What are you afraid of? Being misunderstood? Don’t worry, even though we’re all morons, we understand you.
Are you afraid the blog will shut down at 9:00 AM, forever. and we’ll miss out on all these pearls of wisdom?
Nah, Oliver’s got too much ego for that…
What is your problem?’
The right-wing French newspaper Le Figaro says that “Islamism does not play a role in the riots.” While the neighborhoods do have Muslims in them, there are many other people of color who are angry and rioting who aren’t Muslim. Not that this matters to people with an agenda to blame the religion. Civil unrest in France among youth is not exactly a new, Muslim exclusively, phenomenon (anyone heard of the protests of 1968?). The rightist interior minister has been deliberately inflaming passions by calling the French citizens of Arab and African ethnic background (many of them 3rd generation) “scum” and saying “we will sandblast the scum from the neighborhoods”. (This has been translated as clearing out the thugs’ and other much less charged terms, and then people sneer at the disaffected youths for being stupidly sensitive.) The riots started because 3 Muslim youths who had not done anythign were being chased by the police just to show their papers and be harrassed, and it was right before the breaking of the Ramadan fast at sunset, and they were running away so they would not be delayed in the police station for nothing and miss the breaking of the fast. They ran into the electric substation and got electrocuted. One escaped. Very funny and amusing to people here.
Of course no one is silly enough to say rioting is good or even make excuses for it. But to pretend this is a Muslim character trait and there are no aggravating circumstances and that there was no provocation and there is not regular racism and police pressure, is beyond low.
If you thought Kathleen Blanco agreed with you, you’d be wrong.
Islamism does not play a role in the riots.
Is that why the “youths” are screaming “Allahu Akbar”?
Here’s another point of view:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/110705A.html
Actually, no frameone, you didn’t “call me”. I predicted that you would say it meant I was wrong, and I told you I didn’t give a shit.
I’m not a racist — never have been, never will be. For you to think so, I place in the same category as your thinking I’m ignorant. It is so obvious that I am not either, that it provides me with evidence that you are a bully, ever spoiling for a fight, with little or nothing to say.
I know you “don’t give a fuck” what I think in my “heart of hearts”, but I will tell you, anyway: You’re a loathesome scumbag, who gets all his balls from the Internet, and who is undoubtedly a gutless wonder face – to – face.
I’ve already read that piece Frank. I believe if you read it all the way through you’ll find that his point of view is not your point of view. You claim that Islam is the root cause of the rioting. Nothing could be further from the truth — or more bigotted — and the article you cite points to a long history of root causes based in French immigration, cultural and foreign policy. I know you love my long posts but if you actually read them you’d find that large chunks of them are quotes from articles proving you wrong. Witness the following healthy excerpts from the article you link to:
“Observing the gap between the French and their neighbors of North African origin, I learned another disturbing truth: that the latter had a deep fear of the Parisian police … They said they were not safe in Saint-Michel on weekend nights, even though both possessed legal status and were quite respectable in their dress and manners, notwithstanding their radical politics. They told me that even with their papers in order North Africans living in Paris could be picked up by the police without any pretext, beaten, and even killed.”
“France must confront the reality of its bad history with minorities of various kinds, but especially with North African Arabs, who have never been forgiven for the beating the Algerians inflicted on France in the late 1950s.”
“Notwithstanding the hue and cry that will be raised against Muslims in France, in the aftermath of this nightmare, the truth about French bigotry remains. A French politician declared that Turkey should not enter Europe because the latter is a “Christian” continent.”
Here’s a good one Frank. This is where he calls you an Islamophobe:
“Demagogic voices seeking to lay blame for the French rioting on the religion of Muhammad will have to ignore that only two weeks before, bloody disorders erupted in the British city of Birmingham. There, in another European ghetto community, called Lozells, Caribbean Blacks fought with Pakistanis. But some will, of course, find a reason to blame that on Islam, as well. The Caribbeans claimed one of their young women had been gang-raped by Muslims, and similar charges are common currency among French Islamophobes. Rumormongers and pundits opine, and anonymous, poor people die.”
He goes on to argue that if a segment of French Muslims are radicalized, the French must take their share of the blame for pushing the North African community up against a wall. It’s the French who have At every opportunity France and Europe have pursued policies that have created socio-economic conditions that radical clerics are able to exploit. Root causes, Frank. Root causes.
See also here.
It’s easiest to blame Islamism, but the fact is that marginalized people of any kind–especially young and overemotional ones–are ultimately going to fight back in some way.
You’re too much Frank. The instant someone calls you on your shit and you’re in a corner with no facts, no reasonable argument and nothing but your patent ignorance and racism on display you play the prude and start to cry.
Why do you think that, up to the time of the outbreak of the riots, that France has been relatively unscathed by the “true” Islamists? They have not had the kind of attacks such as the WTC, Underground, Bali, etc. Why have they been immune until this point with such odious policies toward their largely Muslim immigrants?
BTW Frank:
“policy instruments such as visas and carrier sanctions that seek to prevent unwanted migrants from reaching Europe s border have not stopped their arrival.”
How does this fact call into question my basic assertion, and the basic assertion of the article its from, that France does not have a lax immigration policy? All this says is that even with its stringent exclusionary policies immigrants find a way. Four years of college? Any remedial reading comprehension classes on your schedule?
zorro, apparently highly draconian laws and police powers.
Yes, I do believe I’ll pull a number out of my rectum and then claim I wasn’t using it to bolster my argument when I’m called on it. Yes indeed, I didn’t really mean anything by that fake number, so you shouldn’t care that it’s made up. Please just ignore it, if you would be so kind, it’s not doing wonders for my reputation.
Also, I don’t know anything about France or its politics, but I can link to some stuff I didn’t have time to read but which I think might agree with me. And then when others show they know more about the subject than me, I do believe I’ll get indignant and violently defensive about the fact that I also don’t have time to read what they write. Yes, I think that’s just the ticket!
You’ll have to find another shtick, Damek. We already have one of those.
I see Mr. Respect and Civility in Discourse has made himself heard.
*grin*
First, I will address the tone of your response. Frank, I want you to remember this post the next time you wax indignant when someone uses sarcasm and calls you names. I asked a simple question to which the answer should have been just as simple. It did not warrant this condescending and sexist response. But that’s your problem, not mine, so I’ll move on.
Second, I am not making any point, but I am challenging the point you are making: that the majority of the rioters are muslim. You’re the one who brought up a very specific number and stated it as fact. All I’m asking is your sourcing for this “fact”. That’s it, that’s all. If you’re concerned about my reaction should there be no source, then that’s to be expected.
Finally, just give a simple answer to my question: what is the source for your statement?
Wikipedia says that between 1618 and 1648, Christendom killed off fifteen to twenty percent of our entire population in a religious war. Was that because Christianity is inherently violent? Of course not. Islam is just the bottle that the violence is coming in these days; it’s pure stupid bigotry to confuse it with the violence itself. Muslim rioters in France have nothing in common with, say, genocidal Muslim Arabs in the Sudan, or Chechen extremists. Islam isn’t the motivation in any of these cases, despite how the racist daydreamers at Little Green Footballs and Powerline would love it to be so.
More draconian than in Saudi Arabia? They haven’t been immune to large scale attacks. Try again.
frameone: I’ll answer you in you in your own language — Go fuck yourself!
I thought the point was pretty clear. Mouse (among others, myself included) questions the 95 percent figure. I won’t speak for Mouse, but only for myself: I think you made it up.
And I’m asking you why you want to know before I get into an argument with 16 other people about the accuracy of the link, the varacity of the author, the bias of the source, and all the other crap usually associated with one of my responses.
In other words, I want to know if youre you just yanking my chain, or if there is a point to your request.
As to the tone of my response, it was designed to get a rise out of you, and it did. I’m glad.
Now, please stop pretending that I need lessons from you in blog behavior. Most of the people on this blog wouldn’t know courtesy if it fell on them like a warner brothers anvil. (See frameone, and JadeGold in that regard.)
The FACT that the rioters are Muslims is all over the Internet. Must I really find a reference for you?
Here, chew on this
And, by the way, I no longer make any cliams to respect and civility in discourse. I merely describe posts as I read them. I gave up on the idea that I will receive any, or that there is a good reason why I should give any respect and civility.
This is discourse’s gutter.
Zorro: Perhaps you disagree with my characterization of france’s way of dealing with the terrorism it’s had to confront for years and years, but I don’t think that merely mentioning “Saudi Arabia” and saying that it experiences terrorism is a fair and accurate comparison of the two nations and their situations. In fact, it seems to me that the original question was misinformed. France has experienced significant terrorism.
No, this is discourse’s gutter.
France is not the only place where fires are deliberately lit to make their feeble ‘points’. It is well to consider a definition which needs revisiting.
“As a pejorative, the term, “troll”, is often used to slander opponents in heated debates, in a way similar to the use of the term “noob” in online games. Both the person who identifies himself as a “troll”, and the one who vehemently denies it, will use the term, demonstrating to neutral third parties that both participants are, in fact, trolls. Accordingly, the view has arisen in some circles that the plural, “trolls”, is a valid term, and that, as it takes two to troll, it is not valid to refer to anyone in the singular, i.e. “troll”. Others, however, feel that “it only takes a boat to troll, and the fish has a choice as to whether to bite or not”. In other words, they claim that one person can do it alone. Then again, it must be noted that for some fish, biting is a conditioned reflex.”
Honest folk will examine the truth of it. Those fundamentally dishonest will have nothing to do with the suggestion they might be off base. Fortunately, most of us can disagree with civility. Some relay little but continuous rancor. They should move on.
frameone: It was your pretense of expository writing that took us to Bennett land, you fucking idiot [just using language that would make you feel comfortable). By the way, I hope this writing style isn’t an example of your doctoral dissertation — unless your thesis is on pornography.
It is and you did. Thank you for clearing that up.
Of course Frank made it up. He’s been flying fact free all over this thread because his whole argument is based on bigotry and hate. Remember that Frank introduced the statistic in the context of root causes:
“We re not looking for root causes this time, eh? I wonder why& It wouldn t have anything to do with the fact about 95% of the rioters are Muslim, now would it?”
Frank believes that liberals are unable or unwilling to face the fact that many of the rioters are Muslim because liberals don’t want to face the fact that Islam is the root cause of the riots. To argue that Islam is the root cause of the rioting is to ignore entirely the way that the French government and the French culutre treats Muslims. For Frank, the race and religion of the rioters, in and of themselves, explains why they are rioting. They riot because they are Arab or North African. They riot because they are Muslim. Frank would have a hard to arguing how this stance is different from arguing that blacks rioted in Watts or in LA because they were black (see how quickly Frank’s thinking takes us back to Bill Bennett land?). Frank really doesn’t care about root causes or facts. He just wants to promulgate hate.
I just “made up” the idea that people who occupied the “Islamic immigrant” area outside of Paris were Islamic, and to that I added to the reports that the rioters were responding to the way Muslims were treated (socially, economically), and added to that, the slew of columns that reported that this was the result of “Islamic immigration” coming home to roost, and I extrapolated from that that 95% of the rioters were Islamic,”allowing a 3% margin of error,” as the pollsters like to say.
That gives us 92 – 98%. Now, if that’s making it up, then that’s what I did. But I didn’t get it from Kos, or LGF, or Drudge.
By the way, Damek, your “so’s you old man” – style comment isn’t even clever.
At least the poster over there are referring to somebody, saying something, somewhere. That would be quite refreshing if it happened more often here. Never will, though.
Oh, and TomY, WikiPedia has its shortcomings: Does that 15 – 20% killed off during the Thirty Years’ War, include the populations of Africa, Asia, Australia, Oceania and the Americas?
Yup, I’d say that’s making it up.
As I thought, you are a blowhard who resorts to bullying when challenged. I’ll say one thing for you Frank, you are consistent.
Anyway, my point stands. Islam isn’t “responsible” for the violence in France anymore than Christianity was responsible for the Thirty Years War. People, history, context, are the decisive factors. Religion is just the vessel for violence; it isn’t the violence itself. Just as conservatism isn’t reponsible for you being an idiot, Frank; your inattention at school and your own corrupt moral compass that tells you that strength comes from bigotry is what’s responsible.
15-20% of Christendom in 1648 is obviously referring to Europe, Frank. Don’t be a dullard.
So Frank_D, just curious, which ethnic or religious group did your parents raise you to be *most* bigoted against?
A) The French
B) The Muslims
C) The French Muslims
So TomY joins the Legion of Losers. Ah, you must be proud!
But Frank, what have you demonstrated? That Muslim youth are rioting in Paris? The sky is also blue. What does it mean to say, true or not, that 95 percent of the rioters are Muslim? Or should I say, what does it mean to you?
OK, I made it up. And the real figure is?: ______
And my figure was off by?: ______
And the fact that the real figure is (if, I was , indeed wrong, and you don’t even know) ______ means?: (Feel free to theorize)
As I expected, all that mattered was that I might be incorrect.
You have demonstrated nothing. Not frameone, not mouse, not quaker. Nothing.
But, of, course, TomY’s point stands, unchallenged, as he calls me a dullard, for suggesting that, just maybe, 15 – 20% of the world’s population was not eliminated in the Thirty Years’ War.
Oh, and by the way, TomY, I’m not a bigot, so you get the obligatory frameone response: Fuck you!
I forgot to ask: Who’s next?
Who’s the next arrogant, self – centered, wannabe intellectualoid who wants to fire on the poor, hapless bigoted, idiotic motherfuckin’ (thanks to Leo for that one) dullard?
C’mon, you cretins, step up and take a shot!
“that, just maybe, 15 – 20% of the world s population”
I clearly said Christendom, not “the world” and when asked to clarify, said Europe, which I think is pretty defensible over the period 1618-1648. But my larger point, that Christianity per se is not responsible for the 30 years war — you haven’t even challenged that. So yeah, my point bloody well stands, Frank_D.
So why is everyone upset about name calling? Isn’t that the fun of ow.com? It’s one place where you can call Frank_D what he is — a willfully ignorant asshole whose eyes light up at the thought of assigning collective guilt to ethnic groups he dislikes. Like this Legion of Losers — I assume this is some little-known minority group that little green footballs has slated for a touch of all-American Kristalnacht action?
You said, TomY, “Christendom killed off fifteen to twenty percent of our entire population [emphasis added] in a religious war.
Frameone: If we (meaning all of you) were not hung up on proving me wrong, which, of course, has yet to occur, there might have been some discussion about the meaning of this predominantly Muslim outburst. You will concede that the outburst involves mainly Muslims, I hope? I am curious about why, but now, of course, I have no desire to discuss it. Don’t tell me that you do.
Besides, what could I, a bullying blowhard and a willfully ignorant asshole, contribute to this great edifice of education that you have so carefully built here, particularly on this thread, where we have learned so much about the issues of our times?
And, oh yes, TomY, who automatically assumes that I. like him, run off to another blog for intellectual sustenance, as he insists, without any supporting evidence, that I am a racist and / or a bigot?
He then proceeds to insult my parents, which I perceive as well below patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel. More like the dwelling place of vermin.
The group my parents taught me to despise most were those people who looked down their noses at people for no good reason. Sound like anybody you know, you scum?
By “our entire population,” I meant “the entire population of us Christians.” I can see where that was confusing.
So are you claiming your parents *didn’t* teach you to hate Muslims? Who did, then?
Frank do you even read anyone else’s posts? No one ever question if Muslims were/are involved in the rioting. You presented a specific percentage and Mouse asked you, very simply, to source it. You didn’t produce a single source that featured the statistic that 95 percent of the rioters are Muslims, or, indeed, any verifiable numbers at all about who was involved in the rioting. When you initially asserted this claim you said it was a fact, not guesswork on your part. So on point one, you never substantiated your initial claim as to the numbers of Muslims invovled. Does that mean no one proved you wrong? Well, Frank, you never proved yourself right.
But on point two, root causes, you wrote: “We re not looking for root causes this time, eh? I wonder why& ”
Naturally you answered your own question with the suggestion that no one on this thread was looking for root causes because, and here’s where you introduced the percentage in question: “It wouldn t have anything to do with the fact about 95% of the rioters are Muslim, now would it?”
Essentially you were suggesting that liberals were in denial over the root causes of the rioting because Muslims were involved. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, my first post and just about every post after spoke directly to root causes of the violence, essentially focussing on how the French government and culture treated its immigrant and Muslim populations. You responded to my first post by asking: “French immigration by whom? People from Arizona? Cultural policies? Which ones?” It should have been patently obvious I speaking about North African and Muslim immmigrants and French citizens. You chose to ignore the obvious. Then you ask, “What cultural policies?” In every post after I linked to articles about French immigration and cultural policies. You even linked to articles about French immigration and cultural policies. My essentialy point is that these policies, not Islam, must bear the greatest blame as root causes of the violence.
After all that, you suggest that you’ve never been proven wrong and that no one is willing to look at the root causes and that no one has determined anything worth knowing except you. Now you refuse to dicuss the root causes you demanded we all talk about in the first place. Your thought process is at once fascinating and maddening for its stubborn circularity.
You just wrote:
“I am curious about why, but now, of course, I have no desire to discuss it. Don t tell me that you do.”
Go back and read my posts Frank. I’ve been trying to discuss it for a day now. The fact that in reply to my posts you linked to articles that discussed root causes — which by and large proved my point, BTW — tells me you knew I was discussing root causes. So what gives? “Don t tell me that you do”? And you wonder I call you names.
So are you claiming your parents *didn t* teach you to hate Muslims? Who did, then?
Speaking of parents, were you home schooled? Because you can’t read for shit!
Frameone: You call me names because you are a pseudo – intellectual bully.
I will not go back and read all your posts, after you spent the day haranguing me, with your erstwhile colleagues, over totally meaningless percentage points.
What seemed to be an issue worth discussiing this morning has devolved, as many threads do, into something else entirely.
You need to be taken down a peg or two, young man. You are not in charge around here. You don’t lead or moderate discussions around here. And, you damn sure don’t reach across cyberspace and bully me into doing your bidding by behaving as you have done here and on other threads.
How proud you must have felt typing that, how cool, you must have really felt like your “colleagues” were impressed!
If you were half a man, you would owe me a dozen apologies. But now you expect me to “understand” why you call me names?
I read for pleasure and knowlege, not shit, Frank. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose…
Well, you didn’t read anything in my posts that indicated I was a bigot, so where did you read it?
“You damn sure don t reach across cyberspace and bully me into doing your bidding”
Hey Frank. Mow my lawn.
The typical Frank trajectory:
1. Ridiculous unverifiable claim.
2. Defensive response to requests for evidence.
3. Flurry of links to non-sequitor articles that typically undermine the original claim, instead of support it.
4. Sputtering about rudeness and civlity combined with an obvious attempt to re-assert authority by directly referencing age.
5. Sputtered one line insults.
6. Declaration of victory and refusal to speak any further on the subject.
7. More sputtered one liners in desperate attempt to have the last word.
8. Final, sad recognition that young whipper snappers can stay up later than him.
9. Fitful sleep. Nightmares about wasted life.
“Totally meaningless percentage points”? You mean the ones you presented as a fact, old man?
Incidentally, this just showed up in my mailbox:
Why is France Burning? Is America Next?
Free Muslims Against Terrorism
More options Nov 8 (15 hours ago)
Why is France Burning? Is America Next?
By Kamal Nawash
For the last two weeks, France has experienced riots the likes of which it has not seen
in decades. In terms of destruction, the unrest is France’s worst since World War II.
More than a thousand cars have been burned along with several buildings and hundreds
have been arrested. For the most part, the riots are being carried out by the children
of poor immigrants most of whom are Muslim. [emphasis added]
Since the riots began, many have given their two cents as to why France is burning.
Some say this is a result of years of discrimination and deprivation, some say the riots
are a function of a jihad whereby Muslims are trying to turn Europe into a Muslim
continent, and yet others conclude that the riots are a function of decades of failed
policies by France and other Western Nations.
While there is no one cause for the French riots, none of the “experts” have considered
decades of failed immigration policies as the cause of the riots. France, similar to
the United States and most western countries, has experienced decades of out of control
legal and illegal immigration. France, similar to the United States, has responded with
liberal and inadequate immigration enforcement that has caused the nations’ demographics
to change rapidly.
Nations like France, the United States and other Western Nations must come to terms with
their immigration policies. They can either strictly control and limit illegal and
legal immigration or be willing to accept that uncontrolled immigration will change the
makeup, values and culture of their nations.
Unlike past immigrant generations who quickly assimilated, today’s immigrants take much
longer to assimilate if they assimilate at all. This is due to technology. In the
past, immigrants were generally cut of from their mother countries which made
assimilation much easier. Today, satellite technology brings movies, news and culture
from an immigrant’s home country to the living room of his adopted country via TV, the
internet and other forms of media. In the United States for example, a Hispanic
immigrant can live in the United States for decades without having to learn a word of
English or adopt American culture. They can turn on Spanish only TV and Radio, read
Spanish news papers and read government forms in Spanish. This phenomenon is taking
place all over the Western Nations.
Thus, to avoid the riots in France, Western Nations must look in the mirror and ask
themselves if they are willing to accept the changes that come with liberal immigration
policies. If the answer is no then Western Nations must control illegal immigration and
adopt more manageable immigration policies.
Kamal Nawash is the president of the Free Muslims Coalition, an organization that was
created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to
strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World.
Kamal Nawash, 202-776-7190, 301-905-6438, president@freemuslims.org
For more information, visit our website at http://www.freemuslims.org
{ If only I had had those percentage points rights — gee, I was foolish, eh? )
frameone: You are pathetic. A day of pseudo – intellectual savagery, bluster and boasting, all wasted.
Typical frameone trajectory:
1. Left wing “talking points” peppered with needlessy aggressive language, and profanity and obscenity.
2. More of same
3. More of same
4. More of same
5. More of same
6. More of same
7. More of same
8. More of same
9. More of same
10. More of same
11. More of same
12. More of same
13. More of same
14. More of same
15. More of same
Fails to recognize that the “old man” has slept like a baby while he was up all night, sharpening his teeth with a file.
Falls asleep, wishing his life were a film; wakes up to discover he’s about to be thrown across a nightclub by Mighty Joe Young.
“Fails to recognize that the old man has slept like a baby while he was up all night, sharpening his teeth with a file.”
A truly disturbing image. You’re not Cormac McCarthy, are you, Frank?
I wish…
“In terms of destruction, the unrest is France s worst since World War II.”
Frank you’re an old man. Remember France in 1968? Right off the bat, the author has no idea what he’s talking about. He talks about experts but doesn’t cite any namely because France’s immigration and assimilation policies have been a central part of the discussion about why the riots happened:
“France’s immigration policy comes under scrutiny as papers in France and beyond consider the political repercussions of continuing riots.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413262.stm
That said, France hardly has a policy of “uncontrolled immigration.” The assertaion is ludicrous on its face. So to is the argument that a lack of assimilation is technology’s fault and has nothing to do with French policies and attitudes that treat immigrants and even legal citizens of Muslim or Arab descent as second class citizens. I also wonder how many of the rioters living in these slum areas own a satellite dish. The Right has simply taken the riots and tied to their already distorted understanding of French culture and society. France is not a multicultural country. Plain and simple. It never has been. Immigration policies swing between moderate and hard right influences with the hard right, people like Nicholas Sarkovsky, in the ascendence. Indeed, it was Sarkovsky who launched the police raids that preceeded the riots and became the touchstone for rioters in days to come.
The point is, no one condones violence or rioting, but as TomY says, trying to explain it all in terms of Islam alone simply isn’t helpful or illuminating.
Frank trjectory corrolary:
1: Total lack of originality.
In all honestly, Frank, there’s nothing good, or honest, or useful in looking to Islam, the reglion, to explain the rioting, or any other kind of violence carried out by Muslims. And that holds even when they are doing it expressly in the name of Islam. It’s not necessarily bigotry to wonder if Islam is a cause for violence, but at best it’s sloppy thinking. At worst, it can be the kind of bigotry that’s now openly condoned on little green footballs and free republic. I don’t know what’s in your head, but that’s why people like me are jumping to the conclusion that you are tarring religious communities with collective guilt because you like to do so.
What TomY says. And you should do yourself a favor Frank and try engaging with art, you could start with dare I say, contemporary French film. A lot of young filmmakers are turning their cameras on the problems of racism and poverty in Paris and rural France. If ever hits the theaters chec out Nuit noire, 17 octobre 1961 (2005). http://imdb.com/title/tt0442379/
From IMDB:
“This movie is at the moment being broadcast on the French channel TV5. It shows the events of 17th October 1961 when the police in Paris were ordered to crush brutally a pro Algerian FLN protest against a curfew imposed on Algerians in Paris. What emerged was in short appalling. Police Prefect Papon previously a Vichy boss who was involved in the German expulsion of the French Jews from France. It is thought anything up to 200+ Algerians were murdered in these events, before these events up to 30 police had been murdered by the FLN in Paris hence an urge for revenge existed and was encouraged by the Interior Minister Fey and Prefect Papon. It was perhaps foolish, given these circumstances, for the FLN to engage in demonstrations in Paris given the feelings but it is no excuse for the killings that happened. It is time that these events were officially investigated and those responsible brought to justice whilst they are still alive.”
As I said before, I don’t want to discuss it. I never — repeat, never, TomY and your fellow rectum, frameone — never said anything about blaming Islam exclusively for the incredible vandalism afflicting France.
By the same token, hiding the fact that Muslims are involved, using terms like “youths” and “immigrants”, is equally foolish.
But, as long as it is more important to accuse people, such as myself, of bigotry, than it is to find rhyme or reason, you will continue to be wrong in your accusation, and you will find neither rhyme nor reason.
But that is now your problem. I’ve done my home work for today, thank you. I had a fun today doing one of the other things I really enjoy, besides annoying you liberals.
Who “hid” the fact that the rioters were largely Muslim? Every report I’ve read focused — correctly — on the fact that they were young, alienated, and poor. Islam doesn’t help explain what’s going on. Most who would focuses on the “Islam” description are — wait for it — bigots. Hey, I’ve got family members who cluck derisively about the ‘religion of peace,’ so it’s not that this is something that only true neanderthals believe. In fact, I’d bet it’s a majority opionion in the U.S. today. But it’s wrong, and you shouldn’t perpetuate it.
And, by the way, frameone, calling me an old man may be gaining you points with your uncouth colleagues, but it is really showing me a total lack of maturity and class.
To think that someone like you might actually earn a Ph. D is enough to make me stop thinking about getting one. I would hate to even be in that small educational fraternity with a savage like you. And you claim to be studying the arts. I fear for the future of civilization in the hands of a Hun like you.
I am already “engaged with art,” as you put it. Which art, and in which way, is none of your business.
You can rest assured that I will never view a serious film again without thinking that a barbarian like you might one day be making such films. For all I know, I might be plunking down an outrageous amount of money to see one of yours. That would be more than I could bear.
Why don’t the two of you scumbags give it up. I mean, really, you have so very little to say, and if I had any willingness to listen to it yesterday, I surely don’t today.
Frameone, you so proudly proclaimed me “stupid, an idiot, an asshole, a moron, a dipshit, a racist, a bigot and a liar.” How might it even be possible that I could “engage with art”, beyond gambling dogs on velvet, anyway. I mean, shucks, I ain’t got no book larnin’ or nuthin’. What do I know about art?
And I’m sure TomY is right when he calls me a Neanderthal. I am a little confused, though. Weren’t they those cave fellers that lived about 40,000 years ago, before the Crow Magnums? Land o’ Goshen, I’m really, really, really old, nearly 60 and all, but I ain’t that old.
And I guess if TomY’s Mom is a bigot, I guess I am, too. After all, he’s a right smart feller, and he oughta know.
I’m sorry Frank. Do you care or do you not care? If you don’t have any willingness to listen why are you back here reading our posts, which, though meaningless, require a lengthy and blathering response? Feeling a little lonesome tonight, Frank?
Let’s just say that you know less about psychology than you do about film.
You’re here, aren’t you, jackoff?