More French riots

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Cheesejoff :
The government has no right to prevent groups of youths gathering in towns. They need to look at the real issues like unemployment to solve the problem, simpl imposing a ban will not work.

Emphasis mine.

Really? What if the youths are gathering for the purpose of murdering all left-handed people in the neighborhood? The government has no right to prevent or break up such a gathering?

Of course they do.

But the government has absolutely, positively no right to stop them from burning cars.

Why?

This helps solve the problem. The French government puts these miscreants to work building Peugeots, to be burned up the following week, thus creating employment-for-life.

All is well........

 

[WildCat]

I hear those cars were still molten weeks after the alleged riots. Which means they were really burned w/ thermite, placed by Larry Silverstein who just so happened to take out auto insurace policies on every single car in France. The globalists who control the media are blaming the muslims for it, who we all know were taught to light matches by the CIA and Donald Rumsfeld. Thus, all of Bush's buddies who just so happen to own auto factories can reap huge profits replacing the cars that were burned.

Or maybe I've been hanging out at the Loose Change thread too long...

 

[Skeptic]

I hear those cars were still molten weeks after the alleged riots. Which means they were really burned w/ thermite, placed by Larry Silverstein who just so happened to take out auto insurace policies on every single car in France. The globalists who control the media are blaming the muslims for it, who we all know were taught to light matches by the CIA and Donald Rumsfeld. Thus, all of Bush's buddies who just so happen to own auto factories can reap huge profits replacing the cars that were burned.

Not bad, but you forgot to blame the je... er, "zionists" as well somewhere.

 

[David Swidler]

Isn't that understood? I mean, Bush's buddies are all "neocons," all we all know who they are.

 

[fabian_lidman]

Reuters could have saved two words by replacing the highlighted ones with "Muslim."

I'm sorry to be a smart*ss, but do you have any evidence? From what i've seen and heard, most of the demonstrators have been secular lefties.

 

[Flo]

I'm sorry to be a smart*ss, but do you have any evidence? From what i've seen and heard, most of the demonstrators have been secular lefties.

and even if there was evidence that the majority of protesters and car burners are muslims, he'd have to prove religion is a major factor for their actions ...

 

[Orwell]

and even if there was evidence that the majority of protesters and car burners are muslims, he'd have to prove religion is a major factor for their actions ...

Don't take away BP's favourite bogeymen! How will he get his kids to behave?

Stop making personal insults, challenge the argument don't attack the Member.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[BPSCG]

I'm sorry to be a smart*ss, but do you have any evidence?

Um, the fact that the rioters were reported as being mostly Arab and African immigrants kinda tipped me off. Did you think they were Buddhists, maybe?

and even if there was evidence that the majority of protesters and car burners are muslims, he'd have to prove religion is a major factor for their actions ...

No I don't. I'm just making a simple, and obvious observation. What conclusions should be drawn from it is up to those who would like to examine it further.

Note that the story says "many of [the rioters] where (sic) of African or Arab in origin..." Clearly, Reuters is trying to establish a common link among the rioters. So they say the rioters are mostly of African or Arab origin, as if that means they were originally from only two separate countries.

But Africa isn't a country, and the Africans in France come from many countries. Similarly, Arabs come from many countries. But if Reuters had written, "many of the rioters were originally from Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Tunisia, Yemen, Morocco..." the meme that the rioting was caused by only two distinct groups would be lost.

So Reuters lumps them all into two groups, managing to avoid calling them Muslims, which the vast majority of them almost certainly are.

Why?

 

[Orwell]

So they're rioting because they're muslims? Sounds to me that that's what you're trying to imply.

 

[Orwell]

Uh, one of my posts (where I protested Darat's warning and made fun of BP's obvious prejudices) got deleted.

Will this one get deleted too?

 

[Flo]

Um, the fact that the rioters were reported as being mostly Arab and African immigrants kinda tipped me off. Did you think they were Buddhists, maybe?

"Africans" are by no means all muslims (and immigrants from the Maghreb are not all Arabs, BTW). In addition, the vast majority of muslims in France are not practicing their religion outside the social aspects, just as the vast majority of French catholics. However, nobody thinks of mentionning a Frenchman's (or a Belgian's *) religious belief when he commits a crime.

No I don't. I'm just making a simple, and obvious observation. What conclusions should be drawn from it is up to those who would like to examine it further.

Hasn't it occured to you that it looks suspiciously like the tactics of conspiracy theorists, who like to ask "innocent" questions and leave people draw their conclusions ?



* last week, a young Belgian deliberately shot a Turkish woman in the back, then an black nanny and the 2 years old she was caring for. The religion of the victims was announced, not that of the murderer. I wonder why ...

 

[Orwell]

Imagine that there's a bunch of Atheists from different origins on a rampage in France or the US, it doesn't really matter.

How do you know they're atheists? Is the fact that the rioters are atheists more important than their country of origin or even their social-economic status? If you think so, why? How would you describe them?

 

[fabian_lidman]

I agree with BPSCG that it's important to address issues of religious violence. When clerics in Iran order the execution of a teenage girl for having sex, it's impossible to leave Islam out of the discussion.
The question is whether the french riots are because of religion or something else. We had small-scale copycat riots here in Sweden shortly after. Those involved were not islamic fundamentalists -- they were leftie kids with too much time on their hands. A few of them may have been muslims, or christians or buddhists. It doesn't really matter in this case.

 

[BPSCG]

So they're rioting because they're muslims? Sounds to me that that's what you're trying to imply.

No. I'm saying it's mostly Muslims who are rioting, and Reuters appears to be trying to gloss over that.

 

[fabian_lidman]

Also, let's not forget that the majority of muslims in Europe -- and in most of the world, i would guess -- are strongly opposed to violence in their name. To them, Islam is a religion of peace. They have pretty much the same attitudes as the rest of us.

 

[Flo]

I agree with BPSCG that it's important to address issues of religious violence.

The question is whether the french riots are because of religion or something else. ...

So far, there's not an iota of evidence about an influence of religion. In addition to all rioters not being muslims, all and every muslim autorities have condemned them, and are cooperating with the autorities in trying to convince their "parishioners" to stop all violences, etc.

There are quite a number of reasons for those riots, from an incompetent and corrupt government at local and national levels (I'm certainly not happy or proud of the situation) to a culture of victimhood from some immigrants communities, but religion certainly doesn't play the role that so many people would like it to be.

 

[BPSCG]

"Africans" are by no means all muslims (and immigrants from the Maghreb are not all Arabs, BTW). In addition, the vast majority of muslims in France are not practicing their religion outside the social aspects, just as the vast majority of French catholics. However, nobody thinks of mentionning a Frenchman's (or a Belgian's *) religious belief when he commits a crime.

Mentioning a person's religion where a single crime has been committed generally is pointless, unless religion is somehow a motivating factor in the crime.

But when one particular crime or type of crime is being committed throughout the country, and the vast majority of those crimes are being committed by people from one single religion, then it's clear there is some relationship between the crimes and the religion. Don't misunderstand, as Orwell has, that I'm saying they are rioting because they are Muslims. I don't know what their supposed grievances are. But the fact is that most of these rioters are Muslims, and it does no one any service to hush up that inconvenient fact.

France has had riots before. In August, 1572, saw a particularly memorable, protracted, and enjoyable one that the history books have taken note of. You can't read any of those histories without having the rioters' religion play a prominent role. Why is today different?

Hasn't it occured to you that it looks suspiciously like the tactics of conspiracy theorists, who like to ask "innocent" questions and leave people draw their conclusions ?

As I said, I don't know why they are rioting. It could be because of job discrimination or housing discrimination or because the weather is nice for rioting or Muslims have a gene that predisposes them to violence or because it is part of a plot hatched in Mecca to Islamize all of Europe. I don't know. I do know that it's a question Reuters should be asking. After all, they're in the business of information gathering and dissemination.

 

[Orwell]

No. I'm saying it's mostly Muslims who are rioting, and Reuters appears to be trying to gloss over that.

Maybe that's because them being or not being Muslim is not, is this case, relevant to what was being described, since there doesn't seem to be a religious component to these riots?

I mean, nobody described the rioters in L.A. according to their religious denomination. It would have been besides the point.

 

[BPSCG]

Maybe that's because them being or not being Muslim is not, is this case, relevant to what was being described, since there doesn't seem to be a religious component to these riots?

Then why is it predominantly Muslims rioting, in a country that is largely Roman Catholic? Why aren't the Catholics rioting?

And on what evidence do you base your conclusion that "there doesn't seem to be a religious component to these riots"? Interviews with rioters? Placards they're holding up proclaiming no religious motivation? Torched cars with the words, "Burned By Muslims, But Not Religiously Motivated" spray-painted on them?

I mean, nobody described the rioters in L.A. according to their religious denomination. It would have been besides the point.

Quite right. But their race was described, often, and at length, because that was a common thread amongst the rioters.

 

[fabian_lidman]

There is a danger in media reporting details like religion or race when it's done inconsistently. Tabloids in Europe have been known to describe criminals as black when they are black but leave out the description when it's a "white" person committing the crime. Sure, you can't accuse the individual article on bias -- after all they're reporting the truth -- but what do you think the effect on the general public will be if they always read about black or muslim crimes but never about white protestant crimes?
I'm all for reporting uncomfortable facts, but only when it's relevant. Otherwise it just helps to build prejudice and stereotypes.