With any luck Prince Charles will hurry over to Paris to scold them on their insensitivities to Islam. Then things will improve for France, right?
Terrific post.
Just read the transcript of Hugh
Hewitt and Mark Steyn discussion.
It seems that two of the areas that
are now riot zones are between the
city of Paris and the Airports. The
train to cdg* had to be shut down
as it was fired on. This is causing
the french* "great embarassment".
Our lsm* is doing their best to not
cover as against their favorites;
the French and Muslims behaving badly. Oh wait, Brussels just released an "edict" that Christ should not be capitalized. So let
me redo that.......their favorites; the french and muslims behaving
badly.
*decided to retrace and lower case
all words that I feel do not deserve
the extra effort required to hit the
shift key.
I don't think you were harsh enough--please tell us how you really feel. 
What's sad is that their former countries are so bad, they had to get out of there to settle in a country that they're unhappy in.
Darn it, missed paris and brussels.
(A in Airports typo)
Hope this catches on - all eu countries, city names, and names of
their terrific government officials
included titles should hence forth
be typed in lower case only.
jaques chirac - shame there isn't
a lower lower case for most of them.
Testing. Tried to post a comment earlier but it didnt work
With all due respect, where is the direction connection between religion and the rioting? This is just opportunism. The original riots had nothing to do with Islam at all and everything to do with a group of people, disconnected from society, with nothing to lose and a long list of reasons why they were wronged.
Keep in mind, I'm not saying people aren't personally responsible for this, they are, and they should damn well be held accountable for it. But, the key here is economics, not religion. You go to town on the one example, but you'll surely agree that doesn't account for many of the cases.
Here in Germany, there are over 2 million Turks and a number of Arabs, Persians and so forth. Yet, they haven't rioted? You don't find many ghettos like in France, with the exception of Kreuzberg in Berlin. They aren't perfectly integrated, but most of them have decent enough jobs and an allright life. They're still Muslim, but their basic needs are taken care of. THey aren't frustrated outsiders. They have a stake in society and thus are happy to exist in it peacefull.
There are also plenty of Muslims in the larger cities in America, yet, they don't decide to commit random acts of violence and vandalism for religious reasons.
Also note that reports say that many non-Muslims are rioting too, black Africans for example. This is about economics! The point is that sure they need to do a lot more themselves to get somewhere and can't expect to be handed everything (even if that's the French way =) but that there is a social problem to be addressed Whose fault it is, well that's another question. Yet, the implication that religion has any direct connection to the rioting is totally unfounded!
I've seen a lot of news stories appear to excuse the rioting, by focusing like the Beeb on the rioters' feelings and grievances, etc.
But feelings are not a justification for destroying property both public and private for 8 days running.
Also, have you had a chance to read Amir Taheri's latest?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nypost/2...wN5bnN1YmNhdA--
Is this The New 1968: an explosion of French society that triggers a sea-change in French politics for a generation? I'm sure that must be going through the minds of French politicians; so many of them are '68ers themselves. They know that if the stink grows and they can't handle it, they're out -- maybe before the next election. (Hey, it happened to DeGaulle!)
I'm afraid that the riots DO have a lot to do with the religion of the rioters. Muslim intolerance of Western culture has meant that many suburbs of Paris are muslim ghettos where women who don't wear the hijab are abused, where shops selling alcohol are firebombed and where infidels are made unwelcome. The rioters don't want to be pat of French society - they want to replace it wit Sharia law and islamic intolerance. Note that the French police had to defend a synagogue from attack on Thursday night...
How is property destruction related to religion? This has as much to do with Islam as Christianity did with looting in New Orleans.
Hmm, what if the far-right had won the last election after all? Would we now be hearing words like "expulsion" or "repatriation"? DeGaulle had few qualms about kicking Frenchmen out of Algeria; he surely would have no qualms about kicking troublesome ex-colonial subjects out of metropolitan France.
This has as much to do with Islam as Christianity did with looting in New Orleans.
Comedy, pure comedy.
Just how much riot-induced destruction do you think happened down in New Orleans? In case you haven't kept up on Katrina, there was very little actual rioting or rampaging gangs. You might have seen some looting of a handful of stores for food and clothes. All the stories about snipers, roaming gangs, rapes, etc. have been proven false.
In fact, if you want to go with the analogy, some might argue that there was a very Christian response to allow the looting of grocery stores when there is no food left.
As far as how much Islam is related to the rioting... well, why haven't any other immigrant groups in Europe rioted yet other than muslim ones this week? Why are the riots spreading to other immigrant muslim communities across Europe rapidly with no cause other than muslim solidarity? I'm not saying, I'm just asking...
Racism? I can't tell you how often it was drummed into college students today that any hint of anti-Islam sentiment is racism. So if it is race, surely has much to do with islam then, no? :/ *roll eyes*
I have a detailed post about what is being called the Francofada in Paris etc. These are not riots. Riots do not shut down for the day or have fixed starting times. Rioters do not post to multiple websites. My post is HERE if you're curious. There is also ,A href="http://oraculations.blogspot.com/2005/11/
and-now-intifada-strikes-denmark.html">unreported rioting in Denmark.
Whoopsie.... here's the link to the Denmark rioting....
Might the Danish rioting be linked to the recent cartoonist there drawing images of "the Prophet" in unflattering ways?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../
ixnewstop.html
The ambassadors of 11 Muslim countries called on Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the prime minister, to take "necessary steps" against the "defamation of Islam".
But Mr Rasmussen, the head of a centre-Right minority coalition dependent for its survival on support from an anti-foreigner party, called the cartoons a "necessary provocation" and refused to act.
"I will never accept that respect for a religious stance leads to the curtailment of criticism, humour and satire in the press," he said.
About the cartoons?
Juste commissioned the cartoons after learning of the difficulties a children's writer, Kare Bluitgen, had in finding an illustrator for his book on the Koran and the Prophet's life. Bluitgen said all the artists he approached feared the wrath of Muslims if they drew images of Mohammed.
Then we have a former-Muslim Dutch MP adding fuel to the fire:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch MP famous for her criticism of Islam and author of the screenplay for Mr Van Gogh's film Submission, supported the paper. "It's necessary to taunt Muslims on their relationship with Mohammed," she said.
Well well well - where to start? I think I'll go with the satirical drawings in Jyllands-Posten. As you know it was a 17 year old boy who had NOT himself seen the drawings, but had been told about them, that rang in the threats against the 12 illustrators.
I actually do not think that is the interesting part. What is more interesting is that JP started by asking 40 illustrators or so, but only twelve responded to the invitation. Almost 75% declined because they were afraid of what would follow from publishing illustrations like that. What might this present about the Danish population? That a great part of the population is ready to give in on freedom of speech if only they are left alone. That, I think, is more frightening than a 17 year old nutcase.
Back to the French riots. Behind the scene of French domestic policy there has been power struggle going on between Prime Minister Chirac and Home Secretary Sarkozy, Danish reporter Børge Visby writes in Weekendavisen. Sarkozy’s overall goal is to become elected as Prime Minister in 2007, and that is presumably why Chirac has done nothing to prevent him from going public with some very aggressive rhetorics. Sarkozy did very poorly in the press; e.g. he tried to explain away the police shooting a tear gas grenade into a mosque filled with praying Muslims. This too I find frightening, that Chirac, and acting with him Villepin, lets a man through his rhetorics pour gasoline on the burning rage of the rioters, just to present him to the public and the world as unqualified for the Prime Minister seat, and thus eliminating him as a political rival. There is a Machiavellan flair to this.
Whether religion plays any part in the riots is hard to answer. Certainly the U.S. President Bush jr. would think so, but then again he is the one talking about an Axis of evil. As a European I find it hard to understand political rhetorics of that kind. What has metaphysics to do with politics at all? Nevertheless it is not varied enough just to put the blame on religion. It is not religion that kills; it was not religion that caused the tragedy of 9-11. It is rather the hating of hopelessness (sometimes pared with idealistic dreams like that of RAF in Germany in the 70s – they were apparently first dissolved in 199
. To talk of Muslims the way it has been done in the above article and its comments is failing to see the particular human being however idiotic this being might seem. By posting a generic hypothesis one tends to criminalize or at least making suspect a whole ethnic group. Not all Muslims are potential suicide bombers or anti liberal or even anti democratic. We need to take in the bevels to account, we need to look at the particulars instead of warring in the sphere of universals. Of course by doing so reality is not at all so black and white, as some of us would sometimes wish it was, and we may come to understand that the metaphysical warfare between good and evil is nothing but the crushing wish
For some reason the last part of my post has vanished, and then there is that irritating smiley - it was supposed to read 1998.
My post should end like this: and we may come to understand that the metaphysical warfare between good and evil is nothing but the crushing wish of intellectual laziness.
Christian, unless I'm reading you wrong, you're saying that good & evil, and conflict between them, is merely a crutch to support a simplistic mind. I could not disagree more strongly: good and evil are real, and they are at war. I think the best arguments of philosophy say this; real life experience shows this (my guess is you've never been truly, horribly victimized); and, your first name not withstanding, I don't think the Best of Men died for us out of "intellectual laziness." I don't mean to turn this posting or website into a place for religious debate, but for me, and probably most people in the world, the belief in the existence of good and evil has its basis primarily in the belief that God exists, is good, and is at least a little put out by evil.
And there does seem to be one common religious denominator amongst the rioters... and it's not Methodism. Put against the overall context of world events, I think there can be a compelling case made that maybe this fits into a bigger scheme...
That God probably is put out by evil I think is true 
However, I have a confession to make: I have lost faith in God. I no longer believe in Him, but is trying to establish a secular humanism on non-metaphysical grounds, which is hard.
Intellectual laziness ... well, I do think it easier to act and react in a reality of black and white. If a person or even an ethnic group is labelled evil it is easier to act against them. And by labelling Them evil we are at the same time labelling Ourself good.
What I am saying is that I do not think we are getting the real picture by using labels like that. We are getting the Walt Disney picture.
In the 80s Bin Laden used marxism as an outlet for his hate, now he is using religion. Does this mean that religion is harmless? Indeed it does not, but this does not mean that religion kills. Guns do not kill, it is people using them for wrong reasons that kill.
So WentEast I am not saying that you are wrong about the common denominator, but the riots still have nothing to do with religion. It is the administration of religion that is wrong, it is the administration of religion that kills, hence it is people that cause problems not religion.
And it is a problem that riots ravages parts of the Parisian suburbs. And it should be a wake up call for the rest of Europe, i.e. if we did not fully grasp the murders of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh!
"I don't think the Best of Men died for us out of "intellectual laziness."" Neither do I. Not many Danes believed/believes in the war against Iraq (I am guessing that is what you are aiming at), not that we specifically like Saddam Hussein, but many people thought that war was not the right way. I on the contrary supported and still supports the war, but I do think it was initiated on the wrong reasons. It would have been explanation enough for me that Hussein and his family and generals sucked the marrow out of an entire people, that they committed genocide, that they had builded a regime on terror. To fight that and to fight unjustice was it that "the Best of Men died for". By the way one of my cousins are in Iraq serving as a soldier.
"[A]lles Unbedingte gehört in die Pathologie." (Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, § 154).
By the way - take a look at this madness
Commenting by HaloScan
